Chapter 15 – Terrestrial Ecology - Metro Mining · environments are not discrete and elements of terrestrial ecology and freshwater aquatic ecology are described in both chapters

CHAPTER 15 – TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY

GULF ALUMINA LTD – SKARDON RIVER BAUXITE PROJECT

Skardon River Bauxite Project Chapter 15 – Terrestrial Ecology

Page 15-i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

15.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 15-1 15.2 Environmental Objectives and Performance Outcomes ..................................... 15-1 15.2.1 Environmental Objectives ........................................................................................ 15-1 15.2.2 Performance Outcomes ........................................................................................... 15-1 15.3 Legislative and Policy Context ........................................................................... 15-2 15.4 Field Surveys .................................................................................................... 15-2 15.4.1 Flora and Vegetation ................................................................................................ 15-3 15.4.2 Terrestrial Fauna ...................................................................................................... 15-5 15.5 Desktop Review ............................................................................................... 15-8 15.6 Environmental Values ...................................................................................... 15-9 15.6.1 Regional Ecosystems ................................................................................................ 15-9 15.6.2 Field Mapped Regional Ecosystems and Vegetation Communities ....................... 15-12 15.6.2.1 Lunette Swamp (State and Field RE 3.3.14 / 3.3.22, Units 7a, 7b and 7c) ............. 15-16 15.6.2.2 Bigfoot Swamp ....................................................................................................... 15-18 15.6.2.3 Supratidal Wetland along Skardon River ............................................................... 15-18 15.6.2.4 Namaleta Creek (State RE 3.3.64 / 3.3.9, Field RE Complex) ................................. 15-18 15.6.2.5 Mapped Wetland between Pits 14 and 15 (Unit 9, RE 3.3.64 / 3.3.9) ................... 15-20 15.6.3 Essential Habitat Mapping ..................................................................................... 15-22 15.6.4 Weeds ..................................................................................................................... 15-22 15.6.5 Terrestrial Flora Species ......................................................................................... 15-22 15.6.6 Listed Terrestrial Fauna Species ............................................................................. 15-25 15.6.6.1 Red Goshawk .......................................................................................................... 15-27 15.6.6.2 Masked Owl ............................................................................................................ 15-28 15.6.6.3 Northern Quoll ....................................................................................................... 15-28 15.6.6.4 Spectacled Flying-fox .............................................................................................. 15-33 15.6.6.5 Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat ................................................................................... 15-33 15.6.6.6 False Water Rat / Water Mouse ............................................................................. 15-37 15.6.6.7 Black-footed Tree Rat ............................................................................................. 15-37 15.6.6.8 Eastern Curlew ....................................................................................................... 15-37 15.6.7 Likelihood of Occurrence – Listed Threatened Fauna Species ............................... 15-41 15.6.8 Listed Migratory Species ........................................................................................ 15-48 15.6.9 All Species ............................................................................................................... 15-55 15.6.10 Bats ......................................................................................................................... 15-55 15.6.10.1 Bat Roost at the Dry Plant ...................................................................................... 15-56 15.6.11 Species Habitat ....................................................................................................... 15-56 15.6.12 Pests ....................................................................................................................... 15-57 15.6.13 Connectivity ............................................................................................................ 15-57 15.6.14 Fire in the Landscape ............................................................................................. 15-60 15.7 Potential Impacts ........................................................................................... 15-60 15.7.1 Project Footprint and Regional Ecosystems / Vegetation Map Units .................... 15-60 15.7.2 Buffer Zones ........................................................................................................... 15-64 15.7.3 Listed Threatened Flora ......................................................................................... 15-65 15.7.4 Namaleta Creek Crossing ....................................................................................... 15-65 15.7.5 Connectivity ............................................................................................................ 15-65 15.7.6 Terrestrial Fauna .................................................................................................... 15-65 15.7.6.1 Loss and Modification of Wildlife Habitat .............................................................. 15-65 15.7.6.2 Habitat Fragmentation and Barriers to Movement ............................................... 15-69 15.7.6.3 Mortality of Fauna Species ..................................................................................... 15-69


Page 15-ii

15.7.6.4 Edge Effects ............................................................................................................ 15-69 15.7.7 Weeds and Pests .................................................................................................... 15-70 15.7.8 Fires ........................................................................................................................ 15-70 15.8 Management Measures and Plans .................................................................. 15-70 15.8.1 Buffer Zones ........................................................................................................... 15-70 15.8.2 Rehabilitation ......................................................................................................... 15-70 15.8.3 Fire Management ................................................................................................... 15-71 15.8.4 Habitat Management ............................................................................................. 15-71 15.8.5 Species Management Program .............................................................................. 15-72 15.8.6 Connectivity ............................................................................................................ 15-74 15.8.7 Weed and Pest Management ................................................................................. 15-74 15.8.8 Environmental Training .......................................................................................... 15-75 15.8.9 Monitoring.............................................................................................................. 15-76 15.9 MNES Significant Impact Assessment .............................................................. 15-76 15.9.1 Threatened Ecological Communities ...................................................................... 15-76 15.9.2 Terrestrial Flora Species ......................................................................................... 15-76 15.9.3 Terrestrial Fauna Species ....................................................................................... 15-76 15.9.3.1 Red Goshawk .......................................................................................................... 15-76 15.9.3.2 Eastern Curlew ....................................................................................................... 15-78 15.9.3.3 Masked Owl ............................................................................................................ 15-79 15.9.3.4 Northern Quoll ....................................................................................................... 15-81 15.9.3.5 Spectacled Flying-fox .............................................................................................. 15-82 15.9.3.6 Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat ................................................................................... 15-84 15.9.3.7 False Water Rat ...................................................................................................... 15-86 15.9.3.8 Black–footed Tree Rat ............................................................................................ 15-87 15.9.4 Migratory Terrestrial Species ................................................................................. 15-89 15.9.4.1 Rainbow Bee-eater ................................................................................................. 15-89 15.9.4.2 Rufous Fantail ......................................................................................................... 15-90 15.9.4.3 Lesser Frigatebird ................................................................................................... 15-91 15.9.4.4 Barn Swallow .......................................................................................................... 15-92 15.9.4.5 Little Tern ............................................................................................................... 15-92 15.9.4.6 Eastern Great Egret ................................................................................................ 15-93 15.9.4.7 Cattle Egret ............................................................................................................. 15-94 15.10 MSES Significant Impact Assessment............................................................... 15-94 15.10.1 Endangered and Of Concern Regional Ecosystems ................................................ 15-97 15.10.2 Mapped Essential Habitat ...................................................................................... 15-97 15.10.3 Connectivity Areas.................................................................................................. 15-97 15.10.4 Strategic Environmental Area – Designated Precinct ............................................ 15-98 15.10.5 High Risk Area on a Flora Survey Trigger Map ....................................................... 15-98 15.10.6 Area that Contains Endangered or Vulnerable Plants ........................................... 15-98 15.10.7 Koala Habitat .......................................................................................................... 15-98 15.10.8 Habitat for Endangered or Vulnerable Animals ..................................................... 15-98 15.10.8.1 Beach Stone-curlew................................................................................................ 15-99 15.10.9 Habitat for Near Threatened Animals .................................................................. 15-102 15.10.9.1 Palm Cockatoo ...................................................................................................... 15-102 15.10.9.2 Papuan Sheathtail Bat .......................................................................................... 15-102 15.10.9.3 Radjah Shelduck ................................................................................................... 15-102 15.10.10 Habitat for Special Least Concern Animals .......................................................... 15-102 15.10.10.1 Echidna ................................................................................................................. 15-102 15.10.11 Protected Areas .................................................................................................... 15-103 15.10.12 Legally Secured Offset Areas ................................................................................ 15-103


Page 15-iii

15.11 Residual Impacts and Offsets ........................................................................ 15-103 15.12 Risk Assessment ........................................................................................... 15-104 15.13 Cumulative Impacts ...................................................................................... 15-104 15.13.1 Terrestrial Environment ....................................................................................... 15-105 15.14 Conclusion ................................................................................................... 15-107

Tables

Table 15-1 Survey Effort – Generic Wet and Dry Season Surveys ............................................. 15-6 Table 15-2 Regional Ecosystems ................................................................................................ 15-9 Table 15-3 Vegetation Map Units and Equivalent REs ............................................................. 15-12 Table 15-4 Vegetation Units / Regional Ecosystems of Namaleta Creek ................................. 15-19 Table 15-5 Conservation Significant Flora since 2010 ............................................................. 15-23 Table 15-6 EPBC Act Listed Flora Species ................................................................................. 15-24 Table 15-7 Likelihood of Occurrence of EPBC Act and NC Act Listed Threatened Fauna

Species .................................................................................................................... 15-42 Table 15-8 Likelihood of Occurrence of MNES Listed Migratory Species ................................ 15-49 Table 15-9 Identified Bat Species ............................................................................................. 15-55 Table 15-10 State Mapped Regional Ecosystems in the Project Footprint ................................ 15-61 Table 15-11 Field Mapped Regional Ecosystems in Project Footprint ....................................... 15-61 Table 15-12 Buffer Zones ........................................................................................................... 15-64 Table 15-13 Potential Habitat – Listed Threatened Species ...................................................... 15-66 Table 15-14 Potential Habitat – Listed Migratory Species ......................................................... 15-68 Table 15-15 Red Goshawk - Assessment of Significant Impact .................................................. 15-77 Table 15-16 Eastern Curlew - Assessment of Significant Impact ............................................... 15-78 Table 15-17 Masked Owl - Assessment of Significant Impact ................................................... 15-79 Table 15-18 Northern Quoll - Assessment of Significant Impact ............................................... 15-81 Table 15-19 Spectacled Flying-fox - Assessment of Significant Impact ..................................... 15-83 Table 15-20 Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat - Assessment of Significant Impact ........................... 15-84 Table 15-21 False Water Rat - Assessment of Significant Impact .............................................. 15-86 Table 15-22 Black–footed Tree Rat - Assessment of Significant Impact .................................... 15-87 Table 15-23 Rainbow Bee-eater - Assessment of Significant Impact ......................................... 15-89 Table 15-24 Rufous Fantail - Assessment of Significant Impact................................................. 15-90 Table 15-25 Lesser Frigatebird - Assessment of Significant Impact ........................................... 15-91 Table 15-26 Barn Swallow - Assessment of Significant Impact .................................................. 15-92 Table 15-27 Little Tern - Assessment of Significant Impact ....................................................... 15-92 Table 15-28 Eastern Great Egret - Assessment of Significant Impact ........................................ 15-93 Table 15-29 Cattle Egret - Assessment of Significant Impact ..................................................... 15-94 Table 15-30 Chapter of EIS Describing Each MSES ..................................................................... 15-94 Table 15-31 Core Areas .............................................................................................................. 15-98 Table 15-32 Beach Stone-curlew - Assessment of Significant Impact ..................................... 15-101 Table 15-33 Echidna - Assessment of Significant Impact ......................................................... 15-103 Table 15-34 Risk Assessment and Management Measures for Identified Impacts to

Terrestrial Ecology ................................................................................................ 15-104

Figures

Figure 15-1 Flora Survey Locations.............................................................................................. 15-4


Page 15-iv

Figure 15-2 Fauna Survey Locations ............................................................................................ 15-7 Figure 15-3 EHP Mapped Regional Ecosystems ........................................................................ 15-11 Figure 15-4 Field Mapped Regional Ecosystems ....................................................................... 15-14 Figure 15-5 Field Vegetation Map Units .................................................................................... 15-15 Figure 15-6 Lunette Swamp Vegetation .................................................................................... 15-18 Figure 15-7 Namaleta Creek Regional Ecosystems ................................................................... 15-21 Figure 15-8 Red Goshawk Potential Nesting and Foraging Areas ............................................. 15-30 Figure 15-9 Masked Owl Potential Habitat ............................................................................... 15-31 Figure 15-10 Northern Quoll Potential Habitat ........................................................................... 15-32 Figure 15-11 Spectacled Flying-fox Potential Habitat ................................................................. 15-35 Figure 15-12 Bare-Rumped Sheathtail Bat Potential Habitat ..................................................... 15-36 Figure 15-13 False Water Rat Potential Habitat .......................................................................... 15-38 Figure 15-14 Black-footed Tree Rat Potential Habitat ................................................................ 15-39 Figure 15-15 Eastern Curlew Potential Habitat ........................................................................... 15-40 Figure 15-16 Areas of Connectivity ............................................................................................. 15-59 Figure 15-17 Project Footprint and State Mapped Regional Ecosystems ................................... 15-62 Figure 15-18 Footprint in State Mapped REs in ML 6025 and Namaleta Creek .......................... 15-63 Figure 15-19 MSES ....................................................................................................................... 15-96 Figure 15-20 Beach Stone-curlew Potential Habitat ................................................................. 15-100 Figure 15-21 Mine Plan – Bauxite Hills Project EPBC Act Referral ............................................ 15-105


Page 15-1

15. TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY

15.1 Introduction

This chapter describes the terrestrial ecosystems, fauna and flora within and surrounding the Project area, based on field surveys and desktop reviews, and defines environmental objectives and performance outcomes for terrestrial ecology. Matters of national environmental significance (MNES) and matters of state environmental significance (MSES) associated with terrestrial ecology are described. This chapter identifies potential Project impacts on the terrestrial environment, including MNES and MSES, describes measures to mitigate and manage impacts, and provides a risk assessment for residual impacts. The significance of residual impacts on MNES and MSES is assessed and potential biodiversity offsets identified.

Information in this chapter is primarily based on the information provided in Appendix 5. Following submissions on the Project’s EIS, the Project footprint has been reduced in comparison to that presented in Appendix 5. Any reference to areas of potential impact in Appendix 5 are superceded by information in this chapter.

Chapter 16 describes the freshwater aquatic ecology (including MNES and MSES) of the Project and assesses Project impacts on freshwater aquatic ecology, noting that the terrestrial and aquatic environments are not discrete and elements of terrestrial ecology and freshwater aquatic ecology are described in both chapters.

Chapter 17 describes coastal processes and assesses Project impacts on coastal processes. Chapter 18 describes marine ecology (including MNES and MSES) and assesses Project impacts on marine ecology.

15.2 Environmental Objectives and Performance Outcomes

The environmental objectives and performance outcomes below are based on Schedule 5, Table 2 of the Environmental Protection Regulations 2008 (EP Regulation). The mitigation and management measures presented in this chapter are designed to achieve these environmental objectives and performance outcomes. The environmental management plan (EM Plan) presented in Appendix 13 provides a consolidated description of these mitigation and management measures.

15.2.1 Environmental Objectives

The activity is operated in a way that protects the environmental values of land including soils,

subsoils, landforms and associated flora and fauna.

The choice of the site, at which the activity is to be carried out, minimises serious environmental harm

on areas of high conservation value and special significance and sensitive land uses at adjacent places.

Minimise direct and indirect impacts on fauna and flora.

Progressively rehabilitate of mined areas with native vegetation.

Biodiversity offsets are provided for significant residual impacts on fauna and flora.

15.2.2 Performance Outcomes

Activities that disturb land, soils, subsoils and landforms will be managed in a way that prevents or

minimises adverse effects on the environmental values of land.


Page 15-2

Areas of high conservation value and special significance likely to be affected by the proposal are

identified and evaluated and any adverse effects on the areas are minimised, including any indirect

impacts on the areas.

Biodiversity offset plans will be developed for any significant residual impacts on fauna and flora in

accordance with relevant Commonwealth and State policies.

Buffer zones are created around sensitive ecological areas (i.e. wetlands and watercourses) where

mining activities are restricted.

Vegetation clearing is minimised both temporally and spatially.

Revegetation with native species occurs progressively after mining.

Habitat and fauna management practices are implemented prior to and during clearing activities.

Areas of connectivity between mining areas are retained.

Weeds and pests are managed to prevent increase in abundance or diversity.

Fire is managed to prevent impacts on rehabilitation areas.

15.3 Legislative and Policy Context

MSES are regulated under the Queensland Environmental Protection Act 1994 (EP Act), the Nature Conservation Act 1992 (NC Act), and the Vegetation Management Act 1999 (VM Act), while MNES are regulated under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). The NC Act also protects essential habitat of a protected species and an animal breeding place. Further information on these Acts is provided in Chapter 2.

Schedule 12 Part 1 of the EP Act defines Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) and Schedule 3A establishes criteria that protects ESAs. Category B ESAs include endangered regional ecosystems (EREs) as identified in the ‘Regional Ecosystem Description Database’ (REDD).

For the purpose of resource activities under the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (MR Act) that are regulated for environmental compliance under the EP Act, the biodiversity status (BD status) of a regional ecosystem (RE) is used to determine that status of EREs, not the VM Act status (VM status). However, the requirement for biodiversity offsets under the Environmental Offsets Act 2014 (EO Act) is triggered by VM status not by BD status.

The Environmental Offsets Regulation 2014 (EO Regulation) can require offsetting for MSES including endangered and of concern remnant regional ecosystems (REs), REs that intersect with wetlands or are within a defined distance of a watercourse, essential habitat for endangered or vulnerable plants or animals, specific protected wildlife habitat, connectivity areas, wetlands and watercourses, protected areas and legally secured offset areas. Endangered, vulnerable, near threatened wildlife and special least concern animals are protected under the NC Act.

MNES regulated under the EPBC Act include listed threatened plants and animals scheduled as critically endangered (CE), endangered (E), or vulnerable (V), and threatened ecological communities (TECs). A requirement for biodiversity offsets for MNES may be triggered by the EPBC Act Environmental Offsets Policy (2012).

15.4 Field Surveys

Field surveys for listed species and ecosystems are fully described in Appendix 5 and summarised below.


Page 15-3

15.4.1 Flora and Vegetation

Four field surveys of flora and vegetation were completed in mid-April 2010, early June 2010, early April 2011 and February 2015. Survey locations are shown in Figure 15-1, and demonstrate wide coverage of the Project area and surrounds, with targeted surveys of ecologically sensitive areas, such as wetlands.

The first survey in April 2010 was timed to coincide with phenological events of flowering and fruiting associated seasonally with the tapering off of the wet season. The same surveys were used to define habitats relative to both flora and fauna; identify important or environmentally sensitive vegetation types, and determine appropriate buffers between these and the proposed mine working area.

The second survey in June 2010 was performed to gather additional vegetation and landscape function information to underpin a concept for rehabilitation of mined land; and to assist with additional fauna survey work.

A third survey was undertaken in the first week of April 2011 in consultation and attendance with Dr Bruce Wannan from DERM (now EHP). This survey highlighted a number of important environmental features and significantly directed the compilation of detailed vegetation mapping of the Project’s mining leases; and mapping of buffers zones.

The fourth survey in February 2015 focussed on parts of ML6025 adjacent to and south Namaleta Creek to gain a better understanding of the wetland environment around this watercourse and its floodplains. It was considered that adequate detailed information relating to the Eucalyptus tetrodonta - Corymbia nesophila woodland-open forest type which occurs on the bauxite plateau was compiled during the first three field surveys; nevertheless, two additional sites surveys of this community were completed in February 2015 to test the validity of the findings of previous surveys.

The four vegetation surveys are considered to be sufficient given that they occurred during the wet season, at the end of the wet season and during a time of slightly drier environmental conditions. They therefore, provide representative seasonal floristic information and are in accordance with the advice provided in the DERM guidelines (Wannan, 2009) – adopted by DoE, and the methodology outlined by Neldner, et al. 2005.

Field ecological surveys have resulted in the delineation of vegetation communities or ‘map units’, which have been used to determine the regional ecosystem classification for each unit.

!(

ML 6025

ML 40082ML 40069

BigfootSwamp

LunetteSwamp

NAMALETACREEK

SKARDON RIVER

605000 610000 61500086

8500

0

8685

000

8690

000

8690

000

8695

000

8695

000

8700

000

8700

000

Figure 15-1

G:\CLIENTS\E-TO-M\Gulf Alumina\GIS\Maps\EIS\Ch15_TerrestrialEco\FIG_15_01_Flora_Survey_160310.mxd

Revision: R1

Date: 11/03/2016 Author: malcolm.nunn1:80,000Map Scale:

Coordinate System: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 54

Flora Survey Locations

0 1 2 3 4 5Kilometers

Gulf Alumina Limited

!

!

!

!

Queensland

CAIRNS

BRISBANE

TOWNSVILLE

ROCKHAMPTON

±

No warranty is given in relation to the data (including accuracy, reliability, completeness or suitability) and accept no liability (including without limitation, liability in negligence) for any loss, damage or costs (including consequential damage) relating to any use of or reliance upon the data. Data must not be used for direct marketing or be used in breach of privacy laws. Tenures © Geos Mining (2015). State Boundaries and Towns © Geoscience Australia (2006). Watercourses © Geoscience Australia. Imagery sourced from Gulf Alumina. Vegetation buffer and flora survey locations © RPS.

Legend!( Port of Skardon River

Mining Lease BoundariesExisting Disturbance FootprintProject FootprintWatercourses

Flora Survey Point (RPS)


Page 15-5

15.4.2 Terrestrial Fauna

Fauna surveys were undertaken in June 2010 (dry season generic survey), September / October 2014 (targeted surveys) and February 2015 (wet season generic survey). Survey locations are shown in Figure 15-2. Surveys were undertaken using a variety of methods (e.g. trapping, motion cameras, ultrasonic bat detection, diurnal searches and nocturnal searches) over the whole Project area.

Two distinct fauna methodologies were employed during field surveys on site, generic fauna surveys and targeted fauna surveys.

Generic fauna surveys were undertaken in general accordance with the Terrestrial Vertebrate Fauna Survey Guidelines for Queensland developed by the Department of Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts (DSITIA, 2012a) with the aim of characterising the faunal values of the Project site, rather than to provide a comprehensive survey of all fauna that has the potential to occur on the site over time. These guidelines have been approved by the Federal DoE.

Targeted fauna surveys in 2014 were undertaken in general accordance with the Terrestrial Vertebrate Fauna Survey Guidelines for Queensland developed by the Department of Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts (DSITIA, 2012a) and the relevant DoE Threatened Species Action Plan. At the Project site this included:

Northern Quoll – Draft EPBC Referral Guidelines for Northern Quoll (SEWPaC, 2011)

Spectacled Flying Fox – (Survey Guidelines for Australian Threatened Bats: EPBC Act Survey Guidelines

6.1)

Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat – (Survey Guidelines for Australian Threatened Bats: EPBC Act Survey

Guidelines 6.1)

Red Goshawk – Diurnal search for nest sites.

Broad vegetation groups (BVGs) are a higher-level grouping of vegetation communities derived from Queensland Herbarium’s regional ecosystem mapping. Nine BVGs were present on or within the Project area. BVGs that were within or immediately adjacent to the Project footprint were targeted for standardised surveys, and consisted of the following habitats:

Woodlands and tall woodlands dominated by Eucalyptus tetrodonta, and/or Corymbia nesophila

and/or phoenicea (BVG 14) consisting of two distinct regional ecosystem, 3.5.2 and 3.2.10c

Moist to dry eucalypt open forests to woodlands usually on coastal lowlands and ranges (BVG 9)

Wetlands - swamps (wooded or otherwise) and lakes (permanent or ephemeral), claypans, including

fringing woodlands and shrublands (BVG 34).

An additional BVG was traversed through whilst travelling between the standardised survey sites and opportunistic fauna records were collected, namely Melaleuca spp. dry woodlands to open woodlands on sandplains or depositional plains (BVG 21).

Additional opportunistic records were also obtained from estuarine and near inshore marine habitats on four separate occasions. Opportunistic records were also collected from Lunette Swamp (BVG 22).

The immediate area surrounding the Port was also opportunistically surveyed for fauna additional to other survey sites near the Port.

Total survey effort across June 2010 dry and February 2015 wet season surveys (trap nights) employed within each habitat type is presented in Table 15-1.


Page 15-6

Table 15-1 Survey Effort – Generic Wet and Dry Season Surveys

Habitat Type No. of

Sites

Survey Effort (No. of Trap Nights1)

Harp traps

Pitfall Junction Camera

Funnel Elliot Cage Song Meter / Anabat

Motion Detection Camera

Tetradonta

woodland

8 1 36 12 72 465 6 12/7 12

Moist Eucalypt woodlands

4 2 3 12 72 300 6 12/3 12

Fringing woodland to wetland and Swamps

1 4 24 240 N/A 4 4

South of Namaleta

2 2 48 40 2 2

Port area Building

1 1 1

Skardon River 1 3 1

Mine camp 1 10

Total 18 4 39 30 216 1055 15 30/12 30 1A ‘trap night’ refers to one night for which one trap is set. For example, four traps set for four nights equals 16 trap nights.

The survey design aimed to incorporate a detailed survey program conducted over both wet and dry seasons to maximise opportunities for detecting targeted species. For species not detected, habitat assessments were undertaken and expert knowledge considered to determine the value of the Project for supporting these species (i.e. absence of a species was not assumed because it was not detected).

!(

ML 6025

ML 40082ML 40069

BigfootSwamp

LunetteSwamp

NAMALETACREEK

SKARDON RIVER

605000 610000 61500086

8500

0

8685

000

8690

000

8690

000

8695

000

8695

000

8700

000

8700

000

Figure 15-1

G:\CLIENTS\E-TO-M\Gulf Alumina\GIS\Maps\EIS\Ch15_TerrestrialEco\FIG_15_01_Flora_Survey_160310.mxd

Revision: R1



Flora Survey Locations



!

!

!

!

Queensland

CAIRNS

BRISBANE

TOWNSVILLE

ROCKHAMPTON

±

No warranty is given in relation to the data (including accuracy, reliability, completeness or suitability) and accept no liability (including without limitation, liability in negligence) for any loss, damage or costs (including consequential damage) relating to any use of or reliance upon the data. Data must not be used for direct marketing or be used in breach of privacy laws. Tenures © Geos Mining (2015). State Boundaries and Towns © Geoscience Australia (2006). Watercourses © Geoscience Australia. Imagery sourced from Gulf Alumina. Vegetation buffer and flora survey locations © RPS.


Mining Lease BoundariesExisting Disturbance FootprintProject FootprintWatercourses

Flora Survey Point (RPS)


Page 15-8

15.5 Desktop Review

The desktop review of was undertaken to identify potential matters of ecological significance including species and communities, and other ecological features that may occur on or within the vicinity of the Project disturbance area. This review included an assessment of the following information:

Aerial Photograph Interpretation (API) to determine the broad categorisation of vegetation within

and surrounding the site and to review the extent of historical clearing and land use, and any other

significant environmental features such as watercourses and wetlands.

RE and essential habitat mapping (DNRM, 2013). The most recent version of the EHP regulated

vegetation management mapping (2015) including essential habitat mapping was used to provide an

indication of the status and position of remnant vegetation and any mapped essential habitat in

relation to landforms of the site.

Referable wetlands mapping (EHP, 2014a). The referable wetlands mapping produced by EHP was

reviewed to provide an indication of the occurrence and location of any wetland management areas

in relation to proposed Project activities.

Wildlife Online database of flora and fauna (DEHP, 2014b). This database holds records of plants and

animals that have either been sighted or collected within a given radius of the site (a search parameter

was prescribed limiting the search area to a 10km radius around an approximate central point of the

site (-11.82822 142.04341)). The records held in this database are maintained by EHP.

HERBRECS database of plant records. This database provides confirmed records of plant collections

made within a specified area, of which voucher specimens are held by the Queensland Herbarium

(EHP). Data from this source provides useful information on the location of rare and threatened

species and expedites targeted surveys for such plants in the field.

Protected matters database of MNES (DoE, 2015a). This database applies a range of bio-models to

predict the presence of species of flora and fauna and other MNES within a given radius of the site (a

search parameter was prescribed limiting the search area to a 20 km radius around an approximate

central point of the study area (-11.83918 142.0259)).

Review of relevant legislation and associated plans and policies, including but not limited to the NC

Act, VM Act, EPBC Act, and the Water Act.

Literature review. A range of scientific papers, recovery and conservation plans and other literature

were reviewed for a number of related matters (such as targeted threatened species).

Advice from federal and state agency personnel on specific species expected to target during surveys

(for example Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat).

Other databases containing relevant species information, including Birdata (web version of Birds

Australia’s New Atlas of Australian Birds) and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature

(IUCN) Red List.

Over the course of terrestrial ecology studies (2010 to 2015) undertaken for the Project, a number of different searches of publically available databases (e.g. Wildlife Online and EPBC Act Protected Matter Search) have been generated for the Project area and surrounding buffer zones. Over time, the information provided in these searches has changed including the list and status of threatened species. The most recent publically available information has been used as a reference point for assessment of terrestrial ecology values, although ecosystems or species of conservation significance identified through previous searches may also be described and assessed.


Page 15-9

15.6 Environmental Values

Catchments, watercourses and wetlands in the Project area are described in Chapter 12 and Chapter 16.

15.6.1 Regional Ecosystems

EHP mapped regional ecosystems (REs) (VM Status) in and around the Project area (but not necessarily in the Project footprint) are shown in Figure 15-3. A description of the REs and their status under the VM Act and biodiversity (BD) status is provided in Table 15-2.

All REs that are intersected by the proposed Project footprint are listed as ‘least concern’ under the VM Act and ‘no concern at present’ under BD status, with the exception of RE 3.2.10 which is ‘of concern’ under BD status.

The remnant community that will be most directly impacted as a consequence of the proposed bauxite mining activity is the widespread RE 3.5.2, Eucalyptus tetrodonta, Corymbia nesophila tall woodland on deeply weathered plateaus and remnants. Approximately 94 % of the Project footprint (excluding non-remnant) is in EHP mapped RE 3.5.2.

There are no threatened ecological communities (TECs) on the EPBC Act Protected Matters Search for 20 km buffer zone of a point within the centre of the Project area. Field surveys did not detect any vegetation communities that would be considered TECs.

