Chapter 15 – Terrestrial Ecology - Metro Mining

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 ................................................................................................ 15-2 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 (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 (RE Complex) ............................................................................... 15-18 15.6.2.5 Mapped Wetland between Pits 14 and 15 (Unit 9, RE 3.3.22a) ............................ 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 ............................................................................................................ 15-27 15.6.6.3 Northern Quoll ....................................................................................................... 15-28 15.6.6.4 Spectacled Flying-fox .............................................................................................. 15-32 15.6.6.5 Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat ................................................................................... 15-32 15.6.6.6 False Water Rat / Water Mouse ............................................................................. 15-35 15.6.6.7 Black-footed Tree Rat ............................................................................................. 15-35 15.6.6.8 Eastern Curlew ....................................................................................................... 15-35 15.6.7 Likelihood of Occurrence – Listed Threatened Fauna Species ............................... 15-39 15.6.8 Listed Migratory Species ........................................................................................ 15-46 15.6.9 All Species ............................................................................................................... 15-53 15.6.10 Bats ......................................................................................................................... 15-53 15.6.11 Species Habitat ....................................................................................................... 15-54 15.6.12 Pests ....................................................................................................................... 15-55 15.6.13 Connectivity ............................................................................................................ 15-55 15.6.14 Fire in the Landscape ............................................................................................. 15-57 15.7 Potential Impacts ........................................................................................... 15-57 15.7.1 Project Footprint and Regional Ecosystems / Vegetation Map Units .................... 15-57 15.7.2 Buffer Zones ........................................................................................................... 15-61 15.7.3 Listed Threatened Flora ......................................................................................... 15-63 15.7.4 Namaleta Creek Crossing ....................................................................................... 15-63 15.7.5 Connectivity ............................................................................................................ 15-63 15.7.6 Terrestrial Fauna .................................................................................................... 15-63 15.7.6.1 Loss and Modification of Wildlife Habitat .............................................................. 15-63 15.7.6.2 Habitat Fragmentation and Barriers to Movement ............................................... 15-64 15.7.6.3 Mortality of Fauna Species ..................................................................................... 15-64 15.7.6.4 Edge Effects ............................................................................................................ 15-64


Page 15-ii

15.7.7 Weeds and Pests .................................................................................................... 15-64 15.7.8 Fires ........................................................................................................................ 15-65 15.8 Management Measures and Plans .................................................................. 15-65 15.8.1 Buffer Zones ........................................................................................................... 15-65 15.8.2 Rehabilitation ......................................................................................................... 15-65 15.8.3 Fire Management ................................................................................................... 15-65 15.8.4 Habitat Management ............................................................................................. 15-66 15.8.5 Species Management Program .............................................................................. 15-67 15.8.6 Connectivity ............................................................................................................ 15-68 15.8.7 Weed and Pest Management ................................................................................. 15-69 15.8.8 Environmental Training .......................................................................................... 15-70 15.9 MNES Significant Impact Assessment .............................................................. 15-70 15.9.1 Threatened Ecological Communities ...................................................................... 15-70 15.9.2 Terrestrial Flora Species ......................................................................................... 15-70 15.9.3 Terrestrial Fauna Species ....................................................................................... 15-70 15.9.3.1 Red Goshawk .......................................................................................................... 15-70 15.9.3.2 Eastern Curlew ....................................................................................................... 15-72 15.9.3.3 Masked Owl ............................................................................................................ 15-73 15.9.3.4 Northern Quoll ....................................................................................................... 15-74 15.9.3.5 Spectacled Flying-fox .............................................................................................. 15-76 15.9.3.6 Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat ................................................................................... 15-77 15.9.3.7 False Water Rat ...................................................................................................... 15-79 15.9.3.8 Black–footed Tree Rat ............................................................................................ 15-81 15.9.4 Migratory Terrestrial Species ................................................................................. 15-82 15.9.4.1 Rainbow Bee-eater ................................................................................................. 15-82 15.9.4.2 Rufous Fantail ......................................................................................................... 15-83 15.9.4.3 Lesser Frigatebird ................................................................................................... 15-84 15.9.4.4 Barn Swallow .......................................................................................................... 15-85 15.9.4.5 Little Tern ............................................................................................................... 15-85 15.9.4.6 Eastern Great Egret ................................................................................................ 15-86 15.9.4.7 Cattle Egret ............................................................................................................. 15-87 15.10 MSES Significant Impact Assessment............................................................... 15-87 15.10.1 Endangered and Of Concern Regional Ecosystems ................................................ 15-90 15.10.2 Mapped Essential Habitat ...................................................................................... 15-90 15.10.3 Connectivity Areas.................................................................................................. 15-90 15.10.4 Strategic Environmental Area – Designated Precinct ............................................ 15-91 15.10.5 High Risk Area on a Flora Survey Trigger Map ....................................................... 15-91 15.10.6 Area that Contains Endangered or Vulnerable Plants ........................................... 15-91 15.10.7 Koala Habitat .......................................................................................................... 15-91 15.10.8 Habitat for Endangered or Vulnerable Animals ..................................................... 15-91 15.10.8.1 Beach Stone-curlew................................................................................................ 15-92 15.10.9 Habitat for Near Threatened Animals .................................................................... 15-95 15.10.9.1 Palm Cockatoo ........................................................................................................ 15-95 15.10.9.2 Papuan Sheathtail Bat ............................................................................................ 15-95 15.10.9.3 Radjah Shelduck ..................................................................................................... 15-95 15.10.10 Habitat for Special Least Concern Animals ............................................................ 15-95 15.10.10.1 Echidna ................................................................................................................... 15-95 15.10.11 Protected Areas ...................................................................................................... 15-96 15.10.12 Legally Secured Offset Areas .................................................................................. 15-96 15.11 Residual Impacts and Offsets .......................................................................... 15-96 15.12 Risk Assessment ............................................................................................. 15-96