Table 15-2 Regional Ecosystems

RE VM Status

BD Status Short Description

3.1.1a Least concern

No concern at present

Closed forest of Rhizophora stylosa +/- Bruguiera gymnorhiza. Occurs as outer mangroves.

3.1.3 Least concern


Ceriops tagal +/- Avicennia marina low closed forest. Extensive on intertidal areas.

3.1.6 Least concern


Sparse herbland or bare saltpans. Associated with salt plains and saline flats.

3.2.3 (not in Project footprint)

Of concern

Of concern Melaleuca dealbata +/- Acacia crassicarpa open forest. Occurs in dune swales on the west coast.



Acacia crassicarpa +/- Syzygium suborbiculare +/- Parinari nonda woodland. On beach ridges.



Corymbia intermedia or C. clarksoniana woodland in wet coastal areas.

3.2.10c Least concern

Of concern Eucalyptus tetrodonta, Corymbia clarksoniana +/- E. brassiana woodland on stabilised dunes.



Evergreen notophyll vine forest. Occurs on alluvia on major watercourses.

3.3.9 Least concern


Lophostemon suaveolens open forest. Occurs on streamlines, swamps and alluvial terraces.



Melaleuca saligna +/- M. viridiflora, Lophostemon suaveolens woodland on drainage swamps.



Corymbia clarksoniana or C. novoguinensis woodland on alluvial and erosional plains.


Page 15-10

RE VM Status

BD Status Short Description

3.3.39 (not in Project footprint)

Of concern

Of concern Semi-deciduous microphyll vine forest +/- Melaleuca spp. Associated with sinkholes.

3.3.49b Least concern


Melaleuca viridiflora +/- Petalostigma banksii low open woodland on floodplains.

3.3.50 Least concern


Melaleuca viridiflora low open woodland on current alluvial drainage lines.



Themeda arguens, Dichanthium sericeum closed tussock grassland on marine plains.



Baloskion tetraphyllum subsp. meiostachyum open sedgeland in drainage swamps in dunefields.

3.5.2 Least concern


Eucalyptus tetrodonta, Corymbia nesophila tall woodland on deeply weathered plateaus and remnants.

3.5.22c Least concern


Corymbia clarksoniana + Erythrophleum chlorostachys + Corymbia spp. + Eucalyptus spp. woodland on plains.

!(

ML 6025

ML 40082 ML40069

NAMALETACREEK

SKARDON RIVER

NAMALETA CREEK

Pit #14Pit #15

3.3.49/3.2.5

3.3.60/3.1.6

3.1.6

3.1.6

3.1.3/3.1.1

3.3.60/3.1.6

3.3.14/3.3.223.3.50

3.3.14/3.3.22

3.3.53

3.3.50

3.1.6

3.1.1/3.1.3/3.1.6

3.3.49/3.3.5/3.3.60

3.1.1/3.1.3

3.2.2/3.2.5

3.1.63.1.6

3.3.50/3.5.223.3.50/3.5.2

3.3.50/3.5.2

3.1.1/3.1.3

3.3.5/3.3.12/3.3.49

3.3.53/3.2.3/3.2.5

3.3.50/3.5.10

3.1.1/3.1.3

3.1.1/3.1.3

3.1.1/3.1.33.3.49

3.1.6

3.3.49/3.3.93.3.64/3.3.14/3.3.12

3.5.10/3.7.3

estuary

3.5.2

3.5.2

3.5.2

3.2.5/3.2.3/3.3.49/3.2.10

3.1.6/3.1.3

3.3.64/3.3.93.3.64/3.3.9

3.2.25/3.2.3/3.2.6

3.5.4

3.3.64/3.3.9

3.1.6/3.3.603.1.6/3.3.603.1.6/3.3.60

3.3.60/3.1.6/3.5.22

3.1.6/3.3.60

3.1.6

3.2.5/3.3.42/3.2.3

3.5.23.5.2

3.2.10

3.2.10

estuary3.1.6

3.1.6

3.1.6

3.2.7

3.2.25/3.2.5/3.2.6

3.2.2

3.3.53

3.2.2

3.1.6

3.1.6

3.3.5

3.1.1/3.1.6/3.1.33.1.1/3.1.6/3.1.33.1.1/3.1.6/3.1.3

3.1.1/3.1.6/3.1.3

3.1.1/3.1.6/3.1.3

3.1.6 3.2.10

3.12.33

3.3.50

3.2.10

3.2.10

3.3.60/3.1.6

3.1.6

3.1.6

3.3.64/3.3.9

3.3.64/3.3.9

ocean

BigfootSwamp

LunetteSwamp

605000 610000 61500086

8500

0

8685

000

8690

000

8690

000

8695

000

8695

000

8700

000

8700

000

Figure 15-3

G:\CLIENTS\E-TO-M\Gulf Alumina\GIS\Maps\EIS\Ch15_TerrestrialEco\FIG_15_03_EHP_REs_160310.mxd

Revision: R1



EHP MappedRegional Ecosystems



!

!

!

!

Queensland

CAIRNS

BRISBANE

TOWNSVILLE

ROCKHAMPTON

±

No warranty is given in relation to the data (including accuracy, reliability, completeness or suitability) and accept no liability (including without limitation, liability in negligence) for any loss, damage or costs (including consequential damage) relating to any use of or reliance upon the data. Data must not be used for direct marketing or be used in breach of privacy laws. Tenures © Geos Mining (2015). State Boundaries and Towns © Geoscience Australia (2006). Watercourses © Geoscience Australia. Imagery sourced from Gulf Alumina. VMA Regional Ecosystems v8.0 © State of Queensland - Department of Natural Resources and Mines (2014).


Mining Lease BoundariesWatercoursesExisting Disturbance FootprintProject FootprintSouthern Haul RoadWetland Buffer

VMA Regional Ecosystem (Version 8.0)VM Status

VMA Of Concern Regional EcosystemsVMA Least Concern Regional Ecosystems

3.5.2 NAMALETACREEK

Pit #14

Pit #15

3.5.2

3.5.2

3.3.64/3.3.9

3.3.64/3.3.93.3.64/3.3.9

3.3.64/3.3.9

3.3.64/3.3.9

1:20,000


Page 15-12

15.6.2 Field Mapped Regional Ecosystems and Vegetation Communities

Information presented in this section is provided for completeness of information. The proponent has adopted the State mapped REs for the purpose of describing the direct footprint of the Project on REs. As shown in Table 15-3, the majority of REs, comprising more than 99% of the Project footprint area have the same RE from field mapping and from State maps. Where field mapped REs differ from State mapped REs is typically along Creek lines or wetlands where the Project will have nil or very minor direct impact. Because State mapped REs are mapped at 1:100 000, there are scale limitations which do not adequately detect smaller vegetation types represented for example in narrow linear strips along creek lines or in wetlands.

Appendix 5 describes the Project-scale vegetation mapping that was undertaken to delineate finer vegetation units that are not adequately captured in the 1:100 000 regional ecosystem mapping. These are derived from aerial photo patterns, and were subsequently ground-truthed for verification and to compile a detailed floristic account of each unit. Vegetation communities or ‘map units’ are described in Table 15-3 with their field mapped equivalent RE and the State mapped RE in the location of the field mapped RE.

Field mapped regional ecosystems are shown on Figure 15-4 and field vegetation map units, used to derive field mapped REs, are shown in Figure 15-5. These field vegetation map units have been assigned field equivalent REs. Field mapped REs and vegetation map units have been used to describe vegetation as recorded during field surveys.

All field mapped REs are least concern (LC) under the VM Act, except for RE 3.3.12 (a thin linear vegetation band along Namaleta Creek) which is of concern (OC). However, State mapped REs have been used to assess impacts of the Project, with field mapped REs presented for completeness of ecological information.

Table 15-3 Vegetation Map Units and Equivalent REs

Field Map unit

Field Equivalent RE*

State Mapped RE

Description of Field Mapped RE

1 RE 3.5.2 (LC) RE 3.5.2 Woodland to 25 m or greater of Eucalyptus tetrodonta, Corymbia novoguinensis and C. stockeri subsp. peninsularis on uniform surfaces with sandy clay soils.

2 RE 3.5.22 (LC)

RE 3.5.2 Tall grassy woodland of Corymbia novoguinensis over Livistona muelleri with Eucalyptus brassiana to 28 m on humic soil.

3 RE 3.3.50 (LC)

RE 3.3.50 / 3.5.22

Melaleuca viridiflora woodland to 12 m with Corymbia novoguinensis on slowly drained clay.

4 Non-remnant

Non-remnant

Regrowth woodland of Eucalyptus tetrodonta (<8 m). Includes rehabilitation areas, roads, and cleared areas.

5 RE 3.1.1, RE 3.1.3, RE 3.1.6 (LC)

RE 3.1.1 / 3.1.3

Estuarine and wetland complexes associated with saltwater-influenced watercourses (Skardon River and Namaleta Creek). Includes mangrove closed forest, mudflats, saltpans and supratidal wetlands.

5a RE 3.3.49 (LC)

Non-remnant

Low woodland of Asteromyrtus symphyocarpa with Melaleuca viridiflora and Banksia dentata to 6 m. Occasionally over a heathland of A. lysicephala on clay floodplain.

5b RE 3.3.64 (LC)

RE 3.3.64 / 3.3.9

Shrubland-heathland of Asteromyrtus lysicephala to 1.5 m with emergent Banksia dentata over Restionads and sedges.


Page 15-13

Field Map unit

Field Equivalent RE*

State Mapped RE

Description of Field Mapped RE

5c RE 3.3.9 (LC) RE 3.3.64 / 3.3.9

Fringing woodland of Xanthostemon crenulatus with Neofabricia myrtifolia to 18 m at base of bauxite plateau.

5d RE 3.3.12 (OC)

RE 3.3.64 / 3.3.9

Open forest of Melaleuca quinquenervia to 10 m or greater on freshwater floodplain of Namaleta Creek or submerged and over Eleocharis dulcis.

5e RE 3.3.51 (LC)

RE 3.3.64 / 3.3.9

Low woodland of Melaleuca acacioides to 4.5 m +/- M. viridiflora on marine alluvium depositional area (freshwater-brackish zone).

5f RE 3.3.49 (LC)

RE 3.3.64 / 3.3.9

Low woodland of Melaleuca viridiflora to 4 m over sparse ground layer of Dapsilanthus spathaceus on floodplain of very wet clay soil.

6 RE 3.5.2 (LC) RE 3.5.2 Tall grassy woodland of Eucalyptus tetrodonta and Corymbia nesophila to 28 m on bauxite plateau.

7a RE 3.3.14, RE 3.3.22 (LC)

RE 3.3.14 / 3.3.22

Open forest to 7-8 m of Asteromyrtus symphyocarpa with Lophostemon suaveolens in the central portion of Lunette Swamp, inundated for long periods. Occurs on humic sandy clay loams.

7b RE 3.3.14, RE 3.3.22 (LC)

RE 3.3.14 / 3.3.22

Woodland to open woodland to 8-10 m of Corymbia novoguinensis, Calycopeplus casuarinoides and Melaleuca saligna with patches of fringing Livistona muelleri. Occurs as distinct outer ring to central portion (7a) of Lunette Swamp on seasonally inundated humic, sandy clay loams.

7c RE 3.3.14, RE 3.3.22 (LC)

RE 3.3.14 / 3.3.22

Woodland to 15-20 m of Corymbia novoguinensis, Livistona muelleri and occasionally Eucalyptus tetrodonta forming the outermost community associated with the wetland process of Lunette Swamp Occurs on marginally drier sandy clay loam soils than 7b.

8 RE 3.2.10 (LC)

RE 3.2.10 No detailed floristic assessment completed, but expected to be tall grassy woodland to open forest of Eucalyptus tetrodonta with Corymbia novoguinensis on sandy soils (land zone 2), some areas with slow drainage.

9 RE 3.3.64 / 3.3.9 (LC)

RE 3.3.64 / 3.3.9

Woodland of Corymbia novoguinensis over Livistona muelleri. Occasionally with Eucalyptus tetrodonta to approximately 15 m in shallow drainage depression with slowly drained podzolic clay soils.

* RE broad comparison of field characteristics with REDD floristics and supporting land zone (Queensland Herbarium, 2014 & 2015)

!(

ML 6025

ML 40082 ML40069

NAMALETACREEK

SKARDON RIVER

NAMAL

ETACREE

K

3.3.493.3.9

3.3.64

3.5.22 3.5.22

3.5.23.5.2

3.5.23.5.2

3.2.10

3.2.10

3.3.123.5.2

3.5.23.5.2

3.5.2

3.1.1

/ 3.1.

3/ 3

.1.6

3.5.22

3.3.50

3.5.22

3.1.1/ 3.1.3 /3.1.6

3.5.2

3.5.2

3.5.2

3.5.223.5.22

3.5.2

3.3.14

/ 3.3.

223.3

.14/ 3

.3.22

3.5.23.5

.2

3.3.22a

3.3.14 /3.3.22

61000086

9000

0

8690

000

8700

000

8700

000

Figure 15-4

G:\CLIENTS\E-TO-M\Gulf Alumina\GIS\Maps\EIS\Ch15_TerrestrialEco\FIG_15_04_Field_Mapped_REs_160310.mxd

Revision: R1



Field Mapped RegionalEcosystems



!

!

!

!

Queensland

CAIRNS

BRISBANE

TOWNSVILLE

ROCKHAMPTON

±

No warranty is given in relation to the data (including accuracy, reliability, completeness or suitability) and accept no liability (including without limitation, liability in negligence) for any loss, damage or costs (including consequential damage) relating to any use of or reliance upon the data. Data must not be used for direct marketing or be used in breach of privacy laws. Tenures © Geos Mining (2015). State Boundaries and Towns © Geoscience Australia (2006). Watercourses © Geoscience Australia. Imagery sourced from Gulf Alumina. Mapped Vegetation Units supplied by RPS (2015).


Mining Lease BoundariesWatercoursesWetland Buffer

Field Mapped Regional EcosystemsVM Status (v8.0)


NAMALETA CREEK

3.3.49

3.3.12

3.3.12

3.3.12

3.3.12

3.3.12

3.3.49

3.3.50 3.3.12

3.3.49

3.3.12 3.3.12

3.3.12

3.3.12

3.3.493.3.93.3.643.5.2

3.5.2

3.3.49

3.5.2

3.5.2

3.3.12

3.5.2

3.5.22

3.3.64/ 3.3.9

1:20,000FIELD MAPPED

REGIONAL ECOSYSTEMVEGETATION

MAP UNIT3.5.2 1

3.5.22 23.3.50 3

non-rem 43.1.1 / 3.1.3 / 3.1.6 5

3.3.49 5a3.3.64 5b3.3.9 5c

3.3.12 5d3.3.51 5e3.3.49 5f3.5.2 6

3.3.14 / 3.3.22 7a, 7b, 7c3.2.10 8

3.3.64 / 3.3.9 9

!(

ML 6025

ML 40082 ML40069

NAMALETACREEK

SKARDON RIVER

NAMALETA

CREEK5a5e5d5d5e

5d5a3 5d

5a

5a

5d5d

5d

5a

5c5b

2 2

66

5f

66

8

8 5d5d

66

6

6

5

2

3

2

5

1

11

22

6

7c

7b7a

111

4

429

7a/7b/7c

Pit #14

Pit #15

61000086

9000

0

8690

000

8700

000

8700

000

Figure 15-5

G:\CLIENTS\E-TO-M\Gulf Alumina\GIS\Maps\EIS\Ch15_TerrestrialEco\FIG_15_05_Vege_Map_Units_RPS_160310.mxd

Revision: R1



Vegetation Map Units



!

!

!

!

Queensland

CAIRNS

BRISBANE

TOWNSVILLE

ROCKHAMPTON

±



Mining Lease BoundariesWatercoursesVegetation BufferExisting Disturbance FootprintProject FootprintSouthern Haul Road

Field Mapped Regional Ecosystems(Regional Ecosystem)

1 (3.5.2)2 (3.5.22)3 (3.3.50)4 (non-rem)5 (3.1.1 / 3.1.3 / 3.1.6)

5a (3.3.49)5b (3.3.64)5c (3.3.9)5d (3.3.12)5e (3.3.51)5f (3.3.49)6 (3.5.2)

7a (3.3.14 / 3.3.22)7a/7b/7c7b (3.3.14 / 3.3.22)7c (3.3.14 / 3.3.22)8 (3.2.10)9 (3.3.64 / 3.3.9)

NAMALETACREEK

5a5d5d5d

5e5d 5d

3

5d5a

5d5d

5d

5d

5a5c 5b

6

6

5d5d

5d 4

9

Pit #14

Pit #15 1:20,000


Page 15-16

The regional ecosystem most impacted by the Project footprint (1,232 ha or 96% of the footprint, excluding non-remnant) is RE 3.5.2 (State and field mapped RE and map units 1 and 6), which is Eucalyptus tetrodonta woodland. A detailed description of the floristic composition of RE 3.5.2 within the Project area is provided in Appendix 5. The Eucalyptus tetrodonta and Corymbia nesophila community contained floristic detail that was virtually the same for every site surveyed, and exhibits very narrow variation in all structural layers.

Approximately 14 ha of vegetation community unit 2 (State RE 3.3.50/3.5.22 and field mapped RE 3.5.22) is mapped within the Project footprint on the bauxite plateau landform, but on lower relief, where water is held in the soil profile for longer. Here, a corresponding change in soil structure and shift to higher clay content results in slower drainage, and a structurally different community expressed as grassy woodland to approximately 20-25 m with a canopy of Corymbia novoguinensis and Eucalyptus tetrodonta with Erythrophleum chlorostachys.

Approximately 32 ha of vegetation community unit 8 (state and field mapped RE 3.2.10) is mapped within the Project footprint. This community is described as tall grassy woodland to open forest of Eucalyptus tetrodonta with Corymbia novoguinensis on sandy soils (land zone 2) with some areas with slow drainage.

The most conspicuous vegetation changes are associated with a permanent soil-water status. Visibly conspicuous communities are found where the landform is lower as a consequence of a depression (closed drainage), or where the plateau falls away into drainage lines, watercourses or ultimately, the mangrove community lining the banks of the Skardon River. This change in land relief invariably corresponds with a transition from one vegetation community to another.

Remnant vegetation within the Project area (i.e. areas not cleared for the kaolin mining) has a high vegetation integrity (i.e. intact, minimal weed infestation, 90 – 100% cover and minimal disturbance).

Further discussion of the State mapped REs and field mapped REs within the footprint of the Project is provided in Section 15.7.1.

The following discrete vegetation communities, potentially associated with lower lying wetlands, watercourses or drainage lines, have been field mapped for the Project area:

map unit 5 (RE 3.1.1 / 3.3.1 / 3.1.6) along the Skardon River (State RE 3.1.1/3.1.3)

map units 5a (RE 3.3.49), 5b (RE 3.3.64), 5c (RE 3.3.9), 5d (RE3.3.12), 5e (RE3.3.51) and 5f (RE 3.3.49)

along Namaleta Creek (all State RE 3.3.64/3.3.9)

map units 7a, 7b and 7c (State and field RE 3.3.14/ 3.3.22) within and surrounding Lunette Swamp

and Bigfoot Swamp

map unit 9 (State and field RE 3.3.64/3.3.9) along a drainage line of Namaleta Creek between Pits 14

and 15.

15.6.2.1 Lunette Swamp (State and Field RE 3.3.14 / 3.3.22, Units 7a, 7b and 7c)

Lunette Swamp is characterised by two distinct inner vegetation patterns, and one less distinct pattern occupying the outermost area of land influenced by the wetland. Consequently, three subunits of vegetation are mapped for this drainage depression: 7a, 7b and 7c (corresponding with REs 3.3.14 and 3.3.22) – each with unique floristic characteristics. The combination of these patterns is recognisable on aerial photographs as shown in Figure 15-6.

Vegetation map units 7a, 7c and 7c are too small to adequately map at the 1:100,000 RE scale and are therefore included in a mixed polygon of RE 3.3.14 / 3.3.22.

Vegetation unit 7a is under fresh water for long periods, where the deepest water was recorded as 1.5m and marked by a consistent band of moss growing around old Lophostemon suaveolens trees at this level. The unit is characterised by low open forest dominated by Asteromyrtus symphyocarpa to a height of 4-


Page 15-17

6m. Occasional specimens of very old, stunted trees of L. suaveolens, and less frequently, Livistona muelleri are also present. The shrub layer is not floristically differentiated and comprises younger class trees of A. symphyocarpa. One specimen of Ficus opposita was found growing in a tree hollow in this layer. The ground layer flora is remarkably simple with diversity limited to more or less two species due to long-term submergence and probably anaerobic conditions. These species are Drosera sp. and Fimbristylis sp. Floristic diversity in the ground layer increases at the ecotone with subunit 7b.

Vegetation unit 7b forms a distinctive floristic edge of Lunette Swamp that is defined by the presence of a band of dispersed False Casuarina (Calycopeplus casuarinoides) trees, bloodwoods and the paperbark Melaleuca saligna forming woodland to open woodland to 8-10m. The shrub layer is sparse and includes saplings and juvenile specimens of the canopy species. The ground layer is only slightly more diverse floristically by the presence of grasses than subunit 7a. Grasses include Eriachne burkittii and Ectrosia leporina, both of which occur at the outermost fringe, and which are also good indicators of the demarcation and transition from wet to drier and more freely drained land, and the grade from subunit 7b to 7c. The vegetation outside of the ‘wetland’ zone reverts to the Darwin Stringybark (Eucalyptus tetrodonta) and Melville Island Bloodwood (Corymbia nesophila) association, where obligate wetland trees of near saturated edaphic conditions such as Asteromyrtus symphyocarpa are absent. Corymbia novoguinensis is present as the outermost bloodwood species of the wetland and grades into tall grassy woodland E. tetrodonta and Corymbia novoguinensis.

Vegetation unit 7c occupies the outermost fringe of the wetland and grades subtly into tall grassy woodland of Eucalyptus tetrodonta and Corymbia nesophila with a mid-dense shrub layer (vegetation unit 6 (RE 3.5.2)). Unit 7c is described as tall woodland to 24-28 m with a canopy of Corymbia novoguinensis and Eucalyptus tetrodonta. The secondary tree layer can include Erythrophleum chlorostachys and Parinari nonda. The lowest tree and shrub layers comprise Livistona muelleri, Corymbia novoguinensis and Lophostemon suaveolens, and occasionally Melaleuca viridiflora. The ground layer comprises tall grasses such as Sarga plumosum, Heteropogon triticeus and less frequently Eulalia mackinlayi. This subunit occurs on sandy clay loams with more improved drainage than subunit 7b, but marginally slower than unit 6 (RE 3.5.2). This type also grades into areas of unit 2 (RE 3.5.22) north-west of Lunette Swamp on wetter soils.


Page 15-18

Figure 15-6 Lunette Swamp Vegetation

15.6.2.2 Bigfoot Swamp

The mapped RE for Bigfoot Swamp is mixed polygon State and field RE 3.3.14a / 3.3.22a, as shown in Figure 15-4. An observational survey of Bigfoot Swamp was undertaken in February 2015. A detailed floristic and vegetation description was not made at the time, so variation and different floristic associations are likely to occur in different sections of the Swamp. The Swamp however, does appear (from the edge) to have floristic and structural similarities to Lunette Swamp, particularly in the development of large-class specimens of Lophostemon suaveolens and the density and stem diameters of the dominant tree Asteromyrtus symphyocarpa. On this basis the outer margins of the swamp consist of RE 3.3.22a and it is highly likely that the internal sections of the swamp consist of RE 3.3.14a.

RE 3.3.14a vegetation communities are described as:

Palustrine wetland (e.g. vegetated swamp). Melaleuca saligna (paper bark) usually dominates the

sparse canopy (10-18m tall). Lophostemon suaveolens (swamp mahogany) is frequently a codominant

canopy tree. Melaleuca clarksonii (hard-barked teatree) is sometimes present as an emergent tree

(12-16m tall) in the deepest part of the swamps. Asteromyrtus symphyocarpa usually dominates the

very sparse to sparse sub-canopy layer (4-10m tall). Calycopeplus casuarinoides (false casuarina)

occurs on the margins of the wettest areas. The shrub layer (0.5-2.5m tall) is usually very sparse and

the very sparse to sparse ground layer consists mainly of graminoids. Occurs in drainage swamps,

which generally remain flooded in the wet season for many months.

RE 3.3.22a is described as:

floodplain (other than floodplain wetlands). Corymbia clarksoniana (Clarkson's bloodwood)

dominates the sparse canopy (8-25m tall).

15.6.2.3 Supratidal Wetland along Skardon River

There is an inconspicuous wetland zone between the mangroves and the base of the bauxite plateau. It is too small to assign to a regional ecosystem type, but forms part of vegetation map unit 5 (RE 3.1.1 / RE 3.1.3 / RE 3.1.6). This unique semi-aquatic feature is situated on the western banks of the south branch of the Skardon River. It is a narrow, discontinuous, linear wetland approximately 10 m wide at its widest point (often narrower) and is perched marginally higher than the highest tidal water level. The wetland is fed by a shallow seasonal freshwater seepage from what appears to be the aquifer at the base of the bauxite plateau.

The area surveyed is relatively simple in floristic terms for the upper vegetative layers (trees and shrubs) and fringed on the landward side by a single line of paperbark trees - possibly Melaleuca quinquenervia. A range of specimens were forwarded to the Queensland Herbarium for formal identification, of which one Melaleuca specimen submitted by B. Wannan and collected from the Skardon River was identified as M. quinquenervia.

15.6.2.4 Namaleta Creek (State RE 3.3.64 / 3.3.9, Field RE Complex)

Namaleta Creek is predominantly a freshwater system but is also influenced by the seasonal inland extent of saltwater incursion. Downstream sections of Namaleta Creek in ML6025 have a seasonal estuarine influence as indicated by the dominance of mangroves. Consequently, the watercourse supports a diverse range of vegetation types and is a zone of refuge for a range of flora not found elsewhere on leases. A detailed flora investigation of Namaleta Creek and its environs was undertaken in 2015.

The vegetation units and corresponding field regional ecosystems associated with Namaleta Creek are described in Table 15-4 and shown in Figure 15-7.


Page 15-19

Table 15-4 Vegetation Units / Regional Ecosystems of Namaleta Creek

Vegetation Unit

Field RE

State RE

Field Structure Field Description

5d 3.3.12 (OC)

3.3.64 / 3.3.9 (LC)

Melaleuca quinquenervia open forest.

Other trees present but uncommon are Dillenia alata, Lophostemon suaveolens and Calycopeplus casuarinoides. Livistona muelleri sometimes occurs on the outer edge of this zone. The ground cover is sparse, consisting of sedges (Eleocharis sp., Eriocaulon sp.) and Philydrum lanuginosum.

Hand-written annotations in the report indicate that this unit has been revised, where M. quinquenervia is replaced by M. cajuputi.

5c 3.3.9

(LC)

3.3.64 / 3.3.9 (LC)

Fringing woodland along outer edge of drainage line (edge of floodplain).

Comprises Lophostemon suaveolens, Xanthostemon crenulatus, Melaleuca viridiflora, Melaleuca stenostachya, and Parinari nonda. Also includes Banksia dentata, Neofabricia myrtifolia, Grevillea glauca, Dillenia alata and Acacia rothii forming a tall shrub layer. A narrow band along the edge of the Namaleta swamp zone and along parts of the channels within the swamp. Grasses and sedges form a ground layer.

5a 3.3.49

(LC)

Non-rem-nant

Melaleuca viridiflora, Asteromyrtus symphyocarpa low woodland.

Other emergents include Banksia dentata, Grevillea glauca, Hakea persiehana, Melaleuca stenostachya, Neofabricia myrtifolia and Parinari nonda. Sedges and annual herbs form the ground layer and include Fimbristylis insignis, Fimbristylis sp.? punctata, Schoenus sparteus, Caesia setifolia, Comesperma secundum, Goodenia sp. (AG2333), Mitrasacme sp., Murdannia gigantea, Polygala longifolia and Utricularia chrysantha.

5e 3.3.51

(LC)

3.3.64 / 3.3.9 (LC)

Melaleuca acacioides tall shrubland.

Characterised by pure stands of M. acacioides. The ground cover is sparse and comprises Ectrosia confusa, Sporobolus virginicus, Fimbristylis acuminata, F. rara, Leptocarpus elatior, Schoenus calostachyus, Calandrinia gracilis, Lobelia dioica, and Stylidium sp. (AG2303). This unit is found on the saline strips close to mangroves, on yellow podzols. On Namaleta Creek it occurs near the salt water – fresh water interface.


Page 15-20

Vegetation Unit

Field RE

State RE

Field Structure Field Description

5b 3.3.64

(LC)

3.3.64 / 3.3.9 (LC)

Asteromyrtus lysicephala open heath over sedgeland.

Other emergent shrubs include Banksia serrata, Hakea pedunculata and Melaleuca sp. The ground layer includes Fimbristylis insignis, Leptocarpus spathaceus, Schoenus calostachyus, S. sparteus and Tricostularia undulata. The unit includes a number of insectivorous plants such as Byblis liniflora subsp. liniflora, Drosera indica, D. petiolaris, Nepenthes mirabilis, Utricularia bifida, U. limosa, U. sp.? uliginosa and an undescribed Utricularia sp. (AG2306). The unit is fed by water seeping from the laterite zone above, with the water table above ground during the wet season, and close to the surface for the remainder of the year.

Included in 5d

3.3.12 (OC)

3.3.64 / 3.3.9 (LC)

Eleocharis dulcis sedgeland.

This unit is dominated by the tall sedge Eleocharis dulcis and is the most frequently inundated vegetation type of Namaleta Creek, where it occupies the central drainage channel.

15.6.2.5 Mapped Wetland between Pits 14 and 15 (Unit 9, RE 3.3.64 / 3.3.9)

The description for map unit 9 is based on a desktop assessment of photographs taken from the area in July 2015 and October 2015, which was unable to be accessed in February 2015 (wet season). Interpretation of a series of photographs suggests that the dominant species are the cabbage palm Livistona muelleri, Lophostemon suaveolens and possibly the bloodwood Corymbia novoguinensis. It is also expected that the small tree Melaleuca viridiflora would form discrete zones of low woodland in this type. The conspicuous floristic component of the trees differs considerably from the current RE description of RE 3.3.64 / 3.3.9.

RE 3.3.64 is primarily a sedge-dominated community exhibiting limited structural development in terms of height. RE 3.3.9 is a woodland community that is frequently encountered at the margins of wetland features and often forms a linear band between land zone 5 supporting RE 3.5.2 and the lower-lying wetland. Photo interpretation found it difficult to detect any evidence of RE 3.3.64.

As this wetland area has not been surveyed, the State mapped RE 3.3.64 / 3.3.9 has been adopted as the basis for the ‘field mapped RE’.

ML 6025

NAMALETA CREEK

3.3.49

3.3.12

3.3.12

3.3.12

3.3.513.3.123.3.12 3.3.51

3.3.12

3.3.123.3.51

3.3.12

3.3.12

3.3.493.3.50 3.3.12

3.3.49

3.3.12

3.3.493.3.12

3.3.12

3.3.12

3.3.12

3.3.49

3.3.93.3.64

3.5.22 3.5.22

3.5.2

3.5.2

3.3.49

3.3.12

3.5.2

3.5.2

3.2.10

3.2.10

3.3.12

3.3.12

3.5.2

3.5.2

3.5.22

3.3.64/ 3.3.9

608000 609000 61000086

8500

0

8685

000

8686

000

8686

000

8687

000

8687

000

8688

000

8688

000

Figure 15-7

G:\CLIENTS\E-TO-M\Gulf Alumina\GIS\Maps\EIS\Ch15_TerrestrialEco\FIG_15_07_Field_Mapped_REs_Namaleta_160310.mxd

Revision: R1



Namaleta Creek RegionalEcosystems

0 250 500 750 1,000Meters


!

!

!

!

Queensland

CAIRNS

BRISBANE

TOWNSVILLE

ROCKHAMPTON

±



Mining Lease BoundariesWatercoursesWetland Buffer

Field Mapped Regional EcosystemsVM Status (v8.0)


FIELD MAPPEDREGIONAL ECOSYSTEM

VEGETATIONMAP UNIT

3.5.2 13.5.22 23.3.50 3

non-rem 43.1.1 / 3.1.3 / 3.1.6 5

3.3.49 5a3.3.64 5b3.3.9 5c

3.3.12 5d3.3.51 5e3.3.49 5f3.5.2 6

3.3.14 / 3.3.22 7a, 7b, 7c3.2.10 8

3.3.64 / 3.3.9 9


Page 15-22

15.6.3 Essential Habitat Mapping

A review was made of the essential habitat mapping, which is associated with the RE mapping to determine whether particular sections of the Project area are identified by EHP as holding special environmental characteristics and habitat values for species of conservation significant flora and fauna. The mapping does not indicate any areas on or adjacent to the Project area that are essential habitat.

15.6.4 Weeds

Weeds are represented mostly adjacent to heavily or frequently disturbed areas of the mining leases (i.e. former kaolin mine). The edges of the existing haul road are free of weeds for virtually its entire length.

Introduced plants are represented on the leases by species which are relatively benign in an environmental context. These weeds are limited in distribution, and occur only on land where an overstorey of trees has been removed or the canopy cover significantly reduced. The most serious weeds, albeit in low abundance, include Hyptis suaveolens (Horehound), which has colonised a small area of land not much greater than 0.5 ha adjacent to the northern end of the haul road. The potentially problematic Passiflora foetida (Stinking Passionflower) is found on mounded soil near the former dry kaolin plant at the Port. None of these introduced plants have dispersed beyond the original footprint of disturbed land, indicating perhaps that the surrounding woodland of Eucalyptus tetrodonta and Corymbia nesophila/C. novoguinensis has some resilience to weed incursion. It was also observed that a range of native grasses are able to take hold and eventually preclude the ingress of weeds.

The Wildlife Online database search identified 32 species of naturalised plants found within 25 km of the Project area (refer Appendix 5). It is probable that a majority of these are from the Mapoon region, in particular the township and places of residential development.

Of note, Cryptostegia grandiflora (Rubber Vine) is listed as a Class 2 declared pest plant under the Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Act 2002. Although not listed in the Wildlife Online database search results, the Class 2 declared pest plant Gamba Grass (Andropogon gayanus) is a significant weed that, when established, can result in irreversible landscape impacts. This grass is a well-known invasive species in the bauxite mining areas of Andoom, and along the southern approaches into Weipa. The species was not observed during field surveys of the leases.

15.6.5 Terrestrial Flora Species

A search of the EHP’s Wildlife Online database (September 2015, 25 km buffer zone) returned results of two species of grass with a ‘near threatened’ conservation status under Queensland’s NC Act (Paspalum multinodum and Lepturus geminatus) and one grass species listed as endangered under the NC Act (Dallwatsonia felliana).

Since the commencement of ecological studies in the Project area, a number of species formerly considered as conservation significant, which have been identified using HERBRECS data in and surrounding the Project area, have been delisted from the NC Act. A summary of species considered to be of conservation significance since the commencement of ecological assessments is provided in Table 15-5, with a map of these locations provided in Appendix 5. None of the grass species that are currently listed as near threatened or endangered are described in HERBRECS data from the Queensland Herbarium as occurring in the Project area.

Near threatened species are not a prescribed MSES. Paspalum multinodum (near threatened) was identified on seasonally inundated, cracking clay plains with sedges and mangrove or near-coastal affiliated plants. It is highly unlikely that Paspalum multinodum will occur on the land identified to be mined. Lepturus geminatus (near threatened) is associated with vegetation unit 8 (RE 3.2.10), which is potentially subject to approximately 76 ha of mining and therefore the species, if present, could be impacted.


Page 15-23

Dallwatsonia felliana (endangered) has been collected from woodland characterised by Melaleuca saligna and Asteromyrtus symphyocarpa in a wetland setting. This floristic combination and edaphic condition does exist on and adjacent to the Project area, for example around Lunette Swamp, Bigfoot Swamp and Namaleta Creek, but these wetland areas are not included in the Project footprint and hence it is unlikely that Dallwatsonia felliana will be directly impacted. Further assessment of direct and indirect impacts to wetland areas is provided in Chapter 16.

The following species of conservation significance were identified during field surveys:

Nepenthes mirabilis (formerly listed as rare under the NC Act, but now delisted) was found in a

drainage line leading into the northern bank of Namaleta Creek.

Heterachne baileyi (formerly listed as rare under the NC Act, but now delisted) was found in a similar

location to that identified in HERBRECS data (Table 15-5)

Table 15-5 Conservation Significant Flora since 2010

Species (Family) Collector, No. & Date NC Act Status*

Location / AMG Zone 54 coordinates

Teucrium ajugaceum (Lamiaceae)

B.M. Waterhouse (BMW7207), 16 March 2005

E

(delisted)

Mapoon

E597817 N8670518

Tinospora esiangkara (Menispermaceae)

A. Gunness (AG2320), 12 April 1994

R

(delisted)

Upper reaches of Namaleta Ck.

E618045 N8700859

A. Gunness (AG2492), 22 March 1995

R

(delisted)

Skardon River landing

E616709 N8699772

F.M. Bailey (ROT392), 22 May 1901

R

(delisted)

Mapoon

E599822 N8682492

B.S. Wannan(BSW5287), 16 June 2008

R

(delisted)

South of Mapoon on Weipa Road.

E598845 N8667047

Dallwatsonia felliana (Poaceae)

J.R. Clarkson (JRC9872), 18 April 1993

E 50 km WNW of Heathlands

E635369 N8716456

Eremochloa ciliaris (Poaceae)


R

(delisted)

50 km WNW of Heathlands

E635369 N8716456

A. Gunness (AG2286), 12 April 1994

R

(delisted)

Namaleta Creek along drainage line

E611665 N8694431

Heterachne baileyi (Poaceae)

A. Gunness (AG2517), 22 March 1995

R

(delisted)

Inland from Skardon River Landing

E616077 N8699170


R

(delisted)

10 km SE of junction of Ducie and Dulhunty Rivers

E627883 N8664874

Lepturus geminatus (Poaceae)

A. Morton (AM1711), 3 May 1982

NT Mapoon Reserve between Cullen Point and Janie Creek

E593438 N8672375


Page 15-24

Species (Family) Collector, No. & Date NC Act Status*

Location / AMG Zone 54 coordinates

Paspalum multinodum (Poaceae)

M. Godwin (A52), September 1980

NT Mapoon Plain, south of Cullen Point north of Weipa

E595258 N8674212

Dendrobium bigibbum (Orchidaceae)

F.M. Bailey (number not cited), 18 May 1901

V No location given

E599822 N8682492

* The conservation status under the Nature Conservation Act 1992 has been revised since the issue of these HERBRECS data. R (formerly rare) is now NT (near threatened), V – vulnerable, E – endangered. Note the following species have been delisted: Teucrium ajugaceum, Hetereachne baileyi, Eremochloa ciliaris and Tinospora esiangkara.

A total of seven EPBC Act threatened (critically endangered, endangered, vulnerable) terrestrial flora species were returned from the EPBC Act Search generated in September 2015 for the area comprising a 25 km buffer around the centroid of the mining leases. These species, and their status under the EPBC Act and NC Act are provided in Table 15-6.

Table 15-6 EPBC Act Listed Flora Species

Species EPBC Act Status

NC Act Status

Cajanus mareebensis endangered endangered

Calophyllum bicolor vulnerable vulnerable

Cepobaculum carronnii (an orchid) (also referred to as Dendrobium carronii)

vulnerable vulnerable

Dendrobium bigibbum (Cooktown orchid).

This species may also be referred to as Vappodes bigibba, V. lithocola or V. phalaenopsis. A number of hybrids also occur. All references in this report are to D. bigibbum


Vappodes lithocoloa (dwarf butterfly orchid, Cooktown orchid) endangered vulnerable

Voppodes phalaenopsis (Cooktown orchid). The D. bigibbum complex has been separated into the genus Vappodes and the Cooktown orchid has been given the name of Vappodes phalaenopsis


Dendrobium johannis (Chocolate tea tree orchid) vulnerable vulnerable

All discussion about the Cooktown orchid (Dendrobium bigibbum) applies to Vappodes lithocoloa and Voppodes phalaenopsis. The Cooktown orchid is also listed as vulnerable under the NC Act.

None of these species was identified during field surveys. The Cooktown orchid is relatively well represented in coastal dune country in Cape York Peninsula, and is also found in large numbers in the dune vegetation west and outside the Project area.

The listed epiphytic orchids have a habitat association with paperbark trees (Melaleuca species). In regard to this habitat feature, Melaleuca viridiflora dominates a majority of the woodlands in the vicinity of the fringing wetlands of Namaleta Creek; and therefore potential habitat for at least C. carronii and D.


Page 15-25

johannis is only present outside of the proposed mining footprint (other than the haul road crossing of Namaleta Creek). There is very low probability of the orchids being found in the dominant Eucalyptus tetrodonta-Corymbia nesophila woodlands, which occur on bauxite-bearing landforms that will be directly impacted.

Despite potential habitat being present on the mining leases (not the Project footprint) for the rare and threatened orchids, none were observed during the field surveys. It is noted however, that Dendrobium bigibbum is present in the region in habitats close to the coast, and most probably in more mesic vegetation types on land zone 2 (sand) such as beach scrubs. These habitats are not mapped as being impacted by the proposed mining operation.

Calophyllum bicolor is a tree of mesic rainforests on Cape York Peninsula. Rainforest and vine thickets are not present on the leases, and therefore this species is unlikely to occur.

Based on habitat and soil observations and comparisons with areas of Cape York Peninsula where C. mareebensis is known to occur (i.e. around Musgrave) there appears to be marginal suitable habitat and biophysical conditions on the mining leases to support this species. At Musgrave, C. mareebensis has been photographed and collected from the verges of the Peninsula Developmental Road, where the creeper appears to favour edge situations on quartzose sandy or gravelly surfaces. Given the partial similarity of habitat on some of the Project area in the vicinity of the haul road, a low probability of occurrence has been assigned to C. mareebensis. Similar habitat attributes are not present south of existing haul road.

The ecological assessment identified that:

it is not probable that Cepobaculum carronnii, Dendrobium bigibbum, Dendrobium johannis and

Calophyllum bicolor will occur within the Project footprint

there is low probability that Cajanus mareebensis will occur within the Project footprint.

it is unlikely that Dallwatsonia felliana will be directly impacted.

Therefore it is not considered that these species will be significantly impacted by the Project and they are not further assessed against the:

EPBC Act significant impact criteria for listed species

the significant residual impact criteria for MSES.

15.6.6 Listed Terrestrial Fauna Species

A total of eight threatened (critically endangered, endangered, vulnerable) terrestrial fauna species were returned from the EPBC Act Search generated in September 2015 for the area comprising a 25 km buffer around the centroid of the mining leases. These species are:

Red Goshawk (Erythriorchis radiatus)

Golden-shouldered Parrot (Psephotus chrysopterygius)

Masked Owl (northern subspecies) (Tyto novaehollandiae kimberlii)

Northern Quoll (Dasyurus hallucatus)

Spectacled Flying-fox (Pteropus conspicillatus)

False Water Rat, Water Mouse (Xeromys myoides)

Bare rumped Sheathtail Bat (Saccolaimus saccolaimus)

Black-footed tree rat (Mesembriomys gouldii rattoides)

No additional EPBC Act listed threatened fauna species were identified during field surveys.


Page 15-26

Queensland Wildlife Online Search identified the likelihood of presence of 6 threatened terrestrial fauna species under the NC Act (but not the EPBC Act) within a 25 km radius of the site. Two additional NC Act threatened species (not listed under the EPBC Act) were confirmed on or adjacent to the site. These eight species are:

Palm Cockatoo (Probosciger aterrimus)

Eastern Curlew (Numenius madagascariensis) (also EPBC Act listed migratory species at the time the

controlled action decision was made (referral decision of 11 September 2014)).

Beach Stone-curlew (Esacus giganteus)

Radjah Shelduck (Tadorna radjah)

Ghost Bat (Macroderma gigas)

Papuan Sheathtail Bat (Saccolaimus mixtus)

Chestnut Dunnart (Sminthopsos archeri)

Estuarine Crocodile (Crocodylus porosus).

All species are described and assessed in this chapter, except for the estuarine crocodile which is described and assessed in Chapter 18, along with other listed marine species.

Likelihood of occurrence for terrestrial fauna species (refer to Table 15-7) is based on the the general habitat requirements of a species or community, habitat representation in the survey area, records of known occurrence and knowledge of distribution where:

Unlikely: the site is outside the species known range or there are no recent records or suitable habitat

present on the site or directly adjacent to the site..

Possible: suitable habitat occurs within or adjacent to the site and the site is within the known

distribution of the species however there are no known records in the area and the species was not

recorded during the field investigations.

High: Suitable habitat occurs within or adjacent to the site and the site is within the known distribution

of the species and the species has previously been recorded within the vicinity of the site however it

has not been recorded recently or during site investigations.

Confirmed: Known to occur on the site through direct observation within or immediately adjacent to

the site.

To assist in assessing the likelihood of occurrence, locations of fauna sightings and museum records were obtained from the Atlas of Living Australia, Queensland Museum fauna record databases and previous studies undertaken on the Project area between 2010 and 2015. Likelihood of occurrence was determined for the species utilising the site for any purpose, including overflying. The Project area has a number of small wetlands in proximity, and several wetland species have been observed overflying, but not actually utilising any habitats within the Project area.

Of the EPBC Act listed species, none where confirmed or have a high likelihood of occurrence on site, but it is possible that the following species occur on or adjacent to the site due to the availability of suitable habitat:

red goshawk

masked owl

northern quoll

spectacled flying fox

bare-rumped sheathtail bat


Page 15-27

false water rat

black–footed tree rat

eastern curlew (returned on the NC Act search however it is an EPBC Act listed migratory species at

the time the controlled action decision was made (referral decision of 11 September 2014))

The golden shouldered parrot is considered unlikely to occupy the area on the basis of the currently known distribution of the species although DoE habitat modelling for this species encompasses the Project area. The red goshawk, bare-rumped sheathtail bat, northern quoll and spectacled flying fox were specifically targeted in 2014 surveys to determine presence/absence with no species confirmed during that or other surveys on site.

Of the NC Act listed species the following were confirmed on or adjacent the Project area:

Papuan sheathtail bat

palm cockatoo

crocodile

radjah shelduck (adjacent)

beach stone-curlew (adjacent)

The eastern curlew and chestnut dunnart possibly occur in the Project area, and the ghost bat is considered unlikely to occur in the Project area.

Species that are considered unlikely to occur are not considered to be at risk of significant impacts from the Project and are not further assessed.

Section 15.7.6 presents a table of potential habitat for these species.

15.6.6.1 Red Goshawk

Targeted diurnal bird surveys were undertaken in September 2014 across the Project area around camera trapping and songmeter locations. No red goshawk individuals, or their distinctive large stick nests, were observed during the survey period. There is the potential for red goshawks to forage within the Project area; however, it is unlikely that suitable nesting habitat is present within the majority of the site given the lack of suitable tall trees located within one km of permanent water. Nesting habitat, which is typically the tallest trees adjacent to rivers and creeks (approximately 30m + in height), is located along the Skardon River. Given the enormous potential home range of the species and the absence of known nest trees on or in the vicinity of the Project area, the Project is considered very unlikely to lead to a long term decrease in the size of an important population of this species. The Project does not include any habitat areas considered critical to the survival of the red goshawk. Mitigation measures are proposed to ensure that sufficient foraging area would be maintained, connectivity will be maintained between riparian areas and nesting habitat will not be impacted along the Skardon River from the Project development.

The extent of potential foraging and nesting habitat for the red goshawk on site is shown in Figure 15-8. There is potential for 179 ha of nesting habitat in the Project footprint area, although no nests have been identified. The Project area has been surveyed for presence of threatened fauna however before construction further survey for confirmation of presence or absence of nesting structures will be undertaken to avoid potential impacts on the red goshawk in suitable habitat areas. The majority of the mining footprint will not be significant habitat to the red goshawk with any critical habitat protected within the proposed buffered zones. The proposed species management program (Section 15.8.5) will be implemented in the unlikely event this species is identified prior to clearance.


Page 15-28

15.6.6.2 Masked Owl

The masked owl typically occurs in riparian gallery forest and woodland with a grassy understorey or with a mosaic of sparse and dense ground cover. It is a specialised predator of small mammals thought to hunt preferentially within riverine gallery forests where prey is more abundant. Preferred roosting sites are in tree hollows, caves or dense foliage 3 – 8 m above the ground. The species occurs across tropical Australia and west to the Kimberley with Townsville being the most southern range.

Targeted call playback surveys did not confirm presence of the species during surveys in 2010 or 2015. The species is sedentary and territorial, therefore more likely to be identified during surveys should it be present. It is a specialised predator of small mammals thought to hunt preferentially within riverine gallery forests where prey is more abundant.

Surveys identified a paucity in small to medium prey mammal availability across the site through spatial and temporal surveys (2010-2015). This would not promote habitat utilisation for large predatory owl species such as the masked owl. With the exception of Namaleta Creek haul road crossing in the south of the site, all major riparian and riverine habitats occur outside of proposed areas of clearing on the Skardon River, which is identified as more suitable foraging habitat for this species. The species is potentially less selective about its nesting sites, however there is some research to suggest that it will only utilise E. tetrodonta woodland areas in ecotones around preferable habitats (riparian forest etc.).

The masked owl has a general habitat preference for riparian gallery, rainforest and mangrove areas which are available outside the Project footprint. These areas are far more extensive off site and north of the Skardon River. The Project will not remove this habitat for development purposes. These habitats will also be maintained within buffered areas. Riparian gallery forests of the Skardon River are protected from the Project and buffers will be placed around all sensitive areas on the site ensuring connectivity and maintaining sufficient foraging areas for fauna.

There is no loss of foraging habitat for the species as these areas are protected within the buffered zone. Portions of the woodland that will be cleared for the Project footprint (1,209 ha) may potentially contain suitable nesting habitat, as shown in Figure 15-9 although this figure shows all potential habitat, without consideration of preferred micro-habitats, such as tree hollows, for the species. The proposed species management program (Section 15.8.5) will be implemented in the unlikely event this species is identified prior to clearance. However, there are large tracts of continuous habitat surrounding the Project footprint available to the species. There is no loss of foraging habitat to the species as these areas are protected within the proposed buffer zones.

15.6.6.3 Northern Quoll

A total of 51 survey sites were selected within and directly adjacent to the Project area. Survey sites were allocated to different BVGs based on the relative area of each unit within the Project area. A total of 50 camera traps were used for the camera trapping survey. Camera traps were active for a period of at least 10 days. A total of 616 camera trap nights were undertaken between 17 September 2014 and 4 October 2014. Of the 43 camera traps successfully set across the site to captures images, no northern quolls were identified.

The species occupies a diversity of habitats including rocky areas, eucalypt forest and woodlands, rainforests, sandy lowlands and beaches, shrubland, grasslands and desert. However, habitat generally encompasses some form of rocky area for denning purposes with surrounding vegetated habitats used for foraging and dispersal. Habitats usually have a high structural diversity containing large diameter trees, termite mounds or hollow logs for denning purposes.

The northern quoll was considered unlikely to occur on the Project area due to the absence of complex rocky outcrops (a lack of rocky escarpments, outcrops and crevices), known refugial habitat for the species and the fact that the species was believed to have become locally extinct on Cape York Peninsula following the arrival of cane toads in the early 1990’s. However, a substantial population was discovered 100 km to


Page 15-29

the south of the Project area in 2013 (Scherger Air Base). On the basis of this rediscovery, it is possible for northern quolls to recolonise their historical range, which includes the Project area.

Superficially, the habitat currently occupied by northern quolls near Scherger Air Base is the same habitat present within the Project area (i.e. Eucalyptus tetrodonta forest and woodland). This habitat is extremely widespread on Cape York; however the factors that have enabled the species to persist at Scherger Air Base, despite cane toads being ubiquitous, potentially involves availability of more refugia (rocky outcrops etc) than the Project area, particularly where there has been a frequent historical fire regime. The other recent post-cane toad arrival record of northern quolls is from Stone Crossing on the lower Wenlock River in 2009, approximately 60 – 80 km SE of the Project area.

The northern quoll hasn’t been located in the Project area since between 1971- 1990 and targeted surveys failed to find any indication of the species. If, however the species was present, the development is surrounded by continuous, largely homogenous tracts of high quality remnant vegetation that would not be fragmented, and therefore the population would not be impacted. The proposed Project does not include any habitat considered critical to the survival of the northern quoll.

A habitat assessment of the extent of potential foraging and denning habitat is shown in Figure 15-10 and predicts that if the species was found in the Project area it would have the potential to utilise the entire site (1,209 ha Project footprint within woodland) due its ability to utilise a large variety of habitat structures for nesting and denning and to forage over several kilometres in a single night. This figure shows all potential habitat without consideration of potential micro-habitat suitable for the species such as rocky areas (noting an absence of complex rock habitat in the Project footprint), and should be considered in the context of the failure of surveys to identify the species. The proposed species management program (Section 15.8.5) will be implemented in the unlikely event this species is identified prior to clearance.

!(

ML 6025

ML 40082 ML40069

NAMALETACREEK

SKARDON RIVER

NAMALETACREEK

NAMALETACREEK

605000 610000 61500086

8500

0

8685

000

8690

000

8690

000

8695

000

8695

000

8700

000

8700

000

Figure 15-8

G:\CLIENTS\E-TO-M\Gulf Alumina\GIS\Maps\EIS\Ch15_TerrestrialEco\FIG_15_08_RedGoshawk_Habitat_160310.mxd

Revision: R1



Red Goshawk Potential Nestingand Foraging Areas



!

!

!

!

Queensland

CAIRNS

BRISBANE

TOWNSVILLE

ROCKHAMPTON

±

No warranty is given in relation to the data (including accuracy, reliability, completeness or suitability) and accept no liability (including without limitation, liability in negligence) for any loss, damage or costs (including consequential damage) relating to any use of or reliance upon the data. Data must not be used for direct marketing or be used in breach of privacy laws. Tenures © Geos Mining (2015). State Boundaries and Towns © Geoscience Australia (2006). Watercourses © Geoscience Australia. Imagery sourced from Gulf Alumina. Goshawk Potential Habitat areas supplied by RPS.


Mining Lease BoundariesExisting Disturbance FootprintProject FootprintSouthern Haul Road

Wetland BufferWatercourses

Goshawk Potential Nesting AreaGoshawk Potential Foraging Area

!(

ML 6025

ML 40082 ML40069

NAMALETACREEK

SKARDON RIVER

NAMALETACREEK

NAMALETACREEK

605000 610000 61500086

8500

0

8685

000

8690

000

8690

000

8695

000

8695

000

8700

000

8700

000

Figure 15-9

G:\CLIENTS\E-TO-M\Gulf Alumina\GIS\Maps\EIS\Ch15_TerrestrialEco\FIG_15_09_MaskedOwl_Habitat_160310.mxd

Revision: R1



Masked Owl Potential Habitat



!

!

!

!

Queensland

CAIRNS

BRISBANE

TOWNSVILLE

ROCKHAMPTON

±

No warranty is given in relation to the data (including accuracy, reliability, completeness or suitability) and accept no liability (including without limitation, liability in negligence) for any loss, damage or costs (including consequential damage) relating to any use of or reliance upon the data. Data must not be used for direct marketing or be used in breach of privacy laws. Tenures © Geos Mining (2015). State Boundaries and Towns © Geoscience Australia (2006). Watercourses © Geoscience Australia. Imagery sourced from Gulf Alumina. Masked Owl Potential Habitat supplied by RPS.



WatercoursesWetland Buffer

Masked Owl Potential Habitat

!(

ML 6025

ML 40082 ML40069

NAMALETACREEK

SKARDON RIVER

NAMALETACREEK

NAMALETACREEK

605000 610000 61500086

8500

0

8685

000

8690

000

8690

000

8695

000

8695

000

8700

000

8700

000

Figure15-10

G:\CLIENTS\E-TO-M\Gulf Alumina\GIS\Maps\EIS\Ch15_TerrestrialEco\FIG_15_10_NorthernQuoll_Habitat_160310.mxd

Revision: R1



Northern Quoll Potential Habitat



!

!

!

!

Queensland

CAIRNS

BRISBANE

TOWNSVILLE

ROCKHAMPTON

±

No warranty is given in relation to the data (including accuracy, reliability, completeness or suitability) and accept no liability (including without limitation, liability in negligence) for any loss, damage or costs (including consequential damage) relating to any use of or reliance upon the data. Data must not be used for direct marketing or be used in breach of privacy laws. Tenures © Geos Mining (2015). State Boundaries and Towns © Geoscience Australia (2006). Watercourses © Geoscience Australia. Imagery sourced from Gulf Alumina. Northern Quoll Potential Habitat supplied by RPS.




Northern Quoll Potential Habitat


Page 15-33

15.6.6.4 Spectacled Flying-fox

Opportunistic diurnal searches for roosts and feeding signs were undertaken over a large proportion of the Project area during the course of setting out camera traps for the targeted northern quoll survey. In addition, the mangrove forests fringing along the Skardon River were investigated from a boat. No spectacled flying-foxes were recorded during the survey.

The spectacled flying-fox is not known to utilise the proposed Project area and it is unlikely to be located in the area. There is no key habitat (roosting habitat) on the site that will be modified, destroyed, removed, isolated or decreased such that the availability or quality of habitat for the species is likely to decline. The majority of foraging habitat is also widely available to the species offsite and around the region.

Essential roosting, breeding and mating habitat for spectacled flying-foxes includes rainforest, gallery forest, Melaleuca swamps, mangroves and eucalypt forest. Despite DoE habitat modelling indicating the presence of potentially suitable roosting and foraging habitat for spectacled flying-foxes on the western coast of Cape York Peninsula north of Weipa, there are no published records from this region. On Cape York Peninsula the species has been confirmed from the McIlwraith Range and Iron Ranges (eastern Cape York). It is feasible that individuals may periodically move further west along riparian gallery forest e.g. along the Archer and Wenlock Rivers, potentially all the way to the west coast where there are significant patches of suitable evergreen and semi-deciduous vine forest roosting habitat.

Potential roosting habitat for the species is within areas that will be buffered from the impacts of the Project (i.e. no direct Project impact) as the species is very selective in camp preference for mangrove, vine forest and riparian gallery forest. Seasonal flowering events in the woodland REs are favourable to the spectacled flying–fox and it is possible that the species could utilise this habitat for foraging, therefore the impact of the Project footprint on this species’ foraging habitat is potentially 1,209 ha, as shown in Figure 15-11. This potential foraging habitat should be viewed in the context of the failure of targeted surveys to identify this species in the Project area and the limited distribution and lack of breeding colonies for the species in the region (i.e. western Cape York).

The primary threats to spectacled flying-foxes are habitat loss from large scale clearing for sugar and urban development, disturbance of camps and tick paralysis.