Page 15-iii

15.13 Cumulative Impacts ........................................................................................ 15-97 15.13.1 Terrestrial Environment ......................................................................................... 15-98 15.14 Conclusion ................................................................................................... 15-100

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 .................................................................................................................... 15-40 Table 15-8 Likelihood of Occurrence of MNES Listed Migratory Species ................................ 15-47 Table 15-9 Identified Bat Species ............................................................................................. 15-53 Table 15-10 Regional Ecosystems in Project Footprint .............................................................. 15-58 Table 15-11 Buffer Zones ........................................................................................................... 15-61 Table 15-12 Buffer Zones and Mining Overlaps ......................................................................... 15-62 Table 15-13 Red Goshawk - Assessment of Significant Impact .................................................. 15-71 Table 15-14 Eastern Curlew - Assessment of Significant Impact ............................................... 15-72 Table 15-15 Masked Owl - Assessment of Significant Impact ................................................... 15-73 Table 15-16 Northern Quoll - Assessment of Significant Impact ............................................... 15-75 Table 15-17 Spectacled Flying-fox - Assessment of Significant Impact ..................................... 15-76 Table 15-18 Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat - Assessment of Significant Impact ........................... 15-78 Table 15-19 False Water Rat - Assessment of Significant Impact .............................................. 15-79 Table 15-20 Black–footed Tree Rat - Assessment of Significant Impact .................................... 15-81 Table 15-21 Rainbow Bee-eater - Assessment of Significant Impact ......................................... 15-83 Table 15-22 Rufous Fantail - Assessment of Significant Impact................................................. 15-83 Table 15-23 Lesser Frigatebird - Assessment of Significant Impact ........................................... 15-84 Table 15-24 Barn Swallow - Assessment of Significant Impact .................................................. 15-85 Table 15-25 Little Tern - Assessment of Significant Impact ....................................................... 15-85 Table 15-26 Eastern Great Egret - Assessment of Significant Impact ........................................ 15-86 Table 15-27 Cattle Egret - Assessment of Significant Impact ..................................................... 15-87 Table 15-28 Chapter of EIS Describing Each MSES ..................................................................... 15-87 Table 15-29 Core Areas .............................................................................................................. 15-91 Table 15-30 Beach Stone-curlew - Assessment of Significant Impact ....................................... 15-94 Table 15-31 Echidna - Assessment of Significant Impact ........................................................... 15-96 Table 15-32 Risk Assessment and Management Measures for Identified Impacts to

Terrestrial Ecology .................................................................................................. 15-97

Figures

Figure 15-1 Flora Survey Locations.............................................................................................. 15-4 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 Vegetation Map Units ............................................................................................ 15-15


Page 15-iv

Figure 15-6 Lunette Swamp Vegetation .................................................................................... 15-17 Figure 15-7 Namaleta Creek Regional Ecosystems ................................................................... 15-21 Figure 15-8 Red Goshawk Potential Nesting and Foraging Areas ............................................. 15-29 Figure 15-9 Masked Owl Potential Habitat ............................................................................... 15-30 Figure 15-10 Northern Quoll Potential Habitat ........................................................................... 15-31 Figure 15-11 Spectacled Flying-fox Potential Habitat ................................................................. 15-33 Figure 15-12 Bare-Rumped Sheathtail Bat Potential Habitat ..................................................... 15-34 Figure 15-13 False Water Rat Potential Habitat .......................................................................... 15-36 Figure 15-14 Black-footed Tree Rat Potential Habitat ................................................................ 15-37 Figure 15-15 Eastern Curlew Potential Habitat ........................................................................... 15-38 Figure 15-16 Areas of Connectivity ............................................................................................. 15-56 Figure 15-17 Project Footprint and Regional Ecosystems ........................................................... 15-59 Figure 15-18 Footprint in ML 6025 and Namaleta Creek ............................................................ 15-60 Figure 15-19 MSES ....................................................................................................................... 15-89 Figure 15-20 Beach Stone-curlew Potential Habitat ................................................................... 15-93 Figure 15-21 Conceptual Mine Plan – Bauxite Hills Project ........................................................ 15-98


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.

Chapter 16 describes the freshwater aquatic ecology (including MNES and MDSES) 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.

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.

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.


Page 15-2

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.

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.


Page 15-3

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_150815.mxd

Revision: R1

Date: 15/08/2015 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).

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

DD

D

D

DD

D

D

D 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 15-2

G:\CLIENTS\E-TO-M\Gulf Alumina\GIS\Maps\EIS\Ch15_TerrestrialEco\FIG_15_02_Fauna_Survey_150815.mxd

Revision: R1



Fauna 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 fauna survey locations © RPS.


Mining Lease BoundariesExisting Disturbance FootprintProject FootprintWatercourses

!( Fauna Survey Site (AU site) (Feburary 2015)!( Fauna Survey Sites (June 2010)D Camera Traps (September 2014)!( Ultrasonic Bat Detectors (September 2014)

RPS Fauna Survey Locations


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 85% of the Project footprint is in EHP mapped RE 3.5.2.

There are no threatened ecological communities (TECs) on the EPBC Act Protected Matters Search for 20km 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_151008.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

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

NAMALETACREEK

Pit #14

Pit #15 1:20,000


Page 15-12

15.6.2 Field Mapped Regional Ecosystems and Vegetation Communities

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 equivalent RE. Regional ecosystems are shown on Figure 15-4 and vegetation map units, used to derive REs, are shown in Figure 15-5. These vegetation map units have been assigned equivalent REs, which are used to describe impacts from the Project. Vegetation map units have been used to describe vegetation where they represent a more accurate mapping of vegetation and ecosystems than that provide in RE mapping, for example at Lunette Swamp.

All REs are least concern (LC) under the VM Act, except for RE 3.3.12 which is of concern (OC).

Table 15-3 Vegetation Map Units and Equivalent REs

Map unit

Equivalent RE*

Description

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

3 RE 3.3.50 (LC) Melaleuca viridiflora woodland to 12 m with Corymbia novoguinensis on slowly drained clay.

4 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)

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

5c RE 3.3.9 (LC) Fringing woodland of Xanthostemon crenulatus with Neofabricia myrtifolia to 18 m at base of bauxite plateau.

5d RE 3.3.12 (OC)

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) 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) 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) 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)

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.


Page 15-13

Map unit

Equivalent RE*

Description

7b RE 3.3.14, RE 3.3.22 (LC)

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)

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) 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 3.3.22a (LC)

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_151008.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

3.3.123.3.513.3

.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

3.3.493.3.9

3.3.643.5.2

3.5.2

3.3.49

3.5.2

3.5.23.3.12

3.5.2

3.5.22

3.3.22a

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

3.3.22a 9

!(

ML 6025

ML 40082 ML40069

NAMALETACREEK

SKARDON RIVER

NAMALETA

CREEK5a

5e5d 5d5e5a3

5d5a

5a5d5d

5d

5a5c5b

2 2

66

5f5d

66

66

8

8 5d5d

66

6

6

5

2

3

2

5

1

11

22

6

7c 7b7a

111

44

2

9

7a/7b/7c

Pit #14Pit #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_151008.mxd

Revision: R1



Vegetation Map Units



!