15.6.6.5 Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat

The bare-rumped sheathtail bat was specifically targeted in surveys. A total of ten full-spectrum, SM2+BAT Song Meters were set in a range of broad vegetation groups within or immediately outside the boundary of the Project area. Between six to ten continuous nights passive recordings were obtained from each of the units. In addition to the passive surveys, ~ 2 hours of active acoustic surveys were conducted along vehicular tracks in the southern section of the Project area. All call analysis was conducted by a recognised expert on bat call analysis who has an extensive library of reference calls from the Cape York Bioregion. No bare-rumped sheathtail bats were detected during surveys. Bat call analysis is further described in Section 15.6.10.

There are no confirmed records on the west coast of Cape York Peninsula and there were no confirmed records in the Project area despite targeted searches between 2010 and 2015. Therefore, the Project is highly unlikely to impact a population of the species.

Work undertaken for Metro Mining’s Bauxite Hills Project by AMEC in 2015 has an unconfirmed record of the species. The species has been recorded in a range of habitats including tropical woodland and tall open forests where it roosts in long, wide hollows in various eucalypts (Eucalyptus platyphylla and Eucalyptus tetrodonta) and in Melaleuca leucadendra. Potential foraging and denning habitat for the bare-rumped sheathtail bat (1,209 ha woodland in the Project footprint) is shown in Figure 15-12. This potential foraging habitat should be viewed in the context of the failure of targeted surveys to identify


Page 15-34

this species in the Project area. The proposed species management program (Section 15.8.5) will be implemented in the unlikely event this species is identified prior to clearance.

Threats to the species are unclear however it is considered that broad scale clearing for agricultural activities, altered fire regimes and weed invasion are the primary threats to survival of this species.

!(

ML 6025

ML 40082 ML40069

NAMALETACREEK

SKARDON RIVER

NAMALETACREEK

NAMALETACREEK

605000 610000 61500086

8500

0

8685

000

8690

000

8690

000

8695

000

8695

000

8700

000

8700

000

Figure15-11

G:\CLIENTS\E-TO-M\Gulf Alumina\GIS\Maps\EIS\Ch15_TerrestrialEco\FIG_15_11_SpectacledFlyingFox_Habitat_160310.mxd

Revision: R1



Spectacled Flying-foxPotential Habitat



!

!

!

!

Queensland

CAIRNS

BRISBANE

TOWNSVILLE

ROCKHAMPTON

±

No warranty is given in relation to the data (including accuracy, reliability, completeness or suitability) and accept no liability (including without limitation, liability in negligence) for any loss, damage or costs (including consequential damage) relating to any use of or reliance upon the data. Data must not be used for direct marketing or be used in breach of privacy laws. Tenures © Geos Mining (2015). State Boundaries and Towns © Geoscience Australia (2006). Watercourses © Geoscience Australia. Imagery sourced from Gulf Alumina. Spectacled Flying-fox Potential Habitat supplied by RPS.




Spectacled Flying-fox Habitat

!(

ML 6025

ML 40082 ML40069

NAMALETACREEK

SKARDON RIVER

NAMALETACREEK

NAMALETACREEK

605000 610000 61500086

8500

0

8685

000

8690

000

8690

000

8695

000

8695

000

8700

000

8700

000

Figure15-12

G:\CLIENTS\E-TO-M\Gulf Alumina\GIS\Maps\EIS\Ch15_TerrestrialEco\FIG_15_12_Bare-RumpedSheathtailBat_Habitat_160310.mxd

Revision: R1



Bare-Rumped Sheathtail BatPotential Habitat



!

!

!

!

Queensland

CAIRNS

BRISBANE

TOWNSVILLE

ROCKHAMPTON

±

No warranty is given in relation to the data (including accuracy, reliability, completeness or suitability) and accept no liability (including without limitation, liability in negligence) for any loss, damage or costs (including consequential damage) relating to any use of or reliance upon the data. Data must not be used for direct marketing or be used in breach of privacy laws. Tenures © Geos Mining (2015). State Boundaries and Towns © Geoscience Australia (2006). Watercourses © Geoscience Australia. Imagery sourced from Gulf Alumina. Bare-Rumped Sheathtail Bat Potential Habitat supplied by RPS.




Bare-Rumped Sheathtail Bat Habitat


Page 15-37

15.6.6.6 False Water Rat / Water Mouse

The species is known to occur in mangroves and the associated saltmarsh, sedgelands, clay pans, heathlands and freshwater wetlands. It is currently only known from three isolated populations, one in the Northern Territory, one in central Queensland and one in south-east Queensland. Core habitat includes heath and sedge along mangrove ecotones for nesting and foraging.

While little is known of the reproductive biology of the species the nesting mounds may be used over successive generations and are therefore potential markers of an active population.

Potentially suitable habitat exists around the margins of the Project area and into the wetlands, but not within the Project footprint. The Port area does not contain habitat suitable for nesting due to the lack of ecotone from mangrove to woodland. Surveys in 2010 confirmed an absence of nests in the Port area. The extent of potential foraging and nesting habitat for the False Water Rat is shown in Figure 15-13.

15.6.6.7 Black-footed Tree Rat

The habitat preference of the species is for open eucalypt woodland and forests with a proximity to watercourses and low lying vegetated areas. Microhabitat selection seems to be far more specific than currently known as the species is far more irregular across this abundant habitat than is expected. The species is known to occur in Eucalypt forests and woodlands with denning preferences for tree hollows and occasionally Pandanus and other dense foliage (not within the Project footprint). Cape York Peninsula contains a wide range of habitat suitable to the species however there remains a paucity of records. Current records hold the species at Mareeba, Piccaninny Plains and Mungkan Kandju National Park (~270 km from Skardon River).

There is potential for the species to be present on site however research suggests that populations are naturally low in abundance therefore difficult to detect in survey. The extent of potential foraging and nesting habitat for the black-footed tree rat on site is shown in Figure 15-14. The potential area available to the species is 1,209 ha, although this figure shows all potential habitat, without consideration of preferred micro-habitats for the species. The proposed species management program (Section 15.8.5) will be implemented in the unlikely event this species is identified prior to clearance.

15.6.6.8 Eastern Curlew

The eastern curlew was added to the EPBC Act threatened species listing in May 2015 as critically endangered. The species was listed as a migratory species at the time the controlled action decision was made (referral decision of 11 September 2014) and therefore it has been assessed as a migratory species under the EPBC Act and a vulnerable species under the NC Act.

The species has a preference for sheltered coasts with large intertidal mudflats or sandflats which is a limiting factor of the Skardon River and absent within the Project area and Project footprint. Therefore the species may pass through on its migratory path, however it is unlikely to use the Project area as a staging area. This species is only found along the coast with the potential foraging and roosting areas identified in Figure 15-15. The Project area is located at least 3 km from the coast. The vegetation in the Project area is unlikely to support a population of this species and the Project is not expected to impact any available eastern curlew habitat.

!(

ML 6025

ML 40082 ML40069

NAMALETACREEK

SKARDON RIVER

NAMALETACREEK

NAMALETACREEK

605000 610000 61500086

8500

0

8685

000

8690

000

8690

000

8695

000

8695

000

8700

000

8700

000

Figure15-13

G:\CLIENTS\E-TO-M\Gulf Alumina\GIS\Maps\EIS\Ch15_TerrestrialEco\FIG_15_13_FalseWaterRat_Habitat_160310.mxd

Revision: R1



False Water RatPotential Habitat



!

!

!

!

Queensland

CAIRNS

BRISBANE

TOWNSVILLE

ROCKHAMPTON

±

No warranty is given in relation to the data (including accuracy, reliability, completeness or suitability) and accept no liability (including without limitation, liability in negligence) for any loss, damage or costs (including consequential damage) relating to any use of or reliance upon the data. Data must not be used for direct marketing or be used in breach of privacy laws. Tenures © Geos Mining (2015). State Boundaries and Towns © Geoscience Australia (2006). Watercourses © Geoscience Australia. Imagery sourced from Gulf Alumina. False Water Rat Potential Habitat supplied by RPS.




False Water Rat Habitat

!(

ML 6025

ML 40082 ML40069

NAMALETACREEK

SKARDON RIVER

NAMALETACREEK

NAMALETACREEK

605000 610000 61500086

8500

0

8685

000

8690

000

8690

000

8695

000

8695

000

8700

000

8700

000

Figure15-14

G:\CLIENTS\E-TO-M\Gulf Alumina\GIS\Maps\EIS\Ch15_TerrestrialEco\FIG_15_14_BlackFootedTreeRat_Habitat_160310.mxd

Revision: R1



Black-footed Tree RatPotential Habitat



!

!

!

!

Queensland

CAIRNS

BRISBANE

TOWNSVILLE

ROCKHAMPTON

±

No warranty is given in relation to the data (including accuracy, reliability, completeness or suitability) and accept no liability (including without limitation, liability in negligence) for any loss, damage or costs (including consequential damage) relating to any use of or reliance upon the data. Data must not be used for direct marketing or be used in breach of privacy laws. Tenures © Geos Mining (2015). State Boundaries and Towns © Geoscience Australia (2006). Watercourses © Geoscience Australia. Imagery sourced from Gulf Alumina. Black-footed Tree Rat Habitat supplied by RPS.




Black-footed Tree Rat Habitat

!(

ML 6025

ML 40082 ML40069

NAMALETACREEK

SKARDON RIVER

NAMALETACREEK

NAMALETACREEK

605000 610000 61500086

8500

0

8685

000

8690

000

8690

000

8695

000

8695

000

8700

000

8700

000

Figure15-14

G:\CLIENTS\E-TO-M\Gulf Alumina\GIS\Maps\EIS\Ch15_TerrestrialEco\FIG_15_14_BlackFootedTreeRat_Habitat_160310.mxd

Revision: R1



Black-footed Tree RatPotential Habitat



!

!

!

!

Queensland

CAIRNS

BRISBANE

TOWNSVILLE

ROCKHAMPTON

±

No warranty is given in relation to the data (including accuracy, reliability, completeness or suitability) and accept no liability (including without limitation, liability in negligence) for any loss, damage or costs (including consequential damage) relating to any use of or reliance upon the data. Data must not be used for direct marketing or be used in breach of privacy laws. Tenures © Geos Mining (2015). State Boundaries and Towns © Geoscience Australia (2006). Watercourses © Geoscience Australia. Imagery sourced from Gulf Alumina. Black-footed Tree Rat Habitat supplied by RPS.




Black-footed Tree Rat Habitat


Page 15-41

15.6.7 Likelihood of Occurrence – Listed Threatened Fauna Species

Table 15-7 describes the likelihood of occurrence of the listed threatened species identified above. Species that are considered unlikely to occur are not considered to be at risk of significant impacts from the Project and are not further assessed.


Page 15-42

Table 15-7 Likelihood of Occurrence of EPBC Act and NC Act Listed Threatened Fauna Species

Name EPBC Status NCA Status Habitat Preference Likelihood of Occurrence

BIRDS


Vulnerable Endangered The Red Goshawk occurs in coastal and sub-coastal areas of tropical and warm temperate Australia. The species prefers wooded and forested lands with a mosaic of vegetation types and densities e.g. ecotones between rainforest and eucalypt forest, gallery forest and woodland, woodland and grassland, cleared land, roads or watercourses. The Red Goshawk nests in large, often emergent trees. The present Cape York population is estimated at 60-70 breeding pairs and preliminary estimates of the home range for the species are 120km2 for females and 200km2.

Possible. Recent records from near Musgrave approximately 350 km to the SE in 2011. Suitable nesting and foraging habitat confirmed to occur on the Project area. Targeted surveys in 2014 and generic fauna surveys in 2010 and 2015 did not confirm presence of the species or distinctive large stick nests on the Project area.


Endangered Endangered Open, wet or dry tropical savannah woodlands with an upper stratum dominated by Melaleuca spp. or Eucalyptus spp. and a lower stratum dominated by Schizachyrium spp., Thaumastachloa spp., Plume Sorghum (Sorghum plumosum) and Eriachne burkittii. There is a single historical record from mangroves. Grass seed availability and frequent fire are necessary for the survival of the species.

Unlikely. Only recent records are from Artemis Station Iron Range 350km east and Staaten River National Park (600km south). The Project area does not contain preferential habitat for the species and has not been known to inhabit the west or northern Cape York Peninsula.


Vulnerable Vulnerable This species is distributed throughout tropical northern Australia. In Queensland, it occurs from Townsville, north, almost to the tip of Cape York. The species occupies mostly coastal and upland areas, potentially as far inland as the Barkly Tableland. This species occupies sclerophyll forest and woodland, regularly near ecotones or

Possible: There are no recent records from western Cape York. The species has not been recorded on the Weipa Plateau despite extensive recent surveys associated with Rio Tinto’s South of Embley project. The Action Plan for Australian Birds (Garnett et al., 2011) species account shows a single record occurring near


Page 15-43


where within mosaic vegetation of various structures. This species roosts within tree-hollows, caves and dense foliage. The species has been recorded in riparian forest, rainforest, open forest, Melaleuca swamps and the edges of mangroves, as well as along the margins of sugar cane fields.

Aurukun. Targeted call playback surveys did not confirm presence of the species during wet season surveys in 2015. There is a very small possibility that individuals may be located on site as it is within the known range of the species and suitable habitat exists.

Palm Cockatoo (Probosciger terrimus)

Not Listed Near Threatened

This species is found in Australia and New Guinea (Indonesia and Papua New Guinea). In Australia, subspecies macgillivrayi is confined to the northern Cape York Peninsula, from Pormpuraaw on the west coast to Princess Charlotte Bay on the east. The palm cockatoo (Australian) inhabits closed forest and riparian systems, however the subspecies attains the highest densities in open woodlands adjacent to closed forest dominated by Corymbia spp. and Eucalytpus spp. and has significantly lower densities in the closed forests themselves.

Confirmed: Palm cockatoos were recorded within the fringing woodland immediately to the north of Namaleta Creek at several locations. The largest flock size recorded consisted of three individuals and was recorded in fringing woodland directly adjacent and to the north of Namaleta Creek. All palm cockatoo sightings during the survey period were restricted to this habitat. However, previous surveys detected palm cockatoos occurring in Eucalyptus tetrodonta woodland in the northern section of the Project area.

Eastern Curlew (Numenius madagascariensis)

Not Listed at time of controlled action decision (Sep 2014). Critically Endangered from May 2015.

Vulnerable Occurs in estuaries, tidal mudflats saltmarshes, mangroves, occasionally fresh or brackish lakes, bare grasslands near water.

Possible: This species was not recorded during any of the survey periods on the Project site. There are no recent records within 25 km of the site. It is highly unlikely to occur within the mine development area due to the lack of appropriate habitat. It may occur along the banks of the Skardon River and along the coast to the west of the site.


Not Listed Vulnerable Beach stone-curlews are found exclusively along the coast, on a wide range of beaches, islands,

Confirmed: A single individual recorded on the northern bank of the Skardon River ~ 1 km


Page 15-44


reefs and in estuaries, and may often be seen at the edges of or near mangroves. They forage in the intertidal zone of beaches and estuaries, on islands, flats, banks and spits of sand, mud, gravel or rock, and among mangroves.

upstream from the mouth in Sep 2014 during the targeted threatened species survey. The species was not confirmed within 3 km of the site and there are expected to be no impacts from the site development or barge movements on the population of this species.



The radjah shelduck inhabits mangrove flats and Melaleuca swamps of coastal tropical Australia. The species prefers brackish waters but will visit freshwater swamps and lagoons further inland during the wet season.

Confirmed: Recorded on exposed mudflats on the Skardon River estuary (downstream from the Project area). The species was not confirmed within 3 km of the site and there are expected to be no impacts from the site development or barge movements on the population of this species. Any potential habitat areas that are available in the area are outside the Project footprint or are within the protected buffer zones along the Namaleta Creek system.

MAMMALS


Endangered Endangered The Northern Quoll is known to occur as far south as Gracemere and Mt Morgan, south of Rockhampton, and until recently as far north as Cooktown. New records have seen a range extension across the Cape. Populations are disjunct and core populations are centred in rocky and/or high rainfall areas including but not restricted to, upland rocky areas including Cape Cleveland, Mount Elliott, Mareeba, Crediton, Eungella and Clarke Range. The species occupies a diversity of habitats including rocky areas, eucalypt forest and woodlands, rainforests, sandy lowlands and beaches, shrubland, grasslands and desert. However, habitat

Possible: Recent records from Scherger Air Base (~80 km SSW of Project site) in 2014 and Stone Crossing on the Wenlock River (~60 km S of Project site) in 2010. Potentially suitable denning and foraging habitat confirmed to occur on the Project area. Targeted surveys in 2014 and generic fauna surveys in 2010 and 2015 did not confirm presence of the species.


Page 15-45


generally encompasses some form of rocky area for denning purposes with surrounding vegetated habitats used for foraging and dispersal. Habitats usually have a high structural diversity containing large diameter trees, termite mounds or hollow logs for denning purposes.


Vulnerable Vulnerable Forages in rainforest and tall open forests adjoining rainforest habitats, and in tropical woodland and savannah habitats. Typically roosts within 6.5 km of rainforest habitats.

Possible. Recent (2007) records from gallery rainforest along the Wenlock River on Piccaninny Plains. Potentially suitable roosting and foraging habitat confirmed to occur on the Project area (roosting habitat not in Project footprint). Targeted surveys in 2014 and generic fauna surveys in 2010 and 2015 did not confirm presence of the species or roost sites.


Critically Endangered

Endangered Occurs mostly in lowland areas, typically in a range of woodland, forest and open environments such as E. tetradonta and E platyphylla, the species forages above the canopy and along the edges of woodland however little is known about its habitat preference and biology.

Possible: Suitable foraging and roosting habitat occurs on the Project area; however no confirmed records from the western Cape York. The nearest confirmed record is from the Iron Range ~ 130 km SE of the Project area. Targeted surveys in 2014 and generic fauna surveys in 2010 and 2015 did not confirm presence of the species. AMEC (2015) (refer Section 15.13.1) identified a possible call on adjacent woodland site however this was not considered a positive identification as per AMEC’s report.


Vulnerable Vulnerable Mangroves and the associated saltmarsh, sedgelands, clay pans, heathlands and freshwater wetlands. It is currently only known from three isolated populations, one in the Northern territory, one in central Queensland

Possible: Potentially suitable habitat (saltmarsh, sedgelands and freshwater wetland areas) confirmed to occur on the site. However, unsuitable habitat at the Port area for nesting due to a lack of ecotone from mangrove to


Page 15-46


and one in south-east Queensland. Core habitat includes heath and sedge along mangrove ecotones for nesting and foraging.

woodland. Surveys in 2010 confirmed an absence of nests in the Port area. No confirmed records of the species from the Cape York Bioregion.

The false water rate is also described in Chapter 18, which concludes that it is highly unlikely to occur in the Port area.

Black–footed Tree Rat (north Queensland)

(Mesebriomys gouldii rattoides)

Vulnerable Not Listed Known to occur in Eucalypt forests and woodlands with denning preferences for tree hollows and occasionally Pandanus and other dense foliage. Limited information is available on this sub-species however it is known to be arboreal and forage on the ground for fruits and seeds, some invertebrates and grasses.

Possible: Distribution is poorly known however the few records of the species have been limited to Brooklyn Sanctuary (~200 east), and Mareeba (~650km SE). It has the potential to occur in tall Eucalyptus tetrodonta woodlands across the Project area however research suggests that populations are naturally very low abundance therefore difficult to detect through survey.


Not Listed Vulnerable Prefers dry open forest, vine scrub, tall forest and rainforest. In rainforest, forages in clearings and along watercourses. Often flies close to the ground. Survival is critically dependent on finding natural roosts in caves, crevices, deep overhangs, and artificial roosts such as abandoned mines.

Unlikely: While the Project area contains suitable foraging habitat for this species, it lacks the roosting habitat required by the ghost bat (large caves, mines or deep rock fissures). Targeted surveys in 2014 and generic fauna surveys in 2010 and 2015 did not confirm presence of the species.



Occurs in open woodlands habitat with preference for sclerophyll woodlands. Forages above the canopy and in clearings. A paucity of records on the species has provided the near threatened status although recent research has indicated that the species has a greater distribution across Cape York than previously recorded.

Confirmed: This species was identified during wet season surveys in 2015 across the Project area.


Page 15-47




Very little is known of its ecology and habits, however, the species is believed to prefer stringybark woodlands on red earth soils of the laterite-bauxite plateau, where canopy species include Erythrophleum chlorostachys and Eucalyptus nesophylla, with an understorey of Parinari nonda, Planchonia careyi, Grevillea parallela and Acacia rothiawith. It is possibly distributed from Townsville to the tip of Cape York Peninsula.

Possible: This small carnivorous marsupial species has been previously collected at Mapoon in 1980. It has the potential to occur in tall Eucalyptus tetrodonta woodlands across the Project area however research suggests that populations are naturally in low abundance.


Page 15-48

15.6.8 Listed Migratory Species

The Project area sits within the East Asian-Australasian Flyway, which is the migratory pathway of shorebirds from Asia through Australia. Intertidal flats on the Skardon River were minimal with limited areas available to waders. Small aggregations were evidenced however there were no staging areas identified during surveys.

Wetland habitat loss and degradation have been identified as the most significant threat to migratory waterbirds, with pressures (particularly in developing countries) along their migratory route to develop coastal areas for increasing population leaving few areas remaining to conserve.

As a result the majority of these birds are listed on international agreements and conventions including the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory species of Wild Animals (Bonn Convention), Japan- Australia Migratory Bird Agreement (JAMBA), the China-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement (CAMBA), and Republic of Korea-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement (ROKAMBA). Table 15-8 provides further details.

A total of 16 listed migratory terrestrial fauna species were returned from the EPBC Act Search generated in September 2015 for the area comprising a 25 km buffer around the centroid of the mining leases. The likelihood of occurrence of all 16 species is described in Table 15-8. Species that are considered unlikely to occur or possible are not considered to be at risk of significant impacts from the Project and are not further assessed.

Three species were assessed as being unlikely, six species as possible, one species as high and six species were confirmed.

Migratory marine species, including the estuarine crocodile, are described in Chapter 18. Additional information on migratory shorebirds is provided in Chapter 18.


Page 15-49

Table 15-8 Likelihood of Occurrence of MNES Listed Migratory Species

Scientific Name

Common Name

Status EPBC Act Status NC Act

Habitat preference Likelihood of Occurrence

Sterna albifrons

Little Tern Migratory Marine; Marine (Bonn, CAMBA, JAMBA, ROKAMBA)

Least Concern

This species occurs along sheltered coastal environments of lagoons estuaries river mouths and deltas particularly those with sand spits and exposed ocean beaches.

Confirmed: This species has been confirmed within 5 km of the Project area (AMEC, 2015). However the Project area does not contain habitat suitable for breeding or foraging.

Apus pacificus

Fork-tailed Swift

Migratory Marine; Marine (CAMBA, JAMBA, ROKAMBA)

Least Concern

This species is a non-breeding visitor to all states and territories of Australia. In Queensland, the species is widespread west of the Great Dividing Range and also east of the range between Cooktown and Townsville. There are scattered records in the Gulf Country, Cape York Peninsula, the Central Coast, and the south east. Fork-tailed swift are almost exclusively aerial between 30m and 300m or greater.

Possible: Database searches did not retrieve any confirmed records of this species within 25km of the Project area but the Project area is within this species’ distribution range. The exclusively aerial lifestyle of this species ensures that it is not restricted to particular habitat types and therefore may occur almost anywhere. Marginal habitat occurs surrounding the Project area, which would support the species. There are no significant threats to the species in Australia and the potential impacts are expected to be negligible due to its wide range. There are no recovery or conservation plans for this species, however the Project will manage potential impacts under a Species Management Program.

Fregata ariel

Lesser Frigatebird

Migratory Marine; Marine

(CAMBA, JAMBA, ROKAMBA)

Special Least Concern

The Lesser Frigatebird breeds on small, remote tropical and sub-tropical islands, in mangroves or bushes, and even on bare ground. It feeds mainly on fish (especially flying-fish) and squid, but also on seabird eggs and chicks, carrion and fish scraps.

Confirmed: This species has been recorded at the Skardon river mouth in September 2015. This species is a marine specialist. Therefore, the Project area is unlikely to support a population of this species and will only utilise the Project area as a flyover.


Page 15-50

Scientific Name

Common Name



Ardea alba Eastern Great Egret

Migratory Wetlands; Marine

(JAMBA – as Egretta alba)


This species occurs along the shallows of rivers, estuaries, tidal mudflats, freshwater wetlands, irrigation areas and larger dams.

Confirmed: The species was confirmed at Bigfoot Swamp adjacent to the Project area in September 2015 Marginal habitat for this species occurs in proximity to the Project area (e.g. wetlands). The Project area itself presents limited suitable habitat for this species.

Ardea ibis Cattle Egret Migratory Wetlands; Marine

(JAMBA as Bubulcus ibis)

Least Concern

This species occurs in stock paddocks, croplands, pastures, garbage tips, wetlands, tidal mudflats and drains. This species often accompanies cattle and will catch prey items disturbed from cattle movements.

Confirmed: The species was confirmed at Bigfoot Swamp adjacent to the Project area in September 2015. Marginal habitat for this species occurs in proximity to the Project area (e.g. wetlands). The Project area itself presents limited suitable habitat for this species.

Pandion cristatus

Eastern Osprey

Migratory Wetlands; Marine

(Bonn)


Eastern Ospreys occur in littoral and coastal habitats and terrestrial wetlands of tropical and temperate Australia and offshore islands. They are mostly found in coastal areas but occasionally travel inland along major rivers, particularly in northern Australia. They require extensive areas of open fresh, brackish or saline water for foraging. They frequent a variety of wetland habitats including inshore waters, reefs, bays, coastal cliffs, beaches, estuaries, mangrove swamps, broad rivers, reservoirs and large lakes and waterholes.

Possible: High quality habitat for this species includes all shallow, freshwater wetlands including floodplain areas which are not available in the Project area, however marine and saline wetlands are also considered to provide potential habitat. Suitable habitat for this species is prevalent within the broader landscape.

Gallinago hardwickii

Latham's Snipe

Migratory Wetlands;

Marine

Least Concern

This species prefers soft, wet ground or shallow water with tussocks or other green or dead growth, samphire on saltmarshes and mangrove fringes. It also favours wet parts of paddocks, seepage below dams,

Unlikely: Database searches did not retrieve any confirmed records of this species within 10km of the Project area. However, the Project area is within its distribution range and suitable habitat provides marginal habitat for this species. The


Page 15-51

Scientific Name

Common Name



(BONN, JAMBA, ROKAMBA)

irrigated areas, scrub or open woodland from sea level to alpine bogs over 2000m. It travels through northern Australia to reach non-breeding grounds in south-eastern Australia.

Project area itself does not provide suitable habitat and its habitat requirements are specific, therefore utilisation of the area would be the Skardon river mouth and saltmarshes located to the northwest of the site. Non-specific use of the Project area would be as fly over to southern sites. No aspect of the Project footprint is within habitat suitable for breeding foraging or roosting of this species.

Hirundo rustica

Barn Swallow

Migratory Terrestrial;

Marine

(CAMBA, JAMBA, ROKAMBA)

Least Concern

The species usually occurs in coastal and sub-coastal northern Australia. They forage in open country coastal lowlands and roost near this habitat in freshwater wetlands, Melaleuca woodland, mesophyll shrub thickets and tussock grassland. The Asian subspecies overwinters in India, southeast Asia and Indonesia with fewer individuals overwintering in Papua New Guinea and Australia and are normally observed in Australia between November and March.

High: The Project area occurs within the distribution range of the species and suitable habitat is present on the Project area. This species is likely to occupy the airspace above the Project area.

Merops ornatus

Rainbow Bee-eater


Marine

(JAMBA)


The Rainbow Bee-eater occurs across most of mainland Australia and occupies a vast array of habitats including open woodlands, shrublands, farmland, parks and gardens, coastal and inland dune systems, mangrove forests and rainforest generally in the vicinity of permanent water. Populations that breed in southern Australia are migratory and move north over winter (April-October). However,

Confirmed: The Project area occurs within the distribution range of the species and the species is commonly recorded locally and regionally. Due to the broad range of habitats used by the species, the entire Project area could be considered suitable habitat. However, it should be noted that the Project area does not contain suitable nesting habitat for this species.


Page 15-52

Scientific Name

Common Name



populations that breed in northern Australia are considered to be resident and do not undertake migration.

Monarcha melanopsis

Black-faced Monarch


Marine

(Bonn)


This species is widespread in Eastern Australia from the tip of Cape York to southern Victoria. In Queensland, they are most regularly recorded on the eastern slopes of the Great Dividing Range. The species displays a preference for rainforests including tropical, subtropical, and temperate rainforest, monsoon rainforest, vine thicket and vine forest, but also dry sclerophyll woodlands, Brigalow scrub, coastal scrub and mangroves. They are known to occupy more open habitats during migration. The species migrates north along the east coast of Australia and a large proportion overwinter in Papua New Guinea from March to August.

Possible: Database searches did not return any records of this species occurring within 25km of the Project area. The species is known to occasionally occur in E. tetradonta woodland. The Project area is within the known distribution range of the species and there is marginal habitat present on the Project area.

Monarcha trivirgatus

Spectacled Monarch


Marine

(Bonn)


The Spectacled Monarch is found throughout coastal north-eastern and eastern Australia and coastal islands, from the northernmost point of Cape York (Qld) to Port Stephens (NSW). The species inhabits the understorey of mountain and lowland rainforests, thickly wooded gullies and mangroves. The Spectacled Monarch is a summer breeding migrant to southeast Queensland and northeast N.S.W.

Possible: Database searches did not return any records of this species occurring within 25km of the Project area. While the Project area is within the known distribution range of the species and there is marginal habitat present on the Project area. The species is unlikely to occur within the Project area.