!

!

!

Queensland

CAIRNS

BRISBANE

TOWNSVILLE

ROCKHAMPTON

±



Mining Lease BoundariesWatercoursesVegetation BufferExisting Disturbance FootprintProject FootprintSouthern Haul Road

Mapped Vegetation Units(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 (3.3.22a)

NAMALETACREEK

5a5d

5d5d

5e5d

3

5d 5a5d

5d

5d

5d

5a

5c5b

6

6

5d

5d5d

4

9

Pit #14

Pit #15 1:20,000


Page 15-16

The regional ecosystem most impacted by the Project footprint (96% of the footprint) is RE 3.5.2 (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 10 ha of vegetation community unit 2 (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 33 ha of vegetation community unit 8 (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 vegetation map unit’s equivalent 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 mapped for the Project area:

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

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

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

map unit 9 (RE 3.3.22a) along a drainage line of Namaleta Creek between Pits 14 and 15.

15.6.2.1 Lunette Swamp (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 4-6m. 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-


Page 15-17

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.

Figure 15-6 Lunette Swamp Vegetation


Page 15-18

15.6.2.2 Bigfoot Swamp

The mapped RE for Bigfoot Swamp is mixed polygon 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 3.3.2a 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, 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 (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 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

RE Structure Description

5d 3.3.12 (OC)

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)

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)

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)

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.

5b 3.3.64

(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.


Page 15-20

Vegetation Unit

RE Structure Description

Included in 5d

3.3.12 (OC)

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 3.3.22a)

The description for map unit 9 (RE 3.3.22a) is based on a desktop assessment of photographs taken from the area in July 2015, which was unable to be accessed in February 2015 (wet season). The conspicuous floristic component of the trees (RE 3.3.22a) differs considerably from the current RE description of RE 3.3.64 / 3.3.9. Additional field surveys may be undertaken to confirm the RE status of this vegetation community. RE 3.3.22a is not associated with wetland habitat, it is classified as “floodplain (other than floodplain wetlands)” by EHP.

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

3.3.493.3.9

3.3.64

3.5.22 3.5.22

3.5.2

3.5.2

3.3.49

3.3.12

3.5.2

3.5.2

3.5.2

3.2.10

3.2.10

3.3.12

3.3.12

3.5.2

3.5.2

3.5.22

3.3.22a

3.3.12

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_151008.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

3.3.22a 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 30 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) apply 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, other than the Eastern Curlew) 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)

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

false water rat


Page 15-27

black–footed tree rat

eastern curlew (returned on the NC Act search however it is EPBC Act listed)

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.

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. The extent of potential foraging and nesting habitat for the Red Goshawk on site is shown in Figure 15-8. 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.

15.6.6.2 Masked Owl

The masked owl typically occurs in sclerophyll forest and woodland with a grassy understorey or with a mosaic of sparse and dense ground cover. 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 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


Page 15-28

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 woodland that will be cleared for the Project footprint (1,374 ha) does contain suitable nesting habitat, as shown in Figure 15-9. 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 northern quoll was considered unlikely to occur on the Project area due to the absence of complex rocky outcrops, 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 the south of the Project area in 2013. On the basis of this rediscovery, it is possible for northern quolls to recolonise their historical range, which includes the Project area.

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 (1,374 ha Project footprint) 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.

!(

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_151008.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_151008.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_151008.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 15-32

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.

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 1,374 hectares, as shown in Figure 15-11.

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

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.

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 (1,374 ha in the Project footprint) is shown in Figure 15-12.

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_151008.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_151008.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 15-35

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. 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 area available to the species is 1,374 hectares.