Page 15-53

Scientific Name

Common Name



Myiagra cyanoleuca

Satin Flycatcher


Marine

(Bonn)

Least Concern

The Satin Flycatcher is widespread in eastern and south-eastern Australia. It has a broad, but scattered coastal distribution which is especially patchy in Cape York but common and widespread in the south-east Qld. The species inhabits heavily vegetated gullies in eucalypt-dominated forests and taller woodlands. Whilst migrating, they occur in a broader range of habitats including coastal forests, woodlands, mangroves and trees in open country and gardens.

Possible: Database searches did not return any records of this species occurring within 25km of the site. There are records for Cape York however migration of populations typically follows the Great Dividing Range (i.e. well east of the Project area). It was not confirmed on site during wet or dry season investigations. Marginal habitat occurs within the Project area. There is a possible likelihood of the Satin Flycatcher occurring in the fringes of the Project area due to availability of suitable habitat in these areas, namely Namaleta Creek and Lunette Swamp; however it is unlikely to occur across the majority of the Project area due to the lack of suitable habitat. Threats to the species are clearing and logging of breeding habitat in forests in south-eastern Australia. There are no recovery or conservation plans for this species, however the Project will manage potential impacts under a Species Management Program.

Rhipidura rufifrons

Rufous Fantail


Marine

(Bonn)


Rufous fantail occurs in coastal and subcoastal areas of northern and eastern Australia. This species occupies wet sclerophyll forests usually with a dense shrubby understorey, secondary regrowth in forests or rainforests. They occasionally use dry sclerophyll forests or woodlands with a shrubby or heath understorey during migration. In north and north-east Australia, they often occur in tropical rainforest and monsoon rainforests,

Confirmed: This species has been recorded within 25km of the Project area and there is some suitable habitat present on the Project area. The adjacent wetland habitat is likely to support a population of this species and the Project area provides suitable foraging plants.


Page 15-54

Scientific Name

Common Name



including semi-evergreen mesophyll vine forests, semi-deciduous vine thickets or thickets of Paperbarks.

Cecropis daurica

Red-rumped Swallow

Migratory;

Terrestrial

(CAMBA, ROKAMBA)

Least Concern

The species is vagrant to Australia outside its breeding range and are typically found around grasslands where they forage for insects while airborne. The species breeds in open hills across southern Europe and Asia.

Unlikely: This species has not been recorded within 25km of the site and there is limited foraging habitat available. E. tetrodonta woodlands, and the mangrove, sedgeland habitats do not provide sufficient open habitats across the Project area for this species to inhabit as more than a passing visitor.

Cuculus optatus

Oriental Cuckoo

Migratory;

Terrestrial

(CAMBA)


The species has a large breeding range in Eurasia however it overwinters as far south as Australia and occasionally New Zealand. The species is insectivorous and occurs in mixed, deciduous and coniferous forests at all levels of forest canopy.

Possible: This species has not been recorded within 25km of the site however there is suitable habitat present on the site. As the species secretive it would prove difficult to determine occupancy on the site.

Limosa lapponica

Bar-tailed Godwit

Migratory;

Marine

(Bonn, CAMBA, JAMBA, ROKAMBA).

Least Concern

A large non breeding population of the species occurs around Australia along the East Asian- Australasian Flyway. Its habitat is mainly coastal sandflats, mudflats, estuaries, lagoons, etc. The species forages in tidal estuaries and shallow water preferring to roost in sandy beaches and sandbars.

Unlikely; The species has not been recorded in the area and there is no suitable habitat in the vicinity of the site. The closest suitable habitat is at the mouth of the Skardon River however there is limited open sand and mudflat habitats available to the species within that area. Within the Project area there are limited areas where individuals could roost or forage therefore the Project area would be characterised as flyover only.


Page 15-55

15.6.9 All Species

This section provides a summary of all species that were identified during field surveys or that may occur in the Project area based on desktop review, including listed threatened and listed migratory species. Further information is provided in Appendix 5.

A total of only 52 bird species were recorded across the entire Project area and immediately adjacent marine and estuarine areas during the wet season (February 2015) and 36 during the dry season survey of June 2010. The total number of birds surveyed on site was 66 species. A further 255 bird species are considered as probably occurring on or immediately adjacent to the Project area on the basis of their currently known distribution range and the presence of potential suitable habitats. Of these bird species, the listed threatened and migratory bird species are described above.

A total of 22 species of reptile (one crocodilian, 11 skinks, 6 geckos, one dragon, one monitor and two snakes) and 14 species of amphibians were recorded during surveys. An additional 11 amphibians and 53 reptiles are considered as probably occurring on or immediately adjacent to the Project area on the basis of their currently known distribution range and the presence of potential suitable habitats. A further one species of amphibian and three reptile species are considered to have a lower possibility of occurring on the Project area due to the area being on the edge of their known or predicted distribution and/or a limited extent of suitable habitat within or immediately adjacent to the Project area. None of these herpetofauna species potentially occurring on or immediately adjacent to the Project area are listed as threatened species under the EPBC Act or NC Act, other than the estuarine crocodile.

A total of 15 species of mammal were recorded across the Project area during the dry season, wet season and targeted fauna surveys. A further 35 mammal species are considered to probably occur on or immediately adjacent to the Project area on the basis of their known or predicted distribution and the presence of suitable habitats. Of these mammal species, the listed threatened and migratory mammal species are described above.

15.6.10 Bats

A total of nine species of microchiropteran bats were positively identified from Anabat echolocation call recording or harp trapping surveys of the site, and a further two species were unable to identified to species level with full confidence, as shown in Table 15-9. Two species of megachiropteran bat, Pteropus scapulatus (Little Red Flying Fox) and Pteropus alecto (Black Flying-fox) were identified foraging on the site.

A single species of the Papuan sheathtail bat (S. mixtus) was confirmed to occur within and immediately adjacent to the Project area based on ultrasonic call detection. The Papuan sheathtail bat was recorded within all of the Broad Vegetation Groups that were surveyed.

Table 15-9 Identified Bat Species

Bat Species Common Name

Megachiropteran

Pteropus scapulatus Little Red Flying Fox

Pteropus alecto Black Flying-fox

Microchiropteran

Chalinolobus nigrogriseus Hoary Wattled Bat

Chaerephon jobensis Great Northern Freetail Bat


Page 15-56

Bat Species Common Name

Pipistrellus adamsi Forest Pipistrelle

Scotorepens sanborni Northern Broad-nosed Bat

Miniopterus orianae oceanensis Common Bentwing Bat

Miniopterus australis Little Bentwing Bat

Mormopterus beccarii Beccari’s Freetail bat

Saccolaimus flaviventris Yellow -bellied Sheathtail Bat

Saccolaimus mixtus Papuan Sheathtail Bat (Near threatened, NC Act)

Unconfirmed identification

P. adamsi or M. o. oceanensis Forest Pipistrelle /Eastern Bent-wing

Nyctophilus bifax or Myotis macropus Eastern long-eared Bat/Large footed Myotis

The bat call analysis in 2010 recorded the presence of 179 calls potentially belonging to either S. saccolaimus or S. mixtus. However more recent surveys using full-spectrum, SM2+BAT Song Meters has confirmed that the calls were likely to be the Papuan sheathtail bat, which has now been positively identified on site. In 2014 there was progress in the identification of S. saccolaimus calls. Researchers now believe they can reliably identify the calls of this species from that of other species. Saccoliamus mixtus was positively identified from a large number of calls that exhibited clear harmonics, from data obtained on the Project site during the wet season surveys.

15.6.10.1 Bat Roost at the Dry Plant

A bat roost in infrastructure at the dry plant was identified in August 2015. A survey by a suitably qualified ecologist of the bat roost at the dry plant will be undertaken to identify the species prior to decommissioning. As there is uncertainty at this stage about the species of bat(s) in the roost, the infrastructure where bats are roosting will be retained. This infrastructure will not be decommissioned until the bat species are identified and species management programs developed, approvals obtained and / or offsets provided, as required, depending on the conservation status of the bats. If the species is a threatened listed species (State or Commonwealth), consideration will be given to permanent retention of the infrastructure where the species is roosting, retaining but moving the infrastructure to another location or providing a suitable alternative roost location. All actions will be undertaken in accordance with State and Commonwealth legislation.

15.6.11 Species Habitat

Most of the woodland to open forest vegetation communities within the Project area, which comprise the majority of the proposed mining area, contained a grassy understorey dominated by native grasses providing suitable habitat for a number of terrestrial mammals, including macropods, bandicoots and a range of small mammal species. There was sufficient forest debris, in the form of hollow logs, fallen timber, litter and decaying termite mounds, to provide foraging opportunities and shelter for small mammals and reptiles. The relatively sparse shrub layer generally contained sufficient structural diversity to provide foraging opportunities for a range of common woodland bird species and reptiles.

Swamp vegetation around Lunette Swamp and other wetlands contained species which would provide foraging resources for nectivorous birds and mammals during flowering. The dampness of these habitats also provides suitable habitat for a range of common reptile and amphibian species.


Page 15-57

Canopy tree species and understorey shrubs would provide abundant foraging resources such as foliage, seeds, pollen, nectar and invertebrates for a range of faunal guilds, including arboreal mammals, bats and birds on a seasonal basis. However, a general paucity of large hollows throughout the Eucalyptus tetrodonta woodlands, which comprise greater than 95% of the Project footprint, places constraints upon breeding opportunities for a number of larger, hollow-dependent species, such as forest owls, cockatoos, including the palm cockatoo, and possums.

Open woodlands, forests, wetlands and riparian communities across the Project area provide foraging opportunities for a range of microchiropteran bats that occur within the locality. Although the vegetation communities within the Project area generally exhibit a low density of hollow-bearing trees, there are sufficient microhabitats present to provide roosting and nesting habitat for a diversity of microchiropteran bat species.

15.6.12 Pests

Pigs (Sus scrofa) are present throughout the region. Damage caused by this feral animal is evident as localised excavations of the ground layer. This disturbance is not limited to patches of ‘swampy’ soils or wetlands, and in some instances, is found in Eucalyptus tetrodonta woodland in relatively dry soils. The scale of this disturbance was observed to be comparatively minor.

Cattle are also present on the leases, but their disturbance to remnant vegetation appears to be limited to the edges adjacent to built infrastructure.

Dingo/wild dog (Canis lupus familiaris or C. l. dingo) were also recorded during surveys.

Two introduced herpetofaunal species were recorded during the survey:

Cane Toad (Rhinella marinus) – the species was ubiquitous throughout the project site;

Asian House Gecko (Hemidactylus frenatus)

15.6.13 Connectivity

A transition in vegetation from Eucalyptus woodland to coastal forests, woodland and wetlands occurs to the west of the Project area, and contiguous native vegetation exists to the east of the Project area. This native vegetation is unbroken with the exception of occasional minor access tracks, providing habitat linkages throughout and surrounding the Project area.

The primary routes for movement of wildlife are via the Skardon River South Arm and through the vegetated corridor of Namaleta Creek. The mangrove and wetland vegetation along the Skardon River South Arm affords a fireproof refuge through which fauna can traverse in a broad, north-south direction, leading finally to the main sub-estuarine environment of the Skardon River.

The Namaleta Creek corridor affords comparable habitat conditions and resource opportunities to the Skardon River South Arm, with the distinction of being formed by sclerophyllous vegetation. The riparian and perennial aquatic environment of Namaleta Creek holds very high ecological values.

Both the Skardon River South Arm and Namaleta Creek vegetation corridors will not be directly impacted by the Project, allowing for ongoing connectivity and refugial habitat in the Project area.

On ML 40082 a broad woodland corridor showing a slightly darker signature on aerial photographs is differentiated on the ground by a denser sub-canopy and understorey composition of Livistona muelleri cabbage palms forming groves where the soil moisture status is higher. Characteristics of this community are its denser woodland to open forest structure, greater diversity of structural layers (i.e. third tree layer and continuous gradation of shrub layer into upper strata), and a denser and occasionally taller grass layer. This vegetation area approximately follows a broad east-west drainage pattern from the circular patch of RE 3.3.50 (Melaleuca viridiflora woodland with Corymbia novoguinensis) on the western side of the haul road in ML40082 and eventually into the Skardon River South Arm. This wide band of vegetation


Page 15-58

is outside of the proposed mining areas and will serve the purpose of connecting the Skardon River South Arm with Bigfoot Swamp and the wetland complex associated with inland dune systems west of the Project area.

Lunette Swamp partially lies within ML 6025 in a narrow section of the mining lease. No mining will occur in this area, allowing for connectivity between Lunette Swamp, wetland complexes to the west of the Project area and the headwaters of Namaleta Creek.

In addition, sequential mining and progressive rehabilitation of mined areas will not result in all mining areas being disturbed or unrehabilitated at any one time, thereby affording additional opportunity for connectivity within the landscape.

Areas of connectivity within the mined landscape are shown in Figure 15-16.

!(

ML40069

ML 6025

ML 40082

Port ofSkardon River

Skardon River

NamaletaCreek

Camp Area

Haul

Road

605000 610000 615000 62000086

8500

0

8685

000

8690

000

8690

000

8695

000

8695

000

8700

000

8700

000

8705

000

8705

000

Figure15-16

LegendMining Lease Boundaries

!( Port of Skardon RiverExisting Disturbance FootprintPort Infrastructure AreaSouthern Haul Road

Areas of ConnectivityPit Number

1234

56789

101112131415 G:\CLIENTS\E-TO-M\Gulf Alumina\GIS\Maps\EIS\Ch15_TerrestrialEco\FIG_15_16_Connectivity_160310.mxd

Revision: R1



Areas of Connectivity



!

!

!

!

Queensland

CAIRNS

BRISBANE

TOWNSVILLE

ROCKHAMPTON

±

No warranty is given in relation to the data (including accuracy, reliability, completeness or suitability) and accept no liability (including without limitation, liability in negligence) for any loss, damage or costs (including consequential damage) relating to any use of or reliance upon the data. Data must not be used for direct marketing or be used in breach of privacy laws.Imagery sourced from Gulf Alumina (2014). Tenures © Geos Mining (2015). State Boundaries and Towns © Geoscience Australia (2006).


Page 15-60

15.6.14 Fire in the Landscape

Fire events in the Project area, whether caused naturally or deliberately, are infrequent, with the last known fire occurring probably in 2006. The surrounding region is not purposely burnt on a regular basis, as is the case for the country around Mapoon and Weipa. Fires passing through the Project area do not appear to have a profound impact on the structural characteristics of the vegetation.

15.7 Potential Impacts

This section describes impacts on terrestrial ecosystems flora and fauna. Potential direct and indirect impacts on aquatic ecosystems (wetlands and watercourses) and aquatic flora and fauna are described in Chapter 16. Because terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems intergrade across the landscape, impacts relevant to both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems may be discussed in this section and / or in Chapter 16.

15.7.1 Project Footprint and Regional Ecosystems / Vegetation Map Units

The mapped Project footprint is based on geological studies of the resource area and avoidance of wetland and creek buffer zones.

Bauxite reserves are primarily restricted to land zone 5, but could potentially be found at the boundary of land zone 5 with land zone 2. Land zone 5 is associated with vegetation map units 1 and 6 (RE 3.5.2) - the Eucalyptus tetrodonta woodland associated with Corymbia nesophila and Corymbia novoguinensis found on the weathered bauxite plateau. Land zone 2 is associated with vegetation map unit 8 (RE 3.2.10c) and other REs not within the Project footprint. RE 3.2.10c is tall grassy woodland to open forest of Eucalyptus tetrodonta with Corymbia novoguinensis on sandy soils. There is also potential for limited bauxite reserves in vegetation map unit 2 (field mapped RE 3.5.22, State mapped RE 3.3.50/3.5.22) - tall grassy woodland of Corymbia novoguinensis

It is evident that there is a strong correlation between land zone, regional ecosystem, vegetation map units and the location of bauxite reserves. Bauxite reserves are not expected (nor have they been identified) in other land zones or ecosystems, particularly ecosystems or vegetation communities associated with wetlands.

The mapped Project footprint overlap with State mapped regional ecosystems is shown in Figure 15-17. Figure 15-18 shows the Project footprint overlap with State mapped REs in the southern portion of the Project (ML 6025) and Namaleta Creek). The area of footprint within each State mapped regional ecosystem is shown in Table 15-10. For comparative purposes only, the area of footprint within field mapped REs is also shown in Table 15-11.

The majority of the Project footprint (1,126 ha or 86%) occurs within RE 3.5.2. The proposed clearing of RE 3.5.2 represents approximately 0.0025% of state extent of this RE.

The Project footprint occurs within 105 ha of State mapped non-remnant vegetation, representing 8% of the Project footprint. State mapped non-remnant vegetation is associated with the former kaolin mine operations.

There is potential for mining to occur in some other State mapped regional ecosystems:

RE 3.2.10 (Eucalyptus tetrodonta, Corymbia clarksoniana woodland, vegetation unit 8) – 76 ha

RE 3.3.50 / 3.5.22 (vegetation unit 2) – 6 ha.

Clearing of the mapped area of RE 3.2.10 (unit 8) would constitute approximately 0.005% of the Queensland extent of this ecosystem.

Therefore, excluding non-remnant vegetation, 99.5% of vegetation clearance is with Eucalyptus tetrodonta woodland (RE 3.5.2 and RE 3.2.10).


Page 15-61

The crossing upgrade to Namaleta Creek and the crossing of Tributary 1 (mapped wetland between Pits 14 and 15) will result in approximately 1 ha of disturbance to State mapped RE 3.3.64 / 3.3.9.

All State mapped REs within the footprint are classified as least concern (LC) under the VM Act.

Table 15-10 State Mapped Regional Ecosystems in the Project Footprint

State Mapped RE Area to be cleared (ha) Area to be cleared (%)

3.2.10c 76 5.8%

3.3.50/3.5.22c 6 0.5%

3.3.64/3.3.9 1 0.1%

3.5.2 1,126 85.6%

non-remnant 105 8.0%

Total 1,314 100%

Table 15-11 Field Mapped Regional Ecosystems in Project Footprint

Map Unit No. Equivalent RE Area to be cleared (ha) Percentage

6 RE 3.5.2 (LC) 1,141 86.8%

1 RE 3.5.2 (LC) 91 6.9%

2 RE 3.5.22 (LC) 14 1.0%

4 NA – non remnant 35 2.7%

5a RE 3.3.49 (LC) 1 0.1%

5c RE 3.3.9 (LC) 0.1 0.0%

5d 3.3.12 (OC) 0.4 0.0%

7c 3.3.14/3.3.22 (LC) 0.4 0.0%

8 RE 3.2.10 (LC) 32 2.4%

9 RE 3.3.64 / 3.3.9 (LC) 0.2 0.0%

5 RE 3.1.1 / 3.1.3 (LC) 0.2 0.0%

Estimated Total Area of Vegetation Clearing 1,314 100%

!(

ML 6025

ML 40082 ML40069

NAMALETACREEK

SKARDON RIVER

NAMAL

ETACREE

K

3.3.49b/3.2.5a

3.3.60a/3.1.6

3.1.6

3.1.6

3.1.3/3.1.1a

3.3.14a/3.3.22a

3.3.50

3.3.14a/3.3.22a

3.3.53a

3.3.50

3.1.6

3.1.1a/3.1.3/3.1.6

3.3.49b/3.3.5a/3.3.60a

3.1.1a/3.1.3

3.2.2a/3.2.5a

3.1.6

3.1.6

3.3.50/3.5.22c

3.3.50/3.5.2

3.3.60a/3.5.7x2a

3.3.5a/3.3.12/3.3.49b

3.3.53a/3.2.3/3.2.5a

3.3.50/3.5.10x1

3.1.1a/3.1.3

3.3.49b

3.1.6

3.3.49b/3.3.9

3.3.49b/3.3.9

3.3.64/3.3.14a/3.3.12

3.5.10/3.7.3

estuary

3.5.2

3.5.2

3.5.2

3.5.2

3.2.5a/3.2.3/3.3.49b/3.2.10c

3.1.6/3.1.3

3.3.64/3.3.9

3.3.64/3.3.9

3.2.25/3.2.3/3.2.6a

3.5.4

3.3.64/3.3.9

3.1.6/3.3.60a

3.1.6/3.3.60a

3.1.6

3.2.5a/3.3.42b/3.2.3

3.5.23.5.2

3.2.10c

3.2.10c

estuary3.1.6

3.2.7a

3.2.25/3.2.5a/3.2.6a

3.2.2a

3.3.53a

3.2.2a

3.1.6

3.1.6

3.3.5a

3.1.1a/3.1.6/3.1.3

3.1.1a/3.1.6/3.1.3

3.1.6 3.2.10c

3.3.50

3.2.10c

3.2.10c

3.3.60a/3.1.6

3.1.6

3.3.64/3.3.9

3.3.64/3.3.9

ocean

Pit #14

Pit #15

61000086

9000

0

8690

000

8700

000

8700

000

Figure15-17

G:\CLIENTS\E-TO-M\Gulf Alumina\GIS\Maps\EIS\Ch15_TerrestrialEco\FIG_15_17_Project_FP_EHP_REs_160310.mxd

Revision: R1



Project Footprint and StateMapped Regional Ecosystems



!

!

!

!

Queensland

CAIRNS

BRISBANE

TOWNSVILLE

ROCKHAMPTON

±



Mining Lease BoundariesExisting Disturbance FootprintProject FootprintSouthern Haul RoadWatercourses

Wetland BufferVMA Regional Ecosystem (Version 8.0)VM Status


NAMALETA CREEK

3.1.1a/3.1.3/3.1.6

3.1.1a/3.1.3/3.1.63.5.2

3.5.2 3.5.2

3.5.2

3.5.2

3.5.2

3.3.64/3.3.9

3.3.64/3.3.9

3.1.6

3.3.64/3.3.9

Pit #14

Pit#15 1:20,000

ML 6025

NAMAL

ETACREE

K

3.3.64/3.3.22a

3.3.14a/3.3.22a

3.1.1a/3.1.3/3.1.6

3.1.1a/3.1.3/3.1.6

3.1.1a/3.1.3/3.1.6

3.3.49b/3.3.5a/3.3.60a

3.3.49b/3.3.5a/3.3.60a

3.3.50/3.5.22c

3.3.50/3.5.2

3.3.5a/3.3.12/3.3.49b

3.3.50/3.5.10x1

3.1.6

3.3.64/3.3.14a/3.3.12

3.3.64/3.3.14a/3.3.12

estuary

estuary

3.5.2

3.5.2

3.5.2

3.5.2

3.5.2

3.3.64/3.3.9

3.3.64/3.3.9

3.3.64/3.3.9

3.1.6

3.5.2

3.5.2

3.2.7a

3.1.6

3.2.10c

3.2.10c

3.3.60a/3.1.6

3.3.64/3.3.9

3.3.64/3.3.9

Pit #14

Pit #15

606000 608000 610000 61200086

8200

0

8682

000

8684

000

8684

000

8686

000

8686

000

8688

000

8688

000

8690

000

8690

000

Figure15-18

G:\CLIENTS\E-TO-M\Gulf Alumina\GIS\Maps\EIS\Ch15_TerrestrialEco\FIG_15_18_ML6025_Project_FP_EHP_REs_160310.mxd

Revision: R1



Footprint in State Mapped REs inML 6025 and Namaleta Creek

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000Meters


!

!

!

!

Queensland

CAIRNS

BRISBANE

TOWNSVILLE

ROCKHAMPTON

±



Mining Lease BoundariesExisting Disturbance FootprintProject FootprintHaul RoadCrossingWatercourses

Wetland BufferVMA Regional Ecosystem (Version 8.0)VM Status


Namaleta CreekCrossing

NAMALETACREEK

3.5.2

3.3.64/3.3.9

3.3.64/3.3.9

3.3.64/3.3.9

Pit #14

Pit#14

1:10,000


Page 15-64

15.7.2 Buffer Zones

In order to protect wetlands and wetland associated ecosystems from direct Project disturbance, the buffers zones listed in Table 15-12 have been proposed. Environmental buffer lines follow State mapped regional ecosystem types associated with wetlands, namely

RE 3.3.64 / 3.3.9 (Namaleta Creek and Tributary 1)

RE 3.1.1 / 3.1.3 (Skardon River)

RE 3.3.14 / 3.3.22 (Lunette Swamp)

Buffer zones shown in figures in the EIS show a buffer line following the relevant RE type. Some of these buffer lines are outside of Gulf Alumina’s mining leases and are shown in figures as they provide a view of the entire buffer line. Gulf recognises that where buffer zones are outside the mining lease boundary, then the mining lease boundary effectively becomes the buffer as the mining lease boundary is further away from the RE being buffered than the buffer distance (e.g. more than 100m away). In addition, Gulf Alumina recognises that buffers outside the mining lease boundary cannot be enforced or implemented and therefore only buffers within the mining lease boundary are proposed for inclusion in conditions of approval for the Project.

An effectively managed wetland buffer helps to maintain and protect the wetland itself, but also serves to maintain and protect ecological functions and processes and potentially significant species. A minimum 100 m buffer has been proposed for all RE types associated with wetlands. The 100 m buffer distance has been developed with consideration of buffer distances required for specific wetland environmental values and stressor stated in the Queensland Wetland Buffer Planning Guideline – March 2011 1 . Further information is provided in Appendix 6, justifying the selection of the buffer distances to protect environmental values in accordance with other published studies.

Table 15-12 Buffer Zones

Wetland State RE Proposed Buffer

Lunette Swamp RE 3.3.14/ 3.3.22

Will be protected from direct impacts by a buffer of at least 100m from mining activities.

Bigfoot Swamp RE 3.3.14/ 3.3.22

Not located on the mining lease and at least 500m from the nearest mining activity.

Namaleta Creek and Tributary 1

RE 3.3.64 /RE 3.3.9

Will be protected from direct impacts by a buffer of at least 100m from mining activities, except where the southern haul road crossing of Namaleta Creek and Tributary 1 will necessitate further clearing.

Supratidal wetlands to the west of the Skardon River South Arm

RE 3.1.1 / 3.1.3

Will be protected from direct impacts by a buffer of at least 100m from mining activities. The mining lease boundary will be the buffer line where boundary is greater than 100 m from RE 3.1.1 / 3.1.3.

Wetland complexes to the west and north of the Project area

Multiple REs

Will be protected from direct impacts by a separation of a least 500m from the mining activities.

1 DERM (2011) Queensland Wetland Definition and Delineation Guideline – Part A: A guide to existing wetland definitions and the application of the Queensland Wetlands Program definition, Department of Environment and Resource Management


Page 15-65

The only direct impact on wetlands and watercourses will be the upgraded crossing of Namaleta Creek and the crossing of Tributary 1, resulting in approximately 2 ha of disturbance within mapped wetlands.

15.7.3 Listed Threatened Flora

As described in Section 15.6.5, there is a low probability of listed threatened flora species occurring in the Project disturbance area and therefore significant impacts to listed threatened flora species are not expected.

15.7.4 Namaleta Creek Crossing

The potential impacts associated with the crossing of Namaleta Creek, and measures to mitigate impacts are described in Chapter 16.

15.7.5 Connectivity

Because remnant vegetation will be cleared, there will be a reduction in ecological function and some interruption of connectivity between remnant patches not affected by mining. This has the capacity to disrupt ecological function (fauna movements, plant gene flow) through the landscape in the short to medium-term, until rehabilitation and vegetation recovery has resulted in at least a shrub layer over cleared land.

Vegetation is expected to be cleared in annual campaigns according to the staged mine plan. This approach offsets impacts on a gross scale, and with the introduction of progressive rehabilitation, landscape function and flows are expected to be managed in a manner that allows for ecological recovery in the most efficient timeframe (i.e. rehabilitation areas will be at a manageable size).

The landscape connectivity corridors that will not be directly impacted by mining, as described in Section 15.6.13, are likely to provide important corridors for the movement of a diversity of native wildlife species. Buffers from mining activities will be maintained to prevent adverse impacts to these corridors of high ecological value.

15.7.6 Terrestrial Fauna

Potential impacts of the Project on terrestrial fauna are most likely to be associated with loss of native vegetation and fauna habitat, fragmentation, direct mortality and edge effects due to the clearing of vegetation for the mining of bauxite.

15.7.6.1 Loss and Modification of Wildlife Habitat

Approximately 1,209 ha of potential fauna habitat are proposed to be cleared, including live trees, an unconfirmed number of tree hollows, foraging resources (flowering trees and shrubs), ground layer habitats such as fallen timber, bush rock and well-developed leaf litter. These resources offer sheltering, foraging, nesting and roosting habitat to a variety of fauna occurring within the locality. This will result in the loss of fauna habitat within the Project area. This is not expected to be a significant loss given the widespread presence of the Eucalyptus tetrodonta woodland around the Project area. Important habitats and vegetation types (e.g. wetlands) will not be directly impacted by the Project, and will be protected through environmental buffers and retention of vegetation.

Associated direct impacts with the loss of vegetation include displacement of fauna into surrounding areas resulting in competition for resources such as breeding structures such as suitable nest sites and hollows.

It is expected that some trees being removed will contain hollows and due to their potential use by threatened fauna, particularly arboreal fauna, forest owls and microchiropteran bats, this will have the potential to impact upon local populations of dependent species. For example, the removal of some


Page 15-66

hollow-bearing trees can be considered as contributing to the key threatening process for the Palm Cockatoo and Papuan Sheathtail Bat (not listed MNES species) in key habitats.

Although potential nesting / roosting habitat for fauna occurs within the development footprint, these resources occur in abundance within a much greater area of land elsewhere surrounding the site. Therefore, it is considered unlikely that the removal of hollow-bearing trees from the site will constitute a significant impact to locally occurring hollow-bearing dependent species.