15.6.6.8 Eastern Curlew

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_151008.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_151008.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

Figure15-15

G:\CLIENTS\E-TO-M\Gulf Alumina\GIS\Maps\EIS\Ch15_TerrestrialEco\FIG_15_15_EasternCurlew_Habitat_151008.mxd

Revision: R1



Eastern Curlew 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. Eastern Curlew Habitat supplied by RPS.




Eastern Curlew Potential Habitat


Page 15-39

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.

Sk

ard

on

Riv

er B

auxi

te P

roje

ct

C

hap

ter

15

– T

erre

stri

al E

colo

gy

Pag

e 1

5-4

0

Tab

le 1

5-7

Li

kelih

oo

d o

f O

ccu

rren

ce o

f EP

BC

Act

an

d N

C A

ct L

iste

d T

hre

ate

ned

Fa

un

a S

pec

ies

Nam

e EP

BC

Sta

tus

NC

A S

tatu

s H

abit

at P

refe

ren

ce

Like

liho

od

of

Occ

urr

ence

BIR

DS

Red

G

osh

awk

(Ery

thri

orc

his

ra

dia

tus)

Vu

lner

able

En

dan

gere

d

The

Red

Go

shaw

k o

ccu

rs i

n c

oas

tal

and

su

b-

coas

tal

area

s o

f tr

op

ical

an

d w

arm

tem

per

ate

Au

stra

lia.

The

spec

ies

pre

fers

w

oo

ded

an

d

fore

ste

d la

nd

s w

ith

a m

osa

ic o

f ve

geta

tio

n t

ypes

an

d d

ensi

ties

e.g

. ec

oto

nes

bet

wee

n r

ain

fore

st

and

eu

caly

pt

fore

st, g

alle

ry fo

rest

an

d w

oo

dla

nd

, w

oo

dla

nd

an

d g

rass

lan

d,

clea

red

lan

d,

road

s o

r w

ater

cou

rses

. Th

e R

ed G

osh

awk

nes

ts i

n l

arge

, o

fte

n e

mer

gen

t tr

ees.

Th

e p

rese

nt

Cap

e Yo

rk

po

pu

lati

on

is

esti

mat

ed a

t 6

0-7

0 b

ree

din

g p

airs

an

d p

relim

inar

y es

tim

ates

of

the

ho

me

ran

ge f

or

the

spec

ies

are

12

0km

2 fo

r fe

mal

es a

nd

20

0km

2.

Po

ssib

le.

Rec

ent

reco

rds

fro

m n

ear

Mu

sgra

ve

app

roxi

mat

ely

3

50

km

to

th

e SE

in

2

01

1.

Suit

able

nes

tin

g an

d f

ora

gin

g h

abit

at c

on

firm

ed

to o

ccu

r o

n t

he

Pro

ject

are

a. T

arge

ted

su

rvey

s in

20

14

an

d g

ener

ic f

aun

a su

rvey

s in

20

10

an

d

20

15

did

no

t co

nfi

rm p

rese

nce

of

the

spec

ies

or

dis

tin

ctiv

e la

rge

stic

k n

ests

on

th

e P

roje

ct a

rea.

Go

lden

-sh

ou

lder

ed

Par

rot

(Pse

ph

otu

s ch

ryso

pte

ryg

ius)

End

ange

red

En

dan

gere

d

Op

en,

wet

or

dry

tro

pic

al s

avan

nah

wo

od

lan

ds

wit

h a

n u

pp

er s

trat

um

do

min

ate

d b

y M

ela

leu

ca

spp

. o

r Eu

caly

ptu

s sp

p.

and

a l

ow

er

stra

tum

d

om

inat

ed

by

Schi

zach

yriu

m

spp

., Th

au

ma

sta

chlo

a s

pp

., P

lum

e So

rgh

um

(So

rgh

um

p

lum

osu

m)

and

Er

iach

ne

bu

rkit

tii.

Ther

e is

a

sin

gle

his

tori

cal

reco

rd f

rom

man

gro

ves.

Gra

ss

see

d a

vaila

bili

ty a

nd

fre

qu

ent

fire

are

nec

ess

ary

for

the

surv

ival

of

the

spec

ies.

Un

likel

y. O

nly

rec

en

t re

cord

s ar

e fr

om

Art

emis

St

atio

n

Iro

n

Ran

ge

35

0km

ea

st

and

St

aate

n

Riv

er N

atio

nal

Par

k (6

00

km s

ou

th).

Th

e P

roje

ct

are

a d

oes

no

t co

nta

in p

refe

ren

tial

hab

itat

fo

r th

e sp

ecie

s an

d h

as n

ot

bee

n k

no

wn

to

in

hab

it

the

wes

t o

r n

ort

her

n C

ape

York

Pen

insu

la.

Mas

ked

O

wl

(no

rth

ern

su

bsp

ecie

s)

(Tyt

o n

ova

eho

llan

dia

e ki

mb

erlii

)

Vu

lner

able

V

uln

erab

le

This

sp

ecie

s is

dis

trib

ute

d t

hro

ugh

ou

t tr

op

ical

n

ort

her

n A

ust

ralia

. In

Qu

een

slan

d, i

t o

ccu

rs fr

om

To

wn

svill

e, n

ort

h, a

lmo

st t

o t

he

tip

of C

ape

York

. Th

e sp

ecie

s o

ccu

pie

s m

ost

ly c

oas

tal

and

up

lan

d

area

s,

po

ten

tial

ly

as

far

inla

nd

as

th

e B

arkl

y Ta

ble

lan

d.

This

sp

ecie

s o

ccu

pie

s sc

lero

ph

yll

fore

st a

nd

wo

od

lan

d, r

egu

larl

y n

ear

eco

ton

es o

r

Po

ssib

le:

Ther

e ar

e n

o

rece

nt

reco

rds

fro

m

we

ster

n C

ape

York

. Th

e sp

ecie

s h

as n

ot

bee

n

reco

rded

o

n

the

We

ipa

Pla

teau

d

esp

ite

exte

nsi

ve r

ecen

t su

rvey

s as

soci

ate

d w

ith

Rio

Ti

nto

’s S

ou

th o

f Em

ble

y p

roje

ct. T

he

Act

ion

Pla

n

for

Au

stra

lian

Bir

ds

(Gar

net

t et

al.,

20

11

) sp

ecie

s ac

cou

nt

sho

ws

a si

ngl

e re

cord

occ

urr

ing

nea

r

Sk

ard

on

Riv

er B

auxi

te P

roje

ct

C

hap

ter

15

– T

erre

stri

al E

colo

gy

Pag

e 1

5-4

1

Nam

e EP

BC

Sta

tus

NC

A S

tatu

s H

abit

at P

refe

ren

ce

Like

liho

od

of

Occ

urr

ence

wh

ere

wit

hin

m

osa

ic

vege

tati

on

o

f va

rio

us

stru

ctu

res.

Th

is

spec

ies

roo

sts

wit

hin

tr

ee-

ho

llow

s, c

aves

an

d d

ense

fo

liage

. Th

e sp

ecie

s h

as b

een

rec

ord

ed i

n r

ipar

ian

fo

rest

, ra

info

rest

, o

pen

fore

st, M

elal

euca

sw

amp

s an

d t

he

edge

s o

f m

angr

ove

s, a

s w

ell a

s al

on

g th

e m

argi

ns

of

suga

r ca

ne

fiel

ds.

Au

ruku

n. T

arge

ted

cal

l pla

ybac

k su

rvey

s d

id n

ot

con

firm

p

rese

nce

o

f th

e sp

ecie

s d

uri

ng

we

t se

aso

n s

urv

eys

in 2

01

5.

Ther

e is

a v

ery

smal

l p

oss

ibili

ty t

hat

in

div

idu

als

may

be

loca

ted

on

si

te a

s it

is w

ith

in th

e kn

ow

n r

ange

of t

he

spec

ies

and

su

itab

le h

abit

at e

xist

s.

Pal

m

Co

ckat

oo

(P

rob

osci

ger

ter

rim

us)

N

ot

List

ed

Nea

r Th

reat

ened

Th

is s

pec

ies

is fo

un

d in

Au

stra

lia a

nd

New

Gu

inea

(I

nd

on

esia

an

d P

apu

a N

ew G

uin

ea).