Table 15-13 provides potential habitat for listed terrestrial threatened species. Table 15-14 provides potential habitat for listed migratory species. It is important to recognise that these tables describe potential habitat only and that this should not be considered a measure of the significance of impacts on these species. Significant impact assessments, in accordance with Commonwealth and State guidelines, have been undertaken for all species (Section 15.9 and Section 15.10) and the Project was not considered to have a significant impact on any listed threatened or migratory species.

Table 15-13 Potential Habitat – Listed Threatened Species

Listed Species EPBC Act Status NC Act Status

Likelihood of Occurrence

Potential Habitat (ha) with Project footprint


Vulnerable Endangered Possible Nesting: 179 ha (no nests identified in surveys)

Foraging: 1,209 ha


Endangered Endangered Unlikely 0 ha


Vulnerable Vulnerable Possible Nesting: 1,209 ha, although limited by micro-habitat constraints (e.g. nest hollows in trees)

Foraging: 0 ha (forages in riverine gallery forest)



Confirmed 1,209 ha

Eastern Curlew (Numenius madagascariensis)

Critically Endangered (Listed as migratory at the time the controlled action decision was made 11 September 2014)

Vulnerable Possible 0 ha


Not Listed Vulnerable Confirmed (outside of Project footprint)

0 ha


Page 15-67

Listed Species EPBC Act Status NC Act Status

Likelihood of Occurrence




Confirmed (outside of Project footprint)

0 ha


Endangered Endangered Possible 1,209 ha (potential for recolonization from other areas only as unlikely to occur in Project area, but lack of suitable denning habitat)


Vulnerable Vulnerable Possible Roosting: 0 ha

Foraging: 1,209 ha (not identified during targeted surveys)


Critically Endangered

Endangered Possible 1,209 ha roosting and foraging (not identified during targeted surveys)


Vulnerable Vulnerable Possible 0 ha

Black–footed Tree Rat (north Queensland)

(Mesebriomys gouldii rattoides)

Vulnerable Not Listed Possible 1,209 ha, although limited by micro-habitat constraints (e.g. tree hollows, dense vegetation)


Not Listed Vulnerable Unlikely Roosting: 0 ha (no large caves, mines, deep rock fissures)

Foraging: 1,209 ha



Confirmed 1,209 ha



Possible 1,209 ha


Page 15-68

Table 15-14 Potential Habitat – Listed Migratory Species

Migratory Species Status Likelihood of Occurrence


Little Tern (Sterna albifrons)

Migratory Marine; Marine (Bonn, CAMBA, JAMBA, ROKAMBA)

Confirmed (outside Project footprint)

0 ha

Fork-tailed Swift (Apus pacificus)


Possible 1,209 ha (flyover only)

Lesser Frigatebird (Fregata ariel)


Confirmed (outside Project footprint)

0 ha

Eastern Great Egret (Ardea alba)

Migratory Wetlands; Marine (JAMBA – as Egretta alba)

Confirmed (wetlands outside Project footprint)

0 ha

Cattle Egret (Ardea ibis)

Migratory Wetlands; Marine (JAMBA as Bubulcus ibis)

Confirmed (wetlands outside Project footprint)

0 ha

Eastern Osprey (Pandion cristatus)

Migratory Wetlands; Marine (Bonn)

Possible 0 ha foraging habitat with limited potential nesting habitat

Latham's Snipe (Gallinago hardwickii)

Migratory Wetlands; Marine (BONN, JAMBA, ROKAMBA)

Unlikely 0 ha

Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica)

Migratory Terrestrial; Marine (CAMBA, JAMBA, ROKAMBA)

High Nesting: 0 ha

Foraging: 1,209 ha

Rainbow Bee-eater (Merops ornatus)

Migratory Terrestrial; Marine (JAMBA)

Confirmed Nesting: 0 ha

Foraging: 1,209 ha

Black-faced Monarch (Monarcha melanopsis)

Migratory Terrestrial; Marine (Bonn)

Possible 1,209 ha (marginal habitat)

Spectacled Monarch (Monarcha trivirgatus)


Possible 1,209 ha (marginal habitat)

Satin Flycatcher (Myiagra cyanoleuca)


Possible 0 ha

Rufous Fantail (Rhipidura rufifrons)


Confirmed 1,209 ha of potential foraging habitat, but 0 ha of key habitat.

Red-rumped Swallow (Cecropis daurica)

Migratory; Terrestrial

Unlikely 0 ha


Page 15-69

Migratory Species Status Likelihood of Occurrence


(CAMBA, ROKAMBA)

Oriental Cuckoo (Cuculus optatus)

Migratory; Terrestrial (CAMBA)

Possible 1,209 ha

Bar-tailed Godwit (Limosa lapponica)

Migratory; Marine (Bonn, CAMBA, JAMBA, ROKAMBA).

Unlikely 0 ha

15.7.6.2 Habitat Fragmentation and Barriers to Movement

The Project site is located in a landscape already slightly fragmented by the haul road. However, most of the site’s vegetation is widely untouched and well connected to surrounding wetland and woodland.

Remnant vegetation will be cleared, but will not create further fragmentation of the habitat at a wider landscape level. The proposed development is unlikely to isolate the site and habitat to the remaining vegetation community. Arboreals, terrestrial mammals, reptiles and amphibians will still be able to move across the landscape, within similar remnant communities. Connectivity, albeit reduced, to the wetland areas adjacent to the site will be maintained.

Infrastructure, roads and additional services will largely be located where the site has already been disturbed to minimise further fragmentation of the habitat.

15.7.6.3 Mortality of Fauna Species

Fauna injury or mortality is most likely to occur during vegetation clearing activities but may also result from collisions with vehicles or machinery.

The majority of fauna species recorded within the site were highly mobile bird species and these species are likely to move away from vegetation clearing activities quite readily. Fauna inhabiting hollow-bearing trees may be injured during tree-felling. This could potentially include hollow-dependent birds and mammals and threatened microchiropteran bat species.

This potential impact during vegetation clearing can be mitigated to a large extent through the conduct of pre-clearing surveys and clearing supervision.

15.7.6.4 Edge Effects

Both abiotic and biological edge effects can occur as a result of the proposed development. Abiotic edge effects are those that relate to changed environmental conditions along the edge of a development and include changes to air moisture and temperature, solar radiation levels, soil moisture and temperature. Other abiotic edge effects include changes to wind speed and pattern.

Biological edge effects involve changes in species abundance and distribution, either directly due to changed environmental conditions at the forest edge or indirectly through changes in species interactions such as pollination and seed dispersal.

Clearing of native vegetation associated with the proposal will increase the edge/area ratio within retained woodland habitats. This is likely to render these edge areas more vulnerable to weed invasion, predation from exotic fauna and changes in light/wind regimes. These potential edge effects may ultimately result in changes to the condition and fitness of native vegetation communities present as well as threatened fauna species populations.


Page 15-70

Edge effects will be minimised by managing weeds along edge areas, maintaining the site cleanliness and progressive rehabilitation of mining areas.

15.7.7 Weeds and Pests

To some degree the Project is protected from the incursion of weed and pest species as the Project area is not accessible to road traffic and therefore roads will not act as a vector of weed and pest transport. There is potential for weeds and pests to be introduced to the Project area by equipment and machinery brought to site by barges.

The Project area is reasonably free of weeds that are known to be ecologically detrimental. All of the weeds currently present occur on land previously disturbed. One exception is the relatively benign introduced grass Melinis repens - an infrequent species encountered amongst native species in the remnant patches.

There is a potential risk that new species of weeds could be introduced into the region through increased movement of vehicles, people and the requirement to bring in infrastructure from outside sources. The most significant risk in this regard is the introduction of Gamba Grass (Andropogon gayanus), and the most probable port of entry being the barge landing facility on the Skardon River.

Other weeds of concern include grader grass (Themeda quadrivalvis) and the smothering vine Passiflora foetida (Stinking Passion Flower).

There is potential for the Project to create conditions which are suitable pest fauna species, or for Project activities to result in the introduction of pest species.

15.7.8 Fires

Increased human interactions in the environment could lead to increased risk of uncontrolled fire events. This risk is relatively low, but the potential issue is raised in relation to felled vegetation that may be windrowed and burnt as a consequence of the proposed mining operation. Unnatural levels of combustible material are likely to be generated by such actions. All fires resulting from Project activities, whether burning of cleared vegetation or burning fire breaks, will be subject to a Fire Management Plan specifying the conditions under which burning will occur and measures to manage fires.

15.8 Management Measures and Plans

As described in Section 15.7, the design and location selection of Project activities and infrastructure is a primary measure in mitigating impacts.

15.8.1 Buffer Zones

The primary mitigation measure to limit the impacts of the Project on sensitive environmental areas such as wetlands is the use of buffer zones where mining will not occur (refer Section 15.7.2). Buffer zones will also contribute to maintaining connectivity across the landscape and assist in reducing edge effects resulting from fire or spread of weeds.

15.8.2 Rehabilitation

The proposed rehabilitation plan for the Project is provided in Chapter 7. The proposed final land use (except for infrastructure retained by the Traditional Owners) is native vegetation, similar to that prior to mining. Rehabilitation will occur progressively. Additional discussion on the potential plant species suitable for rehabilitation, seed collection, fire management, establishment of vegetation reference sites and monitoring of rehabilitation is provided in Chapter 7 and Appendix 16 (Vegetation and Aquatic Ecology Monitoring Plan).


Page 15-71

It is expected that over the much of the Project mining areas will be rehabilitated during the mine life (10 years) and that the remainder will be rehabilitated within a few years following completion of mining.

In the medium to long term rehabilitation with native vegetation will aid in restoring the habitat availability for species in the Project area.

15.8.3 Fire Management

All fires resulting from Project activities, whether burning of cleared vegetation or burning fire breaks, will be subject to a Fire Management Plan specifying the conditions under which burning will occur and measures to manage fires.

Fire management is described in Chapter 7, as it is a key determinant in the success of rehabilitation. Gulf will conduct a fire management program as follows:

Construct and maintain fire breaks for protection of infrastructure and mine regeneration areas.

Conduct hazard reduction back-burns of native vegetation to protect human health, infrastructure

and revegetation areas when wild fires are approaching, expected from the south west.

Conduct such fires when mosaic burning is initiated by a third party, such as the Old Mapoon

Aboriginal Corporation (OMAC) or Rio Tinto.

Conduct education programs to increase the awareness of harmful effects of fire.

Engage or work with OMAC on fire management.

15.8.4 Habitat Management

The following habitat management measures are proposed:

An Environmental Supervisor will be appointed to oversee and manage operations that are likely to

have an impact, influence or modify the natural features present on the Project area.

An ecologist/spotter-catcher will conduct targeted pre-clearance surveys to determine if fauna are

using trees within the site for nesting or roosting purposes before any staged vegetation clearing

occurs. The fauna spotter/catcher will:

check habitat for fauna and fauna breeding sites

check for bat roosts

check excavations for trapped fauna

A qualified environmental officer or nominated person will oversee vegetation clearing work. Fauna

that are found in tree hollows or other nests will be relocated to an appropriate site for caring until

they can be confidently released back in the wild into similar, undisturbed habitat. In the event that

rare or threatened fauna are found, a record will be made of the species. Stranded or injured fauna

will be cared for by a qualified and licensed wildlife carer.

Undertake regular monitoring of excavations for trapped fauna.

Speed restriction will be imposed on the haul roads for safety reasons, which will also contribute to

limiting fauna road mortality.

Restrict clearing of vegetation for mining and infrastructure to minimum amounts required.

All vegetation removal will be restricted to the prescribed mining stages identified within the

disturbance footprint. A pre-clearing ground survey will be undertaken by suitably qualified

environmental practitioners prior to clearing of woodland communities. Subsequently, the areas of

vegetation to be cleared will be accurately delineated and visibly marked in order that machinery


Page 15-72

operators work within the limits of the mining stages, thereby avoiding unnecessary vegetation and

habitat clearing.

Pre-clearance surveys will be undertaken for listed threatened flora species. Any clearing of listed

threatened flora species will be done in accordance with NC Act requirements.

All land identified and mapped within a buffer zone will not be disturbed, cleared or modified. This

land is to be retained in its current natural condition. These areas are crucial for faunal movement

patterns which would be mitigated by retention of riparian corridors.

Construction and operation activities will use appropriate dust suppression techniques, which will aid

in limiting impacts of dust on vegetation and fauna.

Undertake regular monitoring of the health and condition of retained vegetation and habitat.

Undertake regular monitoring of the health and condition of rehabilitation areas.

15.8.5 Species Management Program

Under the Nature Conservation (Wildlife Management) Regulation 2006, mining operations require an approved Species Management Program to undertake any works that will, or potentially will, disturb or interfere with a protected animal breeding place.

A Species Management Program will be developed to provide a working arrangement for activities that may require the tampering with animal breeding places in a way that meets the legislative requirements of the NC Act. This will set out practices to be applied to minimise disturbance to breeding animals and their young, including:

avoidance through planning and assessment or operation and timing where practicable

removal or relocation of breeding places

using an experienced spotter catcher (situation dependent).

The Species Management Program will be developed following Project approval and will consider both pre clearance and clearance mitigation strategies.

If located on site during the course of the development (construction or operation), a species management plan will be developed for any listed threatened species should they be found. Gulf Alumina will implement species management plans prior to the commencement of operations for terrestrial fauna or flora species that are identified within the proposed disturbance areas (predominantly mining areas) with a near threatened, vulnerable, endangered or critically endangered status under the NC Act and EPBC Act. Based on the potential species habitat in the Project area (refer to Section 15.7.6), species management plans may be prepared for:

Red Goshawk

Masked Owl

Palm Cockatoo

Northern Quoll

Spectacled Flying-fox

Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat

Black–footed Tree Rat

Papuan Sheathtail Bat

Chestnut Dunnart


Page 15-73

In regards to listed flora, a species management plan may be prepared for Lepturus geminatus (Poaceae) once mining commences in RE 3.2.10. and for Cajanus mareebensis if identified on site.

Management activities will be determined by the level of risk of fauna being present and impacted by Project activities. Pre-clearance surveys will be undertaken by a suitably qualified environmental professional to determine the risks to species and require management practices during clearing.

A suitably qualified ecologist (spotter catcher) will undertake a risk assessment of the Project area prior to clearing activities, considering environmental factors and site accessibility, to provide recommendations for fauna management. This includes but is not limited to the following:

Undertake pre-clearance surveys for threatened fauna species. These searches will include nests,

hollows and drainage lines. Relocation of ‘at risk’ species will be undertaken with these species

relocated in habitat as close as possible to the area in which they were found (unless advised

otherwise in a species management plan).

Undertake targeted preclearance surveys for specific species.

Conduct red goshawk nest surveys within the Project footprint in areas within 1 km of riparian gallery

forest, one month before clearing. If located, a 200 m buffer around the nesting tree will be

established as an exclusion zone, and monitored until completion of the breeding season until which

time vegetation clearing can commence/resume.

All other threatened or near threatened species that ‘possibly’ occur or are confirmed to occur within

the Project footprint area will be surveyed using the generic methodology as outlined below due to

their preference for hollow bearing trees for breeding and roosting behaviours.

Undertake a clearing plan, nest box plan and/or species relocation plans where necessary.

Undertake preclearance surveys to clearly identify vegetation to be retained on work plans and

flagging/ fencing on site prior to works.

The findings of the Species Management Program will be used to determine if species management plans are required for any listed threatened species to address potential Project impacts.

Prior to and during clearing activities, measures such as the following may be implemented:

Identify high risk areas such as rock piles or timber piles for fauna to hide, available trees containing

nests and hollows or fissures, creek and drainage lines for aquatic fauna, hollow logs, termitaria or

dens.

Undertake spotlighting surveys and diurnal visual searches of suitable habitat. Conduct active

searches of all logs hollow, dens, caves, termitaria etc.

Set up camera traps at base of trees if unable to determine utilisation of breeding site through other

fauna detection methods.

Conduct active searches of all potential breeding places one week prior to clearing with a search again

two hours prior to clearing commencing to ensure fauna have not returned to site.

If there is no access to nests or hollows in the tree canopy clearing may be staged. Staged clearing

may require that non habitat trees are removed first then the potential habitat trees are removed at

least 24 hours later to enable resident hollow dependant fauna time to evacuate the tree prior to

felling. Inspect felled trees and record habitation.

The clearing procedure for hollow bearing trees may include:

clearing all vegetation around hollow bearing trees prior to their removal

tapping trees following clearing of surrounding vegetation and leaving them to stand for 24hours


Page 15-74

smoothly felling trees to minimise damage to hollows

inspecting hollows of felled trees (by fauna spotter/catcher) and removing and relocating any

fauna found

leaving the tree on the ground for a minimum of two hours to provide any trapped fauna with an

opportunity to escape

where possible leaving fallen trees overnight.

Identify locations immediately outside the clearance area for relocation that contain suitable

habitat/breeding places.

Develop a nest box plan for potential relocations and prepare for the distribution of artificial and

natural habitat features and resources for relocated/displaced fauna such as hollows and rock piles.

15.8.6 Connectivity

The landscape connectivity corridors that will not be directly impacted by mining are likely to provide important corridors for the movement of a diversity of native wildlife species. Buffers from mining activities will be maintained to prevent adverse impacts to these corridors of high ecological value. Areas of connectivity will be retained as shown on Figure 15-16.

The primary routes for movement of wildlife are via the Skardon River South Arm and through the vegetated corridor of Namaleta Creek. Another vegetation area approximately follows a broad east-west drainage pattern from the circular patch of RE 3.3.50 (Melaleuca viridiflora woodland with Corymbia novoguinensis) on the western side of the haul road in ML40082 and eventually into the Skardon River South Arm. This wide band of vegetation is outside of the proposed mining areas and will serve the purpose of connecting the Skardon River South Arm with Bigfoot Swamp and the wetland complex associated with inland dune systems west of the Project area.

Lunette Swamp partially lies within ML 6025 in a narrow section of the mining lease. No mining will occur in this area, allowing for connectivity between Lunette Swamp, wetland complexes to the west of the Project area and the headwaters of Namaleta Creek.

The following measures will assist in improving connectivity following mining activities:

Restrict clearing and disturbance to the area reasonably necessary for mine function.

Restrict disturbance and personal or vehicular access to areas absolutely necessary for the

construction and operation of the Project. Clearly cordon off all adjacent vegetation and buffer

extents that are not to be disturbed by clearing activities.

As soon as possible after disturbance, rehabilitate and revegetate cleared areas that do not need to

remain cleared for on-going mining activities, maintenance or access, preferentially using locally

native species.

Establish alternative connectivity routes through rehabilitation and revegetation.

Undertake regular monitoring of the health and condition of retained vegetation and habitat in the

areas of connectivity (retained remnant vegetation, edge areas and rehabilitation areas), and of

wildlife using the corridor.

15.8.7 Weed and Pest Management

Gulf will develop and implement a Weed and Pest Management Plan prior to construction and operations to minimise the potential for the introduction of weeds and pests, and to control any outbreaks of weeds that occur as a result of Project activities. The Port area is considered to be the primary point of


Page 15-75

introduction of weeds and pests and will be the focus for controlling weeds and pests. Pest management in the marine environment are described in Chapter 18.

Management and control of pests and weeds will be implemented from the construction stage onwards. The Weed and Pest Management Plan will include the following strategies:

Identifying key weed species, with emphasis on ecological transformer species, particularly Gamba

Grass (Andropogon gayanus), Leucaena (Leucaena leucophylla), Grader Grass (Themeda quadrivalvis),

and smothering vines such as Stinking Passionflower (Passiflora foetida), and a range of introduced

leguminous species such as Siratro (Macroptilium atropurpureum). A preferred scenario would be

zero-presence and tolerance of Gamba Grass, Leucaena and Grader Grass - all of which are currently

not on the Project area.

Establishing a machinery and vehicle washdown facility at the Port area and possibly at the proposed

Namaleta Creek crossing, with the objective of introducing a purposeful level of weed quarantine.

Strict protocols will be followed in regard to maintaining a procedure of vigilance for key species

outlined previously.

Machinery and equipment (e.g. mining vehicles) brought into the site from external sources will be

certified to be weed-free.

The Plan will be reviewed periodically and be flexible enough to allow for changing situations.

Contractors and on-site workers will be made aware of the Plan and its importance. Basic training in

weed management and control as well as identification will be given to appropriate staff.

A monitoring program for weeds and pests will be developed.

Weed populations of species which are known to be deleterious and observed to be expanding

conspicuously will be controlled in the first instance.

Control measures for different pests and weed species will be developed.

Specimens of plants that might be considered to be weeds will be submitted to a suitably qualified

person or institution for formal identification.

Waste disposal will be managed to prevent access by larger fauna species (e.g. pigs) and minimise the

abundance of smaller pest species (e.g. non-native rodents).

Feral pigs are abundant and widespread in Cape York2 and therefore difficult for any single landowner

to control. Gulf Alumina will cooperate with activities by other landowners and government agencies

to control feral pigs through such means as trapping, baiting, shooting and fencing (where practical).

Consideration will be given to the most appropriate methods for feral pig control as described in ‘Feral

pig control - A practical guide to pig control in Queensland’ (Department of Agriculture and Fisheries)3.

Gulf Alumina recognises its responsibilities under the Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Act 2002, as an owner of land (mining lease holder), primarily to take reasonable steps to keep the land free of class 1 and class 2 pests. Gulf Alumina will develop a Weed and Pest Management Plan which will be provided to the Cook Shire Council.

15.8.8 Environmental Training

Given the relative high integrity of environmental values in the region, plus the fact the pre-disturbed sections of the current operations around Skardon River and Namaleta Creek have been well-managed (evidenced by the constrained areas of disturbance and low abundance of weeds), contractors and on-

2 Queensland Pest Animal Strategies, Feral pigs Sus scrofa, State of Queensland, 2004 3 DAF, https://www.daf.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/63926/IPA-Feral-Pig-Control-Manual.pdf


Page 15-76

site workers will be provided with information about the surrounding environment, its ecology and importance. Worker inductions will include information about preventing weed and pest species from entering the Project site. This can be achieved through periodic training and environmental inductions, and supported by a range of interpretive material such as signage, field guides and factsheets, and regular communication of environmental matters during toolbox meetings.

15.8.9 Monitoring

The Vegetation and Aquatic Ecology Monitoring Plan is presented in Appendix 16, with information summarised in Chapter 16, Section 16.7.11. Whilst vegetation monitoring focuses on wetland and watercourse vegetation, the Vegetation and Aquatic Ecology Monitoring Plan also monitors vegetation in terrestrial ecosystems (i.e. Eucalyptus terodonta woodland) at risk of indirect impacts (e.g. changes to hydrology), comparison of monitoring sites to reference sites, and use of reference sites to establish success criteria for rehabilitation areas.

15.9 MNES Significant Impact Assessment

In determining whether there are significant residual (post mitigation) impacts to MNES the assessment:

firstly considers whether there are any listed species or ecosystems (identified during desktop review

or field surveys) that are confirmed, likely to occur or have moderate likelihood of occurrence

secondly, uses the EPBC Act Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1 – Matters of National Environmental

Significance (DoE, 2013) to assess, for those listed species or ecosystems identified, whether impacts

are significant.

Listed species or ecosystems that have a likelihood of occurrence of ‘not probable’, ‘low probability’ or ‘unlikely’ are not considered to be significantly impacted by the Project.

Relevant conservation advices, threat abatement plans and recovery plans developed by DoE, and relevant international conventions and agreements entered into by the Commonwealth are described in Chapter 26.

15.9.1 Threatened Ecological Communities

As there were no TECs identified during desktop review or field surveys, there are no predicted impacts to TECs.

15.9.2 Terrestrial Flora Species

The ecological assessment identified that listed MNES flora species were either not probable or had low probability of occurring within the Project disturbance area. Therefore it is not considered that these species will be significantly impacted by the Project.

15.9.3 Terrestrial Fauna Species

15.9.3.1 Red Goshawk

A National Recovery Plan for the red goshawk (Erythrotriorchis radiates) has been produced. This National Recovery Plan requires that sufficient foraging area will be maintained for the red goshawk. The Project is consistent with the National Recovery Plan as connectivity will be maintained between riparian areas through the use of wetland buffer zones, and nesting habitat will not be impacted along the Skardon River as the Port area development is largely in pre-cleared areas. Therefore, the Project is not expected to interfere with the recovery of the species.


Page 15-77

An assessment of the significance of impacts, in accordance with the Commonwealths Significant Impact Guidelines, is provided in Table 15-15 for the red goshawk. The assessment demonstrates that the Project will not have a significant impact on the red goshawk.

Table 15-15 Red Goshawk - Assessment of Significant Impact

Red Goshawk (Erythrotriorchis radiatus) - Vulnerable (EPBC) and Endangered (NCA)

Will the proposed works... Response

Lead to a long term decrease in the size of an important population

There is potential for loss of foraging habitat as a result of the proposed Project. However, the Project will clear 1,209 ha (excluding non-remnant) with extensive areas of similar habitat remaining intact across the region.

Red goshawks typically nest in very tall trees within 1km of permanent water which excludes much of the Project site. There is potential for 179 ha of nesting habitat in the Project footprint area, although no nests have been identified. Any increase in the mortality rate of red goshawks is of major concern, however, given the enormous potential home range of the species and the absence of known nest trees on or in the vicinity of the Project area, the Project is considered very unlikely to lead to a long term decrease in the size of an important population of this species.

Reduce the area of occupancy of an important population?

There is no important population known on the Project area and there are limited records of the species in the region. Key habitats will be largely unaffected and the area of occupancy of any population around the Project area would not be reduced.

Fragment an existing important population into two or more populations?

An existing population has yet to be observed on the Project area; however, any population utilising the Project area for foraging would be sufficiently mobile to avoid fragmentation.

Adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species

The proposed Project does not include any habitat areas considered critical to the survival of the red goshawk. Extensive areas of potential foraging habitat occur across the Project area and region.

Disrupt the breeding cycle of an important population

The proposed Project does not contain habitat that is critical to the breeding cycle of an important population.

Modify, destroy, remove, isolate or decrease the availability or quality of habitat to the extent that the species is likely to be in decline?

The proposed Project is not considered to contain key habitat for the species such that its modification, destruction, removal or isolation, or a decrease in its availability or quality would result in overall species decline. The Project area is surrounded by largely connected habitat.

Result in invasive species that are harmful to a vulnerable species being established in the vulnerable species habitat?

The proposed Project is not likely to result in the introduction of invasive species to potential red goshawk habitat. Application of Weed and Pest Management Plan during each stage of the development will help minimise the possibility of weed and pest invasion.


Page 15-78

Red Goshawk (Erythrotriorchis radiatus) - Vulnerable (EPBC) and Endangered (NCA)

Introduce disease that may cause the species to decline

The proposed Project is not likely to increase the risk of disease to the species. Application of a Pest Management Plan during each stage of the development would effectively avoid introduction and spread of disease as introduced avian species will not have an opportunity to spread within the Project footprint or the surrounding environment.

Interfere substantially with the recovery of the species?

The proposed Project area is not considered to contain habitat important enough for the species such that its modification, destruction, removal or isolation, or a decrease in its availability or quality would result in interference with the recovery of the species. The species is not expected to be impacted during operation of the Project and be influenced in its foraging behaviour should it access the Project area’s ecosystems during this period.

15.9.3.2 Eastern Curlew

An assessment of the significance of impacts, in accordance with the Commonwealths Significant Impact Guidelines, is provided in Table 15-16 for the eastern curlew. The assessment demonstrates that the Project will not have a significant impact on the eastern curlew. The assessment has been undertaken using the significant impact criteria for critically endangered species. As the eastern curlew was listed as a migratory species at the time of the Project’s EPBC Act controlled action decision, an assessment of significant impacts using the criteria for migratory species could have been undertaken. The criteria for determining significance of impacts are more stringent for critically endangered species than migratory species and hence the findings that that the Project will not have a significant impact on the eastern curlew as a critically endangered species applies equally to the species as a listed migratory species.

Table 15-16 Eastern Curlew - Assessment of Significant Impact

Eastern Curlew – Migratory (Sep 2014), Critically Endangered (May 2015) (EPBC) / Vulnerable (NCA)



The species has not been found in the project area or surrounds, and the Project area does not support habitat for the species survival. There is no risk to a population from development of the Project. Available habitat exists 3 km to the north and west of the Project area on the Skardon River and coast.


The species is strictly coastal and will only utilise the Project area for overflying. The proposed development will not reduce the extent of occurrence of the species.


There is no information about the extent of any important population present on the Project area. Habitat on the Project area is not critical to the species and would not be utilised for either foraging or roosting.

Areas of continuous similar habitat exist around the periphery of the Project area outside any likely zone of disturbance, which could be utilised by the species.

It is unlikely the movement of the species would be reduced by the Project if they were present and therefore, any important population would not be fragmented into two or more populations.


Page 15-79

Eastern Curlew – Migratory (Sep 2014), Critically Endangered (May 2015) (EPBC) / Vulnerable (NCA)


The Project area is not considered critical habitat for the species. Habitat available to the species extends along coastal areas away from the Project area which will not isolate the species.


The species does not breed while on this migratory route through North Queensland therefore if it should utilise habitat on site (which is not suitable to this species other than for resting), it would not disrupt the breeding cycle of the population.


Key habitat utilised by the eastern curlew is not available on site therefore the Project footprint will not impact any habitat. The project will not result in a decline in the species.


Weed and pest management plans will be developed for the Project area to prevent invasive species from being established on site. As there is no habitat available to the eastern curlew in the Project area it would only be used as a fly over therefore the risks of impact would be even further reduced.