In A

ust

ralia

, su

bsp

ecie

s m

acg

illiv

rayi

is

co

nfi

ned

to

th

e n

ort

her

n

Cap

e Yo

rk

Pen

insu

la,

fro

m

Po

rmp

ura

aw

on

th

e w

est

coas

t to

P

rin

cess

C

har

lott

e B

ay o

n t

he

east

. Th

e p

alm

co

ckat

oo

(A

ust

ralia

n)

inh

abit

s cl

ose

d f

ore

st a

nd

rip

aria

n

syst

ems,

h

ow

ever

th

e su

bsp

ecie

s at

tain

s th

e h

igh

est

den

siti

es in

op

en w

oo

dla

nd

s ad

jace

nt

to

clo

sed

fo

rest

do

min

ate

d b

y C

ory

mb

ia s

pp

. an

d

Euca

lytp

us

spp

. an

d

has

si

gnif

ican

tly

low

er

den

siti

es in

th

e cl

ose

d f

ore

sts

them

selv

es.

Co

nfi

rme

d:

Pal

m

cock

ato

os

we

re

reco

rded

w

ith

in t

he

frin

gin

g w

oo

dla

nd

im

med

iate

ly t

o

the

no

rth

o

f N

amal

eta

Cre

ek

at

seve

ral

loca

tio

ns.

Th

e la

rges

t fl

ock

si

ze

reco

rded

co

nsi

sted

of

thre

e in

div

idu

als

and

was

rec

ord

ed

in f

rin

gin

g w

oo

dla

nd

dir

ectl

y ad

jace

nt

and

to

th

e n

ort

h o

f N

amal

eta

Cre

ek. A

ll p

alm

co

ckat

oo

si

ghti

ngs

d

uri

ng

the

surv

ey

per

iod

w

ere

re

stri

cted

to

th

is h

abit

at.

Ho

wev

er,

pre

vio

us

surv

eys

det

ecte

d p

alm

co

ckat

oo

s o

ccu

rrin

g in

Eu

caly

ptu

s te

tro

do

nta

w

oo

dla

nd

in

th

e n

ort

her

n s

ecti

on

of

the

Pro

ject

are

a.

East

ern

C

url

ew

(Nu

men

ius

ma

da

ga

sca

rien

sis)

Cri

tica

lly

End

ange

red

V

uln

erab

le

Occ

urs

in

est

uar

ies,

tid

al m

ud

flat

s sa

ltm

arsh

es,

man

gro

ves,

occ

asio

nal

ly f

resh

or

bra

ckis

h l

akes

, b

are

gras

slan

ds

nea

r w

ate

r.

Po

ssib

le:

This

sp

ecie

s w

as n

ot

reco

rded

du

rin

g an

y o

f th

e su

rvey

per

iod

s o

n t

he

Pro

ject

sit

e.

Ther

e ar

e n

o r

ecen

t re

cord

s w

ith

in 2

5 k

m o

f th

e si

te. I

t is

hig

hly

un

like

ly t

o o

ccu

r w

ith

in t

he

min

e d

evel

op

men

t ar

ea

du

e to

th

e la

ck

of

app

rop

riat

e

hab

itat

. It

m

ay

occ

ur

alo

ng

the

ban

ks o

f th

e Sk

ard

on

Riv

er a

nd

alo

ng

the

coas

t to

th

e w

est

of

the

site

.

Bea

ch

Sto

ne

-cu

rlew

(E

sacu

s g

iga

nte

us)

N

ot

List

ed

Vu

lner

able

B

each

sto

ne

-cu

rlew

s ar

e fo

un

d e

xclu

sive

ly a

lon

g th

e co

ast,

on

a w

ide

ran

ge o

f b

each

es,

isla

nd

s,

reef

s an

d in

est

uar

ies,

an

d m

ay o

ften

be

see

n a

t th

e ed

ges

of

or

nea

r m

angr

ove

s. T

hey

fo

rage

in

Co

nfi

rme

d:

A s

ingl

e in

div

idu

al r

eco

rded

on

th

e n

ort

her

n b

ank

of

the

Skar

do

n R

iver

~ 1

km

u

pst

ream

fro

m t

he

mo

uth

in

Sep

20

14

du

rin

g th

e ta

rget

ed

th

reat

en

ed

spec

ies

surv

ey.