Pest management plans will be developed for the Project area to prevent invasive species from being established on site. As there is no habitat available to the eastern curlew on site it would only be used as a fly over therefore the risks of impact would be even further reduced.


Development on the Project area will not impact on eastern curlew habitat therefore it will not impact on a population of the species and furthermore it will not interfere with the recovery of the species. Additionally, the Conservation Advice for the species does not define the Western Cape York as a priority area for the species.

15.9.3.3 Masked Owl

An assessment of the significance of impacts, in accordance with the Commonwealths Significant Impact Guidelines, is provided in Table 15-17 or the masked owl. The assessment demonstrates that the Project will not have a significant impact on the masked owl.

Table 15-17 Masked Owl - Assessment of Significant Impact

Masked Owl (northern) (Tyto novaehollandiae kimberli) – Vulnerable (EPBC Act and NCA)



Page 15-80



The species was not recorded in the Project area. If a population of the northern masked owl was present on the proposed Project area it would be regarded as an important population. However, potential key habitats for the species are outside the development footprint of the majority of the Project and are not likely to lead to a long term decrease in the size of a population. Mitigation strategies to reduce impact to vegetation during clearing (refer to Section 15.8.5) will also reduce potential impacts.


The key potential habitats for the species will mostly be unaltered by the Project which avoids riparian areas and therefore the area of occupancy is unlikely to be reduced.


Key potential habitats for the species will not be fragmented by the Project and, as the species has a high mobility, it will also not fragment any population that may be present in the vicinity.


The proposed Project area does not include any habitat considered critical to the survival of the northern masked owl. The Conservation Advice for the species identifies that appropriate fire management activities are critical conservation actions to prevent loss of hollow bearing trees and over competition with other species. A fire management plan will be developed for Project activities.


An increased risk of fire during activities has the potential to impact on key habitats for the northern masked owl. A fire management plan will be developed to mitigate against any unplanned fire occurrences on site.

The species is known to utilise tree hollows for breeding the Project. A Species Management Program will describe mitigations measures for breeding species during the clearing process to ensure there are no threats to the species, however they are unlikely to utilise the site.


No potential key habitat would be modified, destroyed, removed, isolated or decreased in availability or quality of habitat that would result in the decline of the species.

The masked owl has a general habitat preference for riparian gallery, rainforest and mangrove areas which are available outside the Project footprint. These areas are far more extensive off site and north to the Skardon River. The Project will not remove this habitat for development purposes. These habitats will also be maintained within buffered areas. Potential nesting habitat in E. tetradonta will be removed (1,209 ha excl. non-remnant), however this habitat is continuous through the landscape, and no masked owls were identified during surveys.


This Project is not likely to result in the introduction of invasive species to potential northern masked owl habitat. Application of pest and weed management plans during each stage of the development would minimise potential for introduction.


Page 15-81



Disease is not a known threat to this species. Application of pest management plans during each stage of the development would minimise potential for introduction and spread of disease.


The proposed Project is not considered to contain habitat important enough for the species such that its modification, destruction, removal or isolation, or a decrease in its availability or quality would result in interference with the recovery of the species. The species is not expected to be impacted during operation of the proposed Project if it were found on the site, due to the very specific foraging preferences keeping the activities of a population within buffered areas.

15.9.3.4 Northern Quoll

An assessment of the significance of impacts, in accordance with the Commonwealths Significant Impact Guidelines, is provided in Table 15-18 for the northern quoll. The assessment demonstrates that the Project will not have a significant impact on the northern quoll.

Table 15-18 Northern Quoll - Assessment of Significant Impact

Northern Quoll (Dasyurus hallucatus) – Endangered (EPBC), Endangered (NCA)



The species was not recorded in the Project area. There is potential for loss of habitat as a result of the proposed project. However, the project will clear 1,209 ha (excl non-remnant) with extensive areas of similar habitat remaining intact across the region. Species habitat generally encompasses some form of rocky area for denning purposes with surrounding vegetated habitats used for foraging and dispersal. The northern quoll was considered unlikely to occur on the Project area due to the absence of complex rocky outcrops (a lack of rocky escarpments, outcrops and crevices).


There is no important population known on the proposed Project area and there are limited records of the species in the region. The project is not likely to reduce the area of occupancy of the northern quoll unless widespread habitat degradation occurs through weed invasion and establishment of inappropriate fire regimes that render the Project area unsuitable for maintaining a viable quoll population. Implementation of appropriate management actions should reduce this risk significantly.


The northern quoll hasn’t been located in the Project area since between 1971- 1990 and targeted surveys failed to find any indication of the species. If however the species was present, the development is surrounded by continuous, largely homogenous tracts of high quality remnant vegetation that would not be fragmented, and therefore the population would not be impacted.


Page 15-82

Northern Quoll (Dasyurus hallucatus) – Endangered (EPBC), Endangered (NCA)


The proposed Project does not include any habitat considered critical to the survival of the northern quoll as identified in the EPBC Act or the Species Recovery Plan. As identified in the recovery plan any population that would exist in this region would represent less than 1% of the total FNQ metapopulation. Therefore even total removal of all suitable habitats for the species in the Project area may not cause the species to decline.


The proposed Project does not contain habitat that is critical to the breeding cycle of an important population.


The proposed Project is not considered to contain key habitat for the species such that its modification, destruction, removal or isolation, or a decrease in its availability or quality would result in overall species decline. The Project area is surrounded by largely connected habitat.


The proposed Project is not likely to result in the introduction of invasive species to potential northern quoll habitat. Application of Pest and Weed Management Plans during each stage of the development will help minimise the possibility of weed invasion. Cane toads are the one of the most ubiquitous and abundant terrestrial vertebrates on the Project area. The FNQ metapopulation of northern quoll has managed to persist despite the high abundance of cane toads throughout the entire region, including the Project area. It is possible that cane toads will be transported onto and within the Project area on machinery and equipment. However, this is not expected to have an adverse impact of the local northern quoll population as other North Queensland northern quoll populations have managed to persist in spite of the cane toad.


The proposed Project is not likely to increase the risk of disease to the species. Application of a Pest Management Plan during each stage of the development would effectively avoid introduction and spread of disease as introduced species will not have an opportunity to spread within the Project footprint or the surrounding environment.


The proposed Project area is not considered to contain habitat important enough for the species such that its modification, destruction, removal or isolation, or a decrease in its availability or quality would result in interference with the recovery of the species. The species is not expected to be impacted during operation of the Project and be influenced in its foraging behaviour should it access the Project areas ecosystems during this period. The long term viability of northern quolls is crucial to the recovery of the species as a whole however there has been no indication that the species exists on the Project area.

15.9.3.5 Spectacled Flying-fox

An assessment of the significance of impacts, in accordance with the Commonwealths Significant Impact Guidelines, is provided in Table 15-19 for the spectacled flying-fox. The species is highly dispersive and


Page 15-83

there is an absence of a colony or any evidence of the species on the Project area. The assessment demonstrates that the Project will not have a significant impact on the spectacled flying-fox.

Table 15-19 Spectacled Flying-fox - Assessment of Significant Impact

Spectacled Flying-fox (Pteropus conspicillatus) – EPBC/NCA Vulnerable



The spectacled flying-fox is not known to utilise the proposed Project area and it is unlikely to be located in the area. The Project is not expected to lead to a decrease in the size of the population.


The proposed Project is unlikely to reduce the area of occupancy of the species given the high mobility and extensive range of colonies.


The proposed Project is unlikely to fragment an existing important population into two or more populations due to the high mobility of the species and the availability of areas of continuous similar habitat around and off site.


Key roosting habitat is not available to the spectacled flying-fox on or near the proposed Project area, and this habitat is not critical to the survival of the species.


The spectacled flying-fox is not known to utilise the proposed Project area and it is unlikely to be located in the area. The Project is not expected to impact the breeding cycle of the population.


There is no key habitat on the site that will be modified, destroyed, removed, isolated or decreased such that the availability or quality of habitat for the species is likely to decline. The majority of foraging habitat is also widely available to the species offsite and around the region.


The Project has little potential to lead to the introduction of invasive species that are harmful to the spectacled flying-fox. Implementation of Pest and Weed Management Plans will mitigate against any potential threats.


Disease is not known as a threat to this species. It is not anticipated that the Project would result in an increased threat to the species of disease.


Page 15-84

Spectacled Flying-fox (Pteropus conspicillatus) – EPBC/NCA Vulnerable


Studies indicate that there is little genetic differentiation across the distribution of P. conspicillatus (between Cardwell north to PNG and eastern Indonesia), which suggest that at least some individuals occasionally make large-scale dispersals. Despite the apparent physical ability of P. conspicillatus to potentially disperse from known locations on the east coast of Cape York and the presence of potentially suitable foraging and roosting, the absence of any confirmed records from anywhere on the west coast of Cape York, suggests that the likelihood of its occurrence within the Project area is low.

The proposed Project will not interfere with the recovery of the species as it has no impact on foraging or roosting activities as per the recovery objectives of the National Recovery Plan for the spectacled flying-fox Pteropus conspicillatus (DERM, 2011)4 (refer to Chapter 26).

15.9.3.6 Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat

An assessment of the significance of impacts, in accordance with the Commonwealths Significant Impact Guidelines, is provided in Table 15-20 for the bare-rumped sheathtail bat. The assessment demonstrates that the Project will not have a significant impact on the bare-rumped sheathtail bat.

Table 15-20 Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat - Assessment of Significant Impact

Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat (Saccolaimus saccolaimus nudicluniatus) – Critically Endangered (EPBC), Endangered (NCA)



Any confirmed records of individual bare-rumped sheathtail bat can be considered as belonging to an important population given the current lack of understanding of the population structure of the species throughout its currently known distribution range. There are no confirmed records on the west coast of Cape York Peninsula and there were no confirmed recorded on the Project area despite targeted searches between 2010 and 2015. Therefore the project is highly unlikely to impact a population of the species.

Mitigation measures targeting microchiropteran bats will reduce the risk of any potential impacts to the species.


The species has not been confirmed in the region. Little is known about the critical roost site requirements for the species, therefore it is not possible to assess the availability of suitable roost sites on the Project area. Targeted mitigation measures will be used to avoid impacts on microchiropteran species.

4 Queensland Department of Environment and Resource Management 2010. National recovery plan for the spectacled flying fox Pteropus conspicillatus. Report to the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra.


Page 15-85



There is no information about the extent of any important population present on the Project area. However, it is unlikely the important population is restricted to the Project area given the occurrence of similar continuous dry sclerophyll woodland and open forest habitat to the south, and elsewhere in the region. Areas of continuous similar habitat exist around the periphery of the site outside any likely zone of disturbance, which could be utilised by the species. It is unlikely the movement of the species would be reduced by the Project if they were present and therefore, any important population could be fragmented into two or more populations.


The Project area is not considered critical habitat for the species (i.e. the BIOCLIM distribution model for the species only indicates a narrow coastal section of the Wet Tropics bioregion as potential habitat); however, this is certainly an underestimate of their potential range as the modelling was based on a very small number of record locations. The Project area is also surrounded by large tracts of continuous vegetation.


Reproduction in the species is known to vary between geographic regions, but in Queensland it is known that females give birth to a single young between late December and early January, and lactate during the wet season. Typical bauxite mining operations cease during the wet season and will not impact on breeding activities should the species be located.


The proposed Project will result in the clearing of 1,209 ha (excl non-remnant) of potential foraging or roosting habitat for bare-rumped sheathtail bat, although the species was not identified during targeted field surveys. There is a low risk of invasive fire promoting grasses spreading from existing loci on the site or become established on the site in areas where chemical and mechanical control would not be feasible.


There is a low risk of invasive fire promoting grasses spreading from existing loci on the site or become established on the site in areas where chemical and mechanical control would not be feasible.

Associated changes in fire intensity and frequency could result in a decrease in the quality of existing habitat e.g. fewer potential roost trees and changes in prey availability. Weed control and vehicle hygiene management will reduce the risk of this impact.


There are no infectious diseases of Australian microchiropteran bats that are currently known to result in high levels of mortality. It is not likely the proposed Project will facilitate the spread of any diseases that may cause the species to decline.


Page 15-86



The recovery plan for the bare-rumped sheathtail bat does not identify any populations that are currently known to be under threat nor are any specific conservation measures aimed at the bare-rumped sheathtail bat.

The project is considered unlikely to interfere with the recovery of the species.

15.9.3.7 False Water Rat

An assessment of the significance of impacts, in accordance with the Commonwealths Significant Impact Guidelines, is provided in Table 15-21 for the false water rat. The assessment demonstrates that the Project will not have a significant impact on the false water rat.

Table 15-21 False Water Rat - Assessment of Significant Impact

False Water Rat, Water Mouse (Xeromys myoides) Vulnerable (EPBC/NCA)



Any confirmed records of individual false water rat can be considered as belonging to an important population given the current lack of understanding of the population structure of the species throughout its currently known distribution range. There are no confirmed records on the west coast of Cape York Peninsula.


The species has not been confirmed in the region. Little is known about the critical nest site requirements for the species, therefore it is not possible to assess the availability of suitable nest/den sites on the Project area. However, The Port area is cleared of remnant vegetation which might support the species.


There is no information about the extent of any important population present on the Project area. However, it is unlikely that an important population is restricted to the Project area given the occurrence of similar habitat along the Skardon River and elsewhere in the region

It is unlikely the movement of the species would be reduced by the Project if they were present and therefore not result in an important population being fragmented into two or more populations.


The Project area does not contain any critical habitat for the species. The Project area is not within mangrove and riverine areas, which are a more suitable habitat to this species.


Key habitats for this species in the Western Cape are unknown. The habitat area will not be significantly impacted by the proposed Project and will therefore not disrupt the breeding cycle of the population. There is no evidence of a population at the Port area where the barge will operate 4 times per day. There is considered to be no risk to a population from operation of the mine site.


Page 15-87

False Water Rat, Water Mouse (Xeromys myoides) Vulnerable (EPBC/NCA)


The proposed Project will not clear any potential false water rat foraging or nesting habitat. There is a low risk of other human interventions influencing these habitats such that the species would decline.



Associated changes in fire intensity and frequency could result in a decrease in the quality of existing habitat e.g. reduced mangrove habitat and changes in prey availability. Weed control and vehicle hygiene management will reduce the risk of this impact.


There are currently no known infectious diseases of this species. It is not likely the proposed Project will facilitate the spread of any diseases that may cause the species to decline.


There is limited information on what constitutes important False Water Rat habitat in the region, however only a small portion of the Project area (but not footprint) is potential habitat to the species. The Project is considered unlikely to interfere with the recovery of the species. The National Recovery Plan for the False Water Rat does not identify any populations that are currently known to be under threat nor are any specific conservation measures aimed at the False Water Rat. No area of Project footprint will impact of False Water Rat habitat.

15.9.3.8 Black–footed Tree Rat

An assessment of the significance of impacts, in accordance with the Commonwealths Significant Impact Guidelines, is provided in Table 15-22 for the black–footed tree rat. The assessment demonstrates that the Project will not have a significant impact on the black–footed tree rat.

Table 15-22 Black–footed Tree Rat - Assessment of Significant Impact

Black–footed Tree Rat (Mesembriomys gouldii rattoides) Vulnerable (EPBC)



Any confirmed records of individuals can be considered as belonging to an important population given the current lack of understanding of the population structure of the species throughout its currently known distribution range. There are no recent confirmed records on the west coast of Cape York Peninsula. The site specific Species Management Program will provide targeted mitigation measures to avoid impacts on breeding fauna, while conducting clearing and other operational procedures on site which may impact fauna.


Page 15-88



The species has not been confirmed in the region. Little is known about the critical den requirements for the species, therefore it is not possible to assess the availability of suitable den sites on the Project area.


There is no information about the extent of any important population present on the Project area. However, it is unlikely any important population would restricted to the Project area given the occurrence of similar continuous dry sclerophyll woodland and open forest habitat to the south, and elsewhere in the region and the high mobility of individuals. Areas of continuous similar habitat exist around the periphery of the site outside any likely zone of disturbance, which could be utilised by the species. It is unlikely the movement of the species would be reduced by the Project if they were present and unlikely that an important population could be fragmented into two or more populations.


The Project area is not considered critical habitat for the species. The Project area is also surrounded by large tracts of continuous vegetation.


There is very little information available on reproduction of the black–footed tree rat, however it is thought that breeding may occur throughout the year with litter of one to three young. Females are known to preferentially den in hollows. The site specific Species Management Program will provide targeted mitigation measures to avoid impacts on breeding fauna.


The proposed Project will result in the clearing of 1209 ha (excl non-remnant) of potential foraging or denning habitat for black–footed tree rat. There is a low risk of invasive fire promoting grasses spreading from existing loci on the site or become established on the site in areas where chemical and mechanical control would not be feasible.



Associated changes in fire intensity and frequency could result in a decrease in the quality of existing habitat e.g. fewer potential den (hollow) trees and changes flowering, grass availability. Weed control and vehicle hygiene management will reduce the risk of this impact.


There are no known infectious diseases of black–footed tree rat. It is not likely the proposed Project will facilitate the spread of any diseases that may cause the species to decline.


Page 15-89



The conservation advice for the black–footed tree rat does not identify any populations that are currently known to be under threat nor are any specific conservation measures aimed at the species within the region that should be considered on site. The Project is considered unlikely to interfere with the recovery of the species.

15.9.4 Migratory Terrestrial Species

An assessment of the significance of impacts on migratory terrestrial species, in accordance with the Commonwealths Significant Impact Guidelines, is provided in:

Table 15-23 for the rainbow bee-eater

Table 15-24 for the rufous fantail

Table 15-25 for the lesser frigate bird

Table 15-26 for the barn swallow

Table 15-27 for the little tern

Table 15-28 for the eastern great egret

Table 15-29 for the cattle egret.

Maps showing the potential habitat for these species within and surrounding the Project area are provided in Appendix 5, Section 10.8.

Species that have a high likelihood or are confirmed in the Project area are assessed against the Commonwealths Significant Impact Guidelines.

The assessments demonstrate that the Project will not have a significant impact on listed migratory terrestrial species. Further information on the significance of potential impacts on migratory shorebirds is provided in Chapter 18.

15.9.4.1 Rainbow Bee-eater

The potential foraging range of the species across the Project footprint represents a total of 1,209 ha of available habitat, with 0 ha of potential nesting habitat. Most of the Project area is available to the species for foraging however breeding habitat is more restricted to high banks of riparian areas (loamy soils for nesting) which are limited on the Project area.

Table 15-23 Rainbow Bee-eater - Assessment of Significant Impact



Substantially modify (including by fragmenting, altering fire regimes, altering nutrient cycles or altering hydrological cycles), destroy or isolate an area of important habitat for a migratory species.

The Rainbow Bee-eater is at times of the year observed species across the site – particularly in sclerophyll woodlands. Habitat modification through changes in the fire regime resulting from invasion of exotic grasses brought in on construction machinery is a potential risk, although this threat can be significantly reduced through the implementation of weed control and monitoring and an appropriate ecological burning regime.

Most of the Project area is available to the species for foraging however breeding habitat is restricted to high banks of riparian areas (loamy soils for nesting) which are limited on the Project area and are not within the


Page 15-90


footprint area. The total area of impact of the Project on potential forging habitat is 1209 ha (excl. non-remnant) and the total potential impact on nesting habitat is 0 ha. The development does not prevent access important habitat for the species and does not prevent habitat utilisation.

Result in an invasive species that is harmful to the migratory species becoming established in an area of important habitat for the migratory species

The proposed Project is unlikely to introduce any invasive species that are harmful to migratory species on site. The rainbow bee-eater commonly utilises urban areas where pests and weed species are prevalent. A Weed and Pest Management Plan will be implemented to prevent the spread of weeds and pests on site.

Seriously disrupt the lifecycle (breeding feeding, migration or resting behaviour) of an ecologically significant proportion of a population of a migratory species.

The rainbow bee-eater is common across much of its range and is a highly mobile, dispersive species. The development footprint of the proposed Project would impact a small portion of the overall habitat available to this species in the area and is unlikely to disrupt its lifecycle.

15.9.4.2 Rufous Fantail

The potential foraging range of the species across the Project footprint represents a total of 1,209 ha of available habitat, with 0 ha of critical habitat. There will be some loss of habitat from the Project however there are large continuous tracts of habitat available to the species within and surrounding the Project area remaining for the species along its migratory route.

Table 15-24 Rufous Fantail - Assessment of Significant Impact


Will the proposed works… Response


The species has been observed utilising the site; however it is rare with only one sighting during surveys between 2010 and 2015. Habitat modification through changes in the fire regime resulting from invasion of exotic grasses brought in on mining equipment and machinery is a potential risk, although this threat can be significantly reduced through the implementation of weed control and monitoring and an appropriate ecological burning regime. The species inhabits the understorey of rainforest, wetter eucalypt forest, thickly wooded gullies, monsoon forest, paperbarks, sub-inland and coastal scrubs, and vegetation along watercourses. These types of habitat are buffered from the Project footprint. The open woodland vegetation on the Project area is considered to represent potential foraging habitat for this species. The total area of impact of the Project on potential forging habitat is 1209 ha and the total potential impact on critical habitat is 0 ha The development does not prevent access to important habitat for the species and does not prevent habitat utilisation.

Result in an invasive species that is harmful to the migratory species becoming

The proposed Project is unlikely to introduce any invasive species that are harmful to migratory species on site. A Weed and Pest Management Plan will be implemented to prevent the spread of weeds and pests on site.


Page 15-91


established in an area of important habitat for the migratory species


It is unlikely that that habitat critical to the Rufous Fantail is present on the Project footprint. The development footprint would impact little of the total habitat available to this species in the region and is unlikely to disrupt its lifecycle.

15.9.4.3 Lesser Frigatebird

The lesser frigatebird breeds on small, remote tropical and sub-tropical islands, in mangroves or bushes, and even on bare ground. It feeds mainly on fish (especially flying-fish) and squid, but also on seabird eggs and chicks, carrion and fish scraps. This species is quite specialised and habitat areas that may be utilised by this species are outside the boundaries of the Project.

Table 15-25 Lesser Frigatebird - Assessment of Significant Impact

Lesser Frigatebird (Fregata ariel)



The development does not prevent access to important habitat for the species and does not prevent habitat utilisation, however the species is unlikely to directly utilise the Project area as it is a specialised. The Project footprint will not impact habitat for the species.


The proposed Project is unlikely to introduce any invasive species that are harmful to the Lesser Frigatebird. There are no identified suitable breeding places or large areas known to be utilised by this species on the Project area, however the nearby coast (at least 3 km from the project area) provides suitable foraging habitat. A weed and pest management plan will be implemented to prevent the spread of weeds and pests.


Due to the lack of suitable habitat available to this species for breeding, feeding and resting etc., within the Project area it considered highly unlikely that the Project activities will impact on this species.

Implementation of suitable buffers to habitats known to be utilised by this species, e.g. riverine and mangrove areas will prevent disruption to the feeding of this species should a population be located in the vicinity.


Page 15-92

15.9.4.4 Barn Swallow

The potential foraging range of the species across the Project footprint represents a total of 1,209 ha of available habitat, with 0 ha of potential nesting habitat. This species is a migratory terrestrial species that may be located at some time seasonally throughout the woodland areas of the Project area.

Table 15-26 Barn Swallow - Assessment of Significant Impact

Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica)



The species has not been observed utilising the site. Habitat modification through changes in the fire regime resulting from invasion of exotic grasses brought in on mining equipment and machinery is a potential risk, although this threat can be significantly reduced through the implementation of weed control and monitoring and an appropriate ecological burning regime. They forage in open country coastal lowlands and roost near this habitat in freshwater wetlands, Melaleuca woodland, mesophyll shrub thickets and tussock grassland. These roosting habitats are buffered from the Project footprint. The total area of impact of the Project on potential forging habitat is 1209 ha and the total potential impact on nesting habitat is 0 ha The development does not prevent access to important habitat for the species and does not prevent habitat utilisation.


The proposed Project is unlikely to introduce any invasive species that are harmful to migratory species on site. A Weed and Pest Management Plan will be implemented to prevent the spread of weeds and pests on site.


It is unlikely that habitat critical to the Barn Swallow is present on the Project footprint. The development footprint would impact little of the total habitat available to this species in the region and is unlikely to disrupt its lifecycle.

15.9.4.5 Little Tern

The Project area does not contain habitat that is important to the survival of the species and all habitat that may be utilised will be buffered which will minimise impacts to the estuarine environment.

Table 15-27 Little Tern - Assessment of Significant Impact



Substantially modify (including by fragmenting, altering fire regimes, altering nutrient cycles or altering

The site does not contain habitat that is important to the survival of the species. The development does not prevent access to important habitat for the species and does not prevent habitat utilisation. The Project footprint will not impact habitat for the species.


Page 15-93


hydrological cycles), destroy or isolate an area of important habitat for a migratory species.


The proposed Project is unlikely to introduce any invasive species that are harmful to the Little Tern on site. There are no identified suitable breeding places or areas known to be utilised by this species. A Weed and Pest Management Plan will be implemented to prevent the spread of weeds and pests on site.


Potential impacts to this species within the mine development areas are considered low, due to the lack of habitat resources within the mine development area. In addition, a buffer will be maintained around all wetlands and watercourses, reducing potential impacts on this species. While disturbance along the Skardon River (i.e. barge movements) has the potential to impact this species, proposed barge traffic will likely be limited 4 daily return movements, and therefore it is considered unlikely this species will be significantly affected by the proposal. Due to the lack of suitable habitat available to this species for breeding, feeding and resting etc., it considered highly unlikely that the mining activities will impact on this species.

15.9.4.6 Eastern Great Egret

Eastern great egrets are widespread and occur in all states/territories. They have been reported in a wide range of wetland habitats.

Table 15-28 Eastern Great Egret - Assessment of Significant Impact

Eastern Great Egret (Ardea alba) Special Least Concern



This species occurs along the shallows of rivers, estuaries, tidal mudflats, freshwater wetlands, irrigation areas and larger dams. Wetland areas will not be developed and the development does not prevent access to these areas or prevent habitat utilisation.


The proposed Project is unlikely to introduce any invasive species that are harmful to great egrets. There are no identified suitable breeding places or large areas known to be utilised by this species. A Weed and Pest Management Plan will be implemented to prevent the spread of weeds on site.

Seriously disrupt the lifecycle (breeding feeding, migration

Due to the lack of suitable habitat available to these species for breeding, feeding and roosting etc., it considered highly unlikely that


Page 15-94

Eastern Great Egret (Ardea alba) Special Least Concern

or resting behaviour) of an ecologically significant proportion of a population of a migratory species.

Project activities of construction operation will impact on the migratory species.

15.9.4.7 Cattle Egret

The species is considered widespread and is known to occur in tropical and temperate grasslands and terrestrial wetlands. In northern Queensland they are considered to be vagrant and use breeding sites erratically.

Table 15-29 Cattle Egret - Assessment of Significant Impact

Cattle Egret (Ardea ibis) Special Least Concern



This species occurs in stock paddocks, croplands, pastures, garbage tips, wetlands, tidal mudflats and drains. Marginal habitat for this species occurs in proximity to the Project area (e.g. wetlands). The Project footprint presents limited suitable habitat for this species.

Wetland areas will not be developed and the development does not prevent access to these areas or prevent habitat utilisation.


The proposed Project is unlikely to introduce any invasive species that are harmful to cattle egrets on site. There are no identified suitable breeding places or large areas known to be utilised by this species. A Weed and Pest Management Plans will be implemented to prevent the spread of weeds on site.


Due to the lack of suitable habitat available to these species for breeding, feeding and roosting etc., it considered highly unlikely that Project activities of construction operation will impact on the migratory species.

15.10 MSES Significant Impact Assessment

MSES, and the chapter of the EIS in which an assessment of whether there are significant impacts to MSES, are described in Table 15-30. Some MSES have been mapped by State government and these are shown in Figure 15-19. The Queensland Environmental Offsets Policy Significant Residual Impact Guideline (EHP, December 2014) has been used for guidance in assessing whether there are significant residual impacts to MSES. As noted in this document, the criteria used to assess significance will be considered in the context of each project and should be used as guidance only.

Table 15-30 Chapter of EIS Describing Each MSES


Page 15-95

MSES EIS Chapter

Endangered regional ecosystem Chapter 15

Of concern regional ecosystem Chapter 15

Regional ecosystem intersecting with vegetation management wetlands Chapter 16

Mapped essential habitat Chapter 15

Ecosystem within a defined distance of the banks of a relevant watercourse Chapter 16

Connectivity areas Chapter 15

Wetlands in a wetland protection area or high ecological significance wetlands Chapter 16

Wetland or watercourse in high ecological waters Chapter 16

Strategic environmental area – designated precinct Chapter 15

High risk area on a flora survey trigger map Chapter 15

Area that contains endangered or vulnerable terrestrial plants Chapter 15

Area that contains endangered or vulnerable freshwater aquatic plants Chapter 16

Koala habitat Chapter 15

Habitat for endangered, vulnerable or special least concern terrestrial animal Chapter 15

Habitat for endangered, vulnerable or special least concern freshwater aquatic animal Chapter 16

Habitat for endangered, vulnerable or special least concern marine animal Chapter 18

Protected areas Chapter 15

Highly protected areas of State marine parks Chapter 18

Fish habitat areas Chapter 18

Waterway providing for fish passage Chapter 16

Marine plants Chapter 18

Legally secured offset areas Chapter 15

ML 6025

ML 40082 ML40069

Pit #14

Pit #15

61000086

9000

0

8690

000

8700

000

8700

000

Figure15-19

G:\CLIENTS\E-TO-M\Gulf Alum ina \GIS\Ma ps\EIS\Ch15_Te rre stria lEco\FIG_15_19_MSES_160310.m xd

Revision: R1

Date: 11/03/2016 Author: m a lcolm .nunn1:80,000Map Scale:


Matters of StateEnvironmental Significance

0 1 2 3 4 5Kilom e te rs


!

!

!

!

Q ue e nsla nd

CAIRNS

BRISBANE

TOWNSVILLE

ROCKHAMPTON

±

No warranty is given in relation to the data (including accuracy, reliability, completeness or suitability) and accept no liability (including without limitation, liability in negligence) for any loss, damage or costs (including consequential damage) relating to any use of or reliance upon the data. Data must not be used for direct marketing or be used in breach of privacy laws. Tenures © Geos Mining (2015). State Boundaries and Towns © Geoscience Australia (2006). Watercourses © Geoscience Australia. Imagery sourced from Gulf Alumina. MSES v4.1 © State of Queensland - Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (2015).

Legend!( Port of Ska rdon Rive r

Mining Le a se Bounda rie sExisting Disturb a nceFootprintProje ct FootprintSouthe rn Haul Roa d

MSES v4.1 Wetland ValuesRe g ula te d ve g e ta tion(inte rse cting a wa te rcourse )MSES - ’Hig h Ecolog ica lSig nifica nce ’ we tla nds

MSES v4.1 - Vegetation andHabitat

Wildlife ha b ita tMSES - Re g ula te dve g e ta tion

Pit #14

Pit #15 1:20,000


Page 15-97

In determining whether there are significant residual (post mitigation) impacts to MSES the assessment:

firstly considers whether there are any MSES species or ecosystems (identified during desktop review

or field surveys) that are confirmed, likely to occur or have moderate likelihood of occurrence

secondly, uses the Queensland Environmental Offsets Policy Significant Residual Impact Guideline

(EHP, 2014) to assess, for those MSES species or ecosystems identified, whether residual impacts are

significant.

MSES species or ecosystems that have a likelihood of occurrence of ‘not probable’, ‘low probability’ or ‘unlikely’ are not considered to be significantly impacted by the Project.

15.10.1 Endangered and Of Concern Regional Ecosystems

As described in Section 15.7.1 all State mapped REs with the Project footprint are classified as least concern under the VM Act. Least concern REs are not MSES.

15.10.2 Mapped Essential Habitat

There is no mapped essential habitat within or adjacent the Project area, therefore there are no significant impacts to mapped essential habitat.

15.10.3 Connectivity Areas

Connectivity is sufficiently maintained throughout the Project are with adequate buffers to wetland and riparian areas and surrounding remnant vegetation, as described in Section 15.6.13 and Section 15.7.5. On a regional scale the impact of clearing is minimal (i.e. 0.0025% of E. Tetrodonta habitat).

The proposed clearing will not have a significant impact on the core ecosystem at the local scale, the clearing will not significantly impact on connectivity areas, and there will not be a significant loss or reduction of core remnant areas at the site scale.

A preliminary analysis using EHP’s Landscape Fragmentation and Connectivity spatial analysis tool has been undertaken. This analysis demonstrated:

a regional total area of 209,594 ha (based on a 20 km buffer zone of the Project footprint)

a regional extent of core remnant ecosystem of 131,166 ha or 62.6%.

The area of core (pre impact) at the local scale is 27,887 ha (based on a 5 km buffer zone of the Project

footprint)

The area of core (post impact) at the local scale is 26,489 ha, giving an impact area of 1,397 ha or 5%

of the local pre-impact core.

In accordance with the significant residual impact criteria, for a core regional extent of remnant vegetation between 50 and 70% (62.6% for the area analysed) any change in local scale core area greater than 20% is considered significant. As the change in local scale core area is 5%, the impact on connectivity is not significant.

In determining the number of core areas greater than 1 ha it is important to recognise that the entire area surrounding the Project footprint forms an unbroken core habitat. In counting the number of core areas greater than 1 ha, core areas are divided in cores < 100 ha, cores 100 -500 ha and cores > 500ha. The area, percentage and number of each core grouping pre impact and post impact is provided in Table 15-31. The vast majority of core areas (99.9% both pre and post impact) is within core areas > 500 ha, which reflects the area surrounding the Project footprint is unbroken, connected remnant vegetation both pre and post impact. The insignificant extent of core areas < 100 ha (and zero core areas between 100 and 500 ha) reflects that these type of cores are limited to ecologically insignificant areas between former kaolin


Page 15-98

mining areas and the proposed Project footprint. In accordance with the significant residual impact criteria, there are more core areas post impact than pre impact and therefore the impact on connectivity is not considered significant. However the count of core areas is not considered a valid measure of actual connectivity in the landscape of the Project area as 99.9% of the area forms a single contiguous core area.

Table 15-31 Core Areas

Core Area Type Hectares Percentage Number

Pre Impact Post Impact Pre Impact Post Impact Pre Impact Post Impact

< 100 ha 6 14 0.1 0.1 1 3

100 to 500 ha 0 0 0 0 0 0

> 500 ha 27,881 26,475 99.9 99.9 3 3

Total 27,887 26,489 100 100 4 6

15.10.4 Strategic Environmental Area – Designated Precinct

There are no Strategic Environmental Area – Designated Precincts in the Project area (refer Chapter 11).

15.10.5 High Risk Area on a Flora Survey Trigger Map

The Project area does not contain area shown as high risk area on the flora survey trigger map.

15.10.6 Area that Contains Endangered or Vulnerable Plants

As described in Section 15.6.5, endangered or vulnerable terrestrial flora species are unlikely, not probable or have a low probability of occurrence in the Project footprint. Therefore, the Project will not have a significant residual impact on endangered or vulnerable terrestrial flora species.

15.10.7 Koala Habitat

There is no koala habitat in the Project area. The MSES criteria apples to South East Queensland koala habitat and is therefore not applicable to Cape York.

15.10.8 Habitat for Endangered or Vulnerable Animals

Section 15.6.6 and Section 15.1.1 describe the likelihood of occurrence of endangered and vulnerable fauna under the NC Act. Species that are unlikely to occur are not predicted to experience significant residual impacts from the Project. The endangered and vulnerable fauna species (under the NC Act) with a possible, high or confirmed occurrence in the Project area are:

red goshawk

northern quoll

spectacled flying fox

bare-rumped sheathtail bat

false water rat

eastern curlew

beach stone-curlew

estuarine crocodile (assessed in Chapter 18)


Page 15-99

All of these species, except the beach-stone curlew are listed as threatened under the EPBC Act5. The likelihood of significant residual impacts for the EPBC Act listed species is described in Section 15.9.3. The criteria for assessing significance under the EPBC Act for fauna are effectively the same as the Queensland significant residual impact criteria, and hence the conclusion that there are no significant impacts to these species applies at both Commonwealth and State level.

15.10.8.1 Beach Stone-curlew

The Beach Stone-curlew is a large, heavy-set wader that is found exclusively along the coast, on a wide range of beaches, islands, reefs and in estuaries. It may often be seen at the edges of or near mangroves. Beach Stone-curlews forage in the intertidal zone of beaches and estuaries, on islands, flats, banks and spits of sand, mud, gravel or rock, and among mangroves. A single individual was recorded on the northern bank of the Skardon River approximately 1 km upstream from the mouth in September 2014 during the targeted threatened species survey.

This species is only found along the coast. Potential foraging and roosting areas are shown in Figure 15-20. The Project mining areas are at least 3 km from the coast and the already developed Port area is about 10 km from the coast. The vegetation in the Project disturbance area is unlikely to support a population of this species.

An assessment of the significance of impacts for the beach stone-curlew, in accordance with the State Significant Residual Impact Guidelines, is provided in Table 15-32. The assessment demonstrates that the Project will not have a significant impact on the beach stone-curlew.

5 The eastern curlew was listed as threatened in May 2015, prior to that it was listed as a migratory species.

!(

ML 6025

ML 40082 ML40069

NAMALETACREEK

SKARDON RIVER

NAMALETACREEK

NAMALETACREEK

605000 610000 61500086

8500

0

8685

000

8690

000

8690

000

8695

000

8695

000

8700

000

8700

000

Figure15-20

G:\CLIENTS\E-TO-M\Gulf Alumina\GIS\Maps\EIS\Ch15_TerrestrialEco\FIG_15_20_BeachStoneCurlew_Habitat_160310.mxd

Revision: R1



Beach-stone CurlewPotential Habitat



!

!

!

!

Queensland

CAIRNS

BRISBANE

TOWNSVILLE

ROCKHAMPTON

±

No warranty is given in relation to the data (including accuracy, reliability, completeness or suitability) and accept no liability (including without limitation, liability in negligence) for any loss, damage or costs (including consequential damage) relating to any use of or reliance upon the data. Data must not be used for direct marketing or be used in breach of privacy laws. Tenures © Geos Mining (2015). State Boundaries and Towns © Geoscience Australia (2006). Watercourses © Geoscience Australia. Imagery sourced from Gulf Alumina. Beach-stone Curlew Habitat supplied by RPS.




Beach-stone Curlew Potential Habitat


Page 15-101

Table 15-32 Beach Stone-curlew - Assessment of Significant Impact

Beach Stone-curlew

Criteria Response

lead to a long-term decrease in the size of a local population?

Only one record of the species has been confirmed on the Skardon River. The species has not been found on the Project area and the Project area does not support habitat for the species survival. There is no risk to a population from Project development.

reduce the extent of occurrence of the species?

The species is strictly coastal and will only utilise the site for overflying. The proposed development will not reduce the extent of occurrence of the species.

fragment an existing population?

There is no information about the extent of any important population present on the Project area. However, it is unlikely the important population is restricted to the Project area given the occurrence of similar continuous dry sclerophyll woodland and open forest habitat elsewhere in the region

Areas of continuous similar habitat exist around the periphery of the Project area outside any likely zone of disturbance, which could be utilised by the species.

It is unlikely the movement of the species would be reduced by the Project if they were present and therefore, any important population would not be fragmented into two or more populations.

avoid genetically distinct populations forming as a result of habitat isolation?

The Project area is not considered critical habitat for the species. Habitat available to the species extends along coastal areas away from the Project area which will not isolate the species.

result in invasive species that are harmful to an endangered or vulnerable species becoming established in the endangered or vulnerable species’ habitat?

Weed and pest management plans will be developed for the Project area to prevent invasive species from being established on site. As there is no habitat available to the Beach Stone-curlew on the Project area it would only be used as a fly over, therefore the risks of impact would be even further reduced.

introduce disease that may cause the population to decline?

Pest management plans will be developed for the Project area to prevent invasive species from being established on site. As there is no habitat available to the Beach Stone-curlew on the Project area it would only be used as a fly over, therefore the risks of impact would be even further reduced.

interfere with the recovery of the species;

Project development will not impact on beach stone-curlew habitat therefore it will not impact on a population of the species and furthermore it will not interfere with the recovery of the species.

cause disruption to ecologically significant locations (breeding, feeding, nesting, migration or resting sites) of a species?

The Skardon River is not known as a staging area for the species and is not known to carry a population of the species. Mine operations at Skardon River will consist of 4 barge transfers a day that will not impact on locations where the species and other waders have been located.


Page 15-102

15.10.9 Habitat for Near Threatened Animals

Near threatened species are not a MSES. The near threatened species with a possible or confirmed occurrence in the Project area are:





Despite near threatened species not being MSES, Appendix 5 presents an assessment of the significance of impact of the Project on the palm cockatoo and Papuan sheathtail bat species using the significant residual impact criteria for endangered and vulnerable fauna. A summary is provided below.

15.10.9.1 Palm Cockatoo

Based on the known biology, habitat preferences and field survey observations of the palm cockatoo, the proposed development will have some impact on the palm cockatoo’s habitat. However there are large tracts of available habitat surrounding the Project disturbance area for the species to utilise. A species management plan will be developed for the Project to reduce any potential impacts of the development on this species.

15.10.9.2 Papuan Sheathtail Bat

The loss of potential foraging and roosting habitat due to vegetation clearing for the Project is not likely to present a significant impact on this species due to the large extent of similar habitat occurring throughout the Project area and in the surrounding region. However, clearing of sclerophyll woodland and open forest for the Project may result in the direct mortality of some individuals and the loss of some potential roost sites such as the basal hollows of trees, therefore resulting in a local scale impact on the population. A species management plan, that incorporates hollow bearing tree clearing strategies, will be developed to reduce potential risks to the population and minimise any impacts to the species.

15.10.9.3 Radjah Shelduck

The radjah shelduck was observed on exposed mudflats on the Skardon River estuary, downstream from the Project area, and the Project area is not considered to support suitable habitat for this species.

15.10.10 Habitat for Special Least Concern Animals

The Project area potentially contains habitat for the following special least concern animals (defined under the Queensland Significant Residual Impact Criteria):

echidna

The Project area is not within the distribution of the koala or platypus.

15.10.10.1 Echidna

The Short-beaked Echidna (Tachyglossus aculeatus) is found throughout Australia. It lives in forests and woodlands, heath, grasslands and arid environments6. Echidnas have large overlapping home ranges of 45–50 ha7. The area surrounding the Project footprint is characterised by large, intact areas of remnant vegetation that would provide suitable habitat for echidnas. No individuals were observed in The Project area during surveys, however habitat was available to the species. The species is considered stable

6 http://australianmuseum.net.au/short-beaked-echidna 7 http://www.wildlife.org.au/wildlife/speciesprofile/mammals/short_beaked_echidna.html

http://australianmuseum.net.au/short-beaked-echidna

http://www.wildlife.org.au/wildlife/speciesprofile/mammals/short_beaked_echidna.html


Page 15-103

throughout its range with threats to individual populations from motor strikes and feral animals being minor threatening processes. Impacts to E. tetrodonta woodland habitat should not adversely impact this species which is tolerant of a wide variety of habitat types across its range. An assessment of the significance of impacts for the echidna, in accordance with the State Significant Residual Impact Guidelines, is provided in Table 15-33. The assessment demonstrates that the Project will not have a significant impact on the echidna.

Table 15-33 Echidna - Assessment of Significant Impact

Short-beaked Echidna

Criteria Response

lead to a long-term decrease in the size of a local population?

There is potential for the species to occur on site, however, it is unlikely the proposed Project would interfere with the local population as individuals on site are mobile animals with extensive home ranges. With the Project’s inclusion of buffered areas and corridors to the external site potential risks to individuals of the species is further reduced.

reduce the extent of occurrence of the species?

The Project is unlikely to reduce the area of occupancy of the species given the mobility, extensive range of individuals and foraging potential through a variety of habitats on and off site.

fragment an existing population?

The proposed Project is unlikely to fragment an existing important population into two or more populations due to the high mobility of the species and the availability of areas of continuous similar habitat around and off site.

avoid genetically distinct populations forming as a result of habitat isolation?

There are no habitats on site which are critical to the Echidna and will prevent the species from utilising the full extent of the site and the surrounding landscape, therefore there will be no risk of habitat isolation to the species.

Disrupt ecologically significant locations for the species

There are no habitats on site which are critical to the Echidna and will prevent the species from utilising the full extent of the site and the surrounding landscape, therefore there will be no risk of habitat isolation to the species.

15.10.11 Protected Areas

There are no protected areas within the Project area (refer Chapter 4).

15.10.12 Legally Secured Offset Areas

There are no legally secured offset areas within the Project area.

15.11 Residual Impacts and Offsets

The above assessment demonstrates that there will be no significant residual impacts to terrestrial MNES. Refer to Chapter 18 for consideration of whether there are significant residual impacts on marine MSES. Chapter 26 provides a summary of findings for all MNES.

The above assessment demonstrates that there will be no significant residual impacts to the MSES addressed in this chapter (refer to Table 15-30). Refer to Chapter 16 and Chapter 18 for consideration of whether there are significant residual impacts on all other MSES.


Page 15-104

15.12 Risk Assessment

A risk assessment assessing the likelihood and significance of impacts to terrestrial ecology from the Project is provided in Table 15-34. The risk assessment considers mitigated risk; that is, the impact from the Project with the implementation of management measures. The mitigated risk does not include mitigation associated with offsets, which is the primary measure to mitigate residual risk. The risks to conservation significant terrestrial ecosystems fauna and flora are low to medium.

Table 15-34 Risk Assessment and Management Measures for Identified Impacts to Terrestrial Ecology

Environmental Value

Impacts / Emissions / Releases

Proposed Management Practices

Likelihood Consequence (Magnitude)

Risk Rating

Threatened ecological communities

Refer Sections 15.7 and 15.9. Significant impacts to threatened ecological communities.

Refer Section 15.8

Rare Moderate Medium

Endangered and of concern regional ecosystems

Refer Sections 15.7 and 15.10. Significant impacts to endangered and of concern regional ecosystems

Refer Section 15.8

Unlikely Moderate Medium

Threatened or migratory terrestrial fauna

Refer Sections 15.7, 15.9 and 15.10. Significant impacts to Commonwealth or State listed threatened or migratory terrestrial fauna.

Refer Section 15.8

Unlikely Moderate Medium

Threatened terrestrial flora

Refer Sections 15.7, 15.9 and 15.10. Significant impacts to Commonwealth or State listed threatened terrestrial flora.

Refer Section 15.8

Unlikely Minor Low

Connectivity and habitat

Refer Section 15.7. Clearing results in loss of connectivity and ecosystem function.

Refer Section 15.8

Unlikely Minor Low

15.13 Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impacts are considered for all known or reasonably foreseeable projects with the potential for spatial and temporal impacts in combination with the Skardon River Bauxite Project. The projects in the Cape York region which potentially meet these criteria are:

Metro Mining Ltd’s (formerly Cape Alumina Ltd’s) Bauxite Hills project

Rio Tinto’s existing bauxite mining operation near Weipa

Rio Tinto’s proposed South of Embley Project

Rio Tinto’s existing and proposed projects are not considered to have a cumulative impact on terrestrial ecology with the Skardon River Bauxite Project as the projects are approximately 90 km apart, do not share the same catchments or hydrology and do not operate in the same near shore waters.


Page 15-105

The only project considered to have a cumulative impact with the Skardon River Bauxite Project is the Bauxite Hills project. Based on publically available information (EPBC Act Referral), the Bauxite Hills project would be for an integrated bauxite mine adjacent (east and west) to the Project and port located to the immediate south of the Skardon River. The Referral for the Bauxite Hills project describes a 2 Mtpa bauxite mine with over 21 year mine life and a 61.5 Mt indicated and inferred resource (in November 2015 this was revised to a 5 Mtpa operation for 12 years, but no impact assessment is publically available for this scenario). The Bauxite Hills project includes a new barge loading facility on the Skardon River, barging of bauxite to an offshore transhipment area, workers camp and haul road transport corridor. A mine plan from the Referral for the Bauxite Hills project is provided in Figure 15-21, which shows mining to the east and west of the Skardon River Bauxite Project.

Figure 15-21 Mine Plan – Bauxite Hills Project EPBC Act Referral

15.13.1 Terrestrial Environment

Metro Mining has commissioned ecological studies of their project site. Discussions with ecologists from the Metro Mining’s project team (AMEC) identified that species were generally consistent between sites and there were no MNES or MSES flora or fauna species located on the Bauxite Hills Project site that were also not located on the Skardon River Bauxite Project site. AMEC’s 2015 report on the ecology on Bauxite Hills Project site, as provided with the project’s EPBC Act Referral, has been reviewed. Any species records that have been confirmed at the Bauxite Hills project site have been incorporated into the ecological assessment undertaken for the Skardon River Bauxite Project.

Fauna management programs developed for each project will mitigate against direct impacts such as mortality and loss of habitat, however a cooperative management strategy between the projects will


Page 15-106

prevent fragmentation of critical habitats such that landscape connectivity and corridor linkages are maintained.

No threatened species of terrestrial conservation significance was recorded at either project site. Potential habitat is present for a number of conservation significant species however there is expected to be no significant cumulative impact on fauna from the removal of E. tetrodonta habitat due to:

the implementation of buffers and corridors to sensitive vegetation (riparian, wetlands and

mangroves) which will reduce habitat fragmentation and ensure landscape connectivity is maintained

between projects

high mobility of conservation significant species (listed as possible in this habitat), that could access

other habitat areas

availability of E. tetradonta across the broader landscape that is not fragmented by other

developments

rehabilitation of mined areas.

Two terrestrial migratory species the rainbow bee-eater and the rufous fantail utilise the E. tetrodonta habitat however these species are highly mobile and have the ability to establish foraging and roosting sites external to the project’s footprints. Other migratory species confirmed adjacent to the projects predominately utilise habitats within the buffered areas, coastal habitats or the Skardon River therefore have limited potential impacts from either project.

Two conservation significant fauna species were positively identified in the woodland type that is proposed to be cleared, the NC Act listed near threatened Papuan sheathtail bat and the palm cockatoo, however with appropriate mitigation measures including development of species management plans for these species, there should be limited adverse impacts on the species. The partial loss of this habitat on the mining leases is not considered to be significant, particularly with the implementation of ground-planned environmental buffers and buffer areas that will retain and protect important ecological habitats, which in turn will protect the Skardon River, Namaleta Creek and wetlands.

Secondary cumulative impacts to fauna potentially occur throughout the operational phase of the projects and relate directly to hydrology, fire, weed and pest control activities. Each project’s commitment to management and mitigation measures will prevent significant impacts to conservation significant fauna, if present, throughout the duration of their operations. Short term and localised impacts will occur to species however these will not result in significant impacts to a species and can be managed under a Species Management Program.

Clearing of large tracts of E. tetrodonta habitat is not a high risk to species, as it is available in the surrounding landscape, however there is a risk that clearing between projects will be conducted such that landscape connectivity will be reduced and therefore corridor linkages across that landscape are not maintained. This is particularly important for species that are locally or regionally endemic. It is expected that both projects will implement similar mitigation measures, primarily rehabilitation of mined areas.

The majority of clearing for both projects will occur in RE 3.5.2; however this will not result in a change of RE classification of this unit from “least concern” to a higher threatened status level under the VM Act because the RE will not be cleared to the extent where percentage area remaining in Queensland will fall below the area threshold where it would be reclassified as "of concern". The Bauxite Hills project is likely to result in clearing of similar areas of RE 3.5.2 to the Skardon River Bauxite Project which represents 0.0025% of the Queensland extent of the RE.

No flora species of MNES or MSES significance was found in proposed directly impacted areas of both projects. Potential habitat for Dendrobium johannis and D. bigibbum occurs in potentially impacted areas on both project sites, including up to 30 ha of proposed clearing of Melaleuca and mangrove fringing communities for infrastructure at the Bauxite Hills project and 0.5 ha of clearing of a Melaleuca


Page 15-107

community for the Skardon River Bauxite Project’s Namaleta Creek crossing. The majority of potential impact therefore comes from the Bauxite Hills project, with the Skardon River Bauxite Project providing minimal contribution to cumulative impacts to these species.

Significant cumulative adverse terrestrial impacts (both direct and indirect) are not anticipated on MNES flora and fauna as a result of the proposed projects. None of the individual projects are expected to cause significant long term impacts to MNES/MSES flora or fauna following the implementation of proposed and likely mitigation and management measures. It is expected that both projects will implement similar mitigation measures, primarily rehabilitation of mined areas, and that the projects considered together will not cause impacts that significantly increase the cumulative impacts of other projects.

Gulf Alumina will seek to cooperate and consult with Metro Mining on all aspects of ecological management, including MNES. This will include publication and sharing of data and other information.

The sharing of infrastructure, including Port infrastructure, is subject to commercial arrangements and will be undertaken where this is commercially possible. Gulf Alumina note that Metro Mining are proposing a separate Port area downstream from the existing Port.

As part of the safe and efficient operation of vessels in the Skardon River, vessel management will be subject to the requirements of Maritime Safety Queensland and Ports North. Gulf Alumina will cooperate with these organisations and Metro Mining on vessel operation.

It is expected that both projects will implement similar mitigation measures for ecological impacts (including those to MNES), with rehabilitation using native species being a key mitigation measure. Gulf Alumina will share information on rehabilitation approaches with Metro Mining, assuming Metro Mining also propose revegetation with native species.

Gulf Alumina will adopt strategic and adaptive management approaches for ecological impacts. At a strategic level, Gulf will seek to understand the timing and nature of mitigation measures proposed by Metro Mining and seek to undertake mitigation measures that complement those undertaken by Metro Mining. It is expected that both companies will adopt adaptive management measures and that information will be shared on adaptive management to improve ecological outcomes across both projects.

Gulf Alumina has identified biodiversity corridors where mining will not occur and this information is available to Metro Mining. It is expected that Metro Mining will allow for continuation of biodiversity corridors on their mining leases as these corridors are associated with wetland areas and watercourses where economic bauxite resources and mining will not occur.

Should offsets be required for both projects, then it is likely that that offsets will be required for impacts to similar ecosystems and species. If commercially viable, and depending on the nature of offsets proposed by each company, then Gulf Alumina will seek to cooperate with Metro Mining on the provision of offsets that maximise ecological benefits.

15.14 Conclusion

Numerous field surveys have been undertaken in the terrestrial environments in accordance with State and Commonwealth survey guidelines in order to understand the ecosystems and species, and assess the likelihood of occurrence of listed threatened and migratory species and ecosystems. Four field surveys of flora and vegetation were completed in mid-April 2010, early June 2010, early April 2011 and February 2015. Fauna surveys were undertaken in June 2010 (dry season generic survey), September / October 2014 (targeted surveys) and February 2015 (wet season generic survey). The red goshawk, bare-rumped sheathtail bat, northern quoll and spectacled flying fox were specifically targeted in 2014 surveys to determine presence/absence with no species confirmed during that or other surveys on site.


Page 15-108

Desktop reviews have been undertaken for the area potentially impacted by the Project, including Commonwealth and State databases and mapping, regional ecosystems, wetlands, fauna and flora databases, detailed aerial imagery, published literature by third parties, other environmental studies for the EIS, environmental studies for other projects in the region, and historical data and reports from the Project area.

In combination field surveys and desktop reviews have provided a comprehensive understanding of the terrestrial environment in which Project activities will occur. Vegetation communities (map units) have been defined based on field surveys and aerial imagery and have been used to define regional ecosystems. These are substantially similar to State mapped regional ecosystems, which have been used to assess Project footprint impacts.

The remnant community that will be most directly impacted by the Project is the widespread RE 3.5.2, Eucalyptus tetrodonta, Corymbia nesophila tall woodland on deeply weathered plateaus and remnants, which has a ‘least concern’ RE status. Vegetation mapping was prepared for the Project area based on field surveys, desktop review and aerial imagery. The majority of the Project footprint (1,126 ha out of 1,315 ha or 86%) occurs within State mapped RE 3.5.2 (vegetation map units 1 and 6). The proposed clearing of RE 3.5.2 represents approximately 0.0025% of state extent of this RE. Non-remnant vegetation comprises 105 ha (8%) of the Project footprint. Other State mapped REs within the Project footprint include RE 3.2.10 (Eucalyptus tetrodonta forest, 76 ha, 5.8%), RE 3.3.50 / 3.5.22 (tall grassy woodland, 6 ha, 0.5%), and 1 ha of RE 3.3.64/3.3.9. Buffer zones of 100 m have been proposed around all wetland REs. There is no proposed vegetation clearing in wetland REs, except for the crossing of Namaleta Creek and Tributary 1 (mapped wetland between Pits 14 and 15).

There are no TECs on the EPBC Act Search. Field surveys did not detect any vegetation communities that would be considered TECs.

The Project will result in clearing of clearing of approximately 1,209 ha of remnant vegetation. All regional ecosystems proposed for clearing are classified as least concern under the VM Act.

A total of eight threatened terrestrial flora species were either returned from Commonwealth or State database searches or identified during field surveys. The ecological assessment identified that it was not probable, or there was a low probability, or it was unlikely that these species would occur in the Project footprint. Therefore it is not considered that these species will be significantly impacted by the Project at either Commonwealth or State level.

A total of 11 threatened (critically endangered, endangered, vulnerable) terrestrial fauna species were either returned from Commonwealth or State database searches or identified during field surveys. Nine species, the red goshawk, masked owl, eastern curlew, beach-stone curlew, northern quoll, spectacled flying-fox, bare-rumped sheathtail bat, false water rate, and black-footed tree rat, had a possible, high or confirmed occurrence in or near the Project area. The significance of impacts on these species was assessed and it was found that the Project would not result in significant impacts to these species.

Four other near threatened species at State level, the palm cockatoo, radjah shelduck, chestnut dunnart and Papuan sheathtail bat had a possible or confirmed occurrence in or near the Project area. Other listed (critically endangered, endangered, vulnerable and near threatened) terrestrial fauna species were considered unlikely to occur and therefore it is not considered that these species will be significantly impacted by the Project at either Commonwealth or State level.

A total of 16 listed migratory terrestrial fauna species were returned from the EPBC Act Search. Three species were assessed as being unlikely, 6 species as possible, one species as high and 6 species were confirmed.

Potential Project impacts on the terrestrial environment include loss of connectivity, loss and modification of wildlife habitat, mortality of fauna species and the introduction of weeds and pests.

The primary management and mitigation measures for these impacts are:


Page 15-109

environmental buffers zones (100m) surrounding wetlands and watercourses where mining will not

occur

progressive rehabilitation of mining areas using native vegetation

habitat and fauna management during clearing

weed and pest management.

The EPBC Act Significant Impact Guidelines and the Queensland Environmental Offsets Policy Significant Residual Impact Guideline were used to assess whether the Project would result in significant residual impacts to terrestrial MNES and MSES respectively. These assessments found that there would not be significant residual impacts to terrestrial ecosystems, fauna and flora that are MNES or MSES.

Documents

Chapter 15 – Terrestrial Ecology - Metro Mining · environments are not discrete and elements of terrestrial ecology and freshwater aquatic ecology are described in both chapters