The

Sk

ard

on

Riv

er B

auxi

te P

roje

ct

C

hap

ter

15

– T

erre

stri

al E

colo

gy

Pag

e 1

5-4

2

Nam

e EP

BC

Sta

tus

NC

A S

tatu

s H

abit

at P

refe

ren

ce

Like

liho

od

of

Occ

urr

ence

the

inte

rtid

al z

on

e o

f b

each

es a

nd

est

uar

ies,

on

is

lan

ds,

fl

ats,

b

anks

an

d

spit

s o

f sa

nd

, m

ud

, gr

ave

l or

rock

, an

d a

mo

ng

man

gro

ves.

spec

ies

was

no

t co

nfi

rmed

wit

hin

3 k

m o

f th

e si

te a

nd

th

ere

are

exp

ecte

d t

o b

e n

o i

mp

acts

fr

om

th

e si

te d

evel

op

men

t o

r b

arge

mo

vem

ents

o

n t

he

po

pu

lati

on

of

this

sp

ecie

s.

Rad

jah

Sh

eld

uck

(T

ad

orn

a r

ad

jah

) N

ot

List

ed

Nea

r Th

reat

ened

Th

e ra

dja

h s

hel

du

ck in

hab

its

man

gro

ve f

lats

an

d

Mel

aleu

ca s

wam

ps

of

coas

tal

tro

pic

al A

ust

ralia

. Th

e sp

ecie

s p

refe

rs b

rack

ish

wat

ers

bu

t w

ill v

isit

fr

esh

wat

er s

wam

ps

and

lag

oo

ns

furt

her

in

lan

d

du

rin

g th

e w

et s

easo

n.

Co

nfi

rme

d:

Rec

ord

ed o

n e

xpo

sed

mu

dfl

ats

on

th

e Sk

ard

on

Riv

er e

stu

ary

(do

wn

stre

am f

rom

th

e P

roje

ct

area

).

The

spec

ies

was

n

ot

con

firm

ed w

ith

in 3

km

of

the

site

an

d t

her

e ar

e ex

pec

ted

to

b

e n

o

imp

acts

fr

om

th

e si

te

dev

elo

pm

ent

or

bar

ge

mo

vem

ents

o

n

the

po

pu

lati

on

of

this

sp

ecie

s. A

ny

po

ten

tial

hab

itat

ar

eas

that

are

ava

ilab

le i

n t

he

area

are

ou

tsid

e th

e P

roje

ct fo

otp

rin

t o

r ar

e w

ith

in t

he

pro

tect

ed

bu

ffer

zo

nes

alo

ng

the

Nam

alet

a C

reek

sys

tem

.

MA

MM

ALS

No

rth

ern

Q

uo

ll (D

asy

uru

s h

allu

catu

s)

End

ange

red

En

dan

gere

d

The

No

rth

ern

Qu

oll

is k

no

wn

to

occ

ur

as f

ar

sou

th a

s G

race

mer

e an

d M

t M

org

an,

sou

th o

f R

ock

ham

pto

n,

and

un

til r

ecen

tly

as f

ar n

ort

h a

s C

oo

kto

wn

. N

ew

reco

rds

hav

e se

en

a

ran

ge

exte

nsi

on

ac

ross

th

e C

ape.

P

op

ula

tio

ns

are

dis

jun

ct

and

co

re

po

pu

lati

on

s ar

e ce

ntr

ed

in

rock

y an

d/o

r h

igh

rai

nfa

ll ar

eas

incl

ud

ing

bu

t n

ot

rest

rict

ed t

o,

up

lan

d r

ock

y ar

eas

incl

ud

ing

Cap

e C

leve

lan

d,

Mo

un

t El

liott

, M

aree

ba,

C

red

ito

n,

Eun

gella

an

d C

lark

e R

ange

. Th

e sp

ecie

s o

ccu

pie

s a

div

ersi

ty

of

hab

itat

s in

clu

din

g ro

cky

area

s,

euca

lyp

t fo

rest

an

d

wo

od

lan

ds,

ra

info

rest

s,

san

dy

low

lan

ds

and

b

each

es,

shru

bla

nd

, gr

assl

and

s an

d

des

ert.

H

ow

ever

, h

abit

at

gen

eral

ly e

nco

mp

asse

s so

me

form

of

rock

y ar

ea

for

den

nin

g p

urp

ose

s w

ith

su

rro

un

din

g

Po

ssib

le: R

ecen

t re

cord

s fr

om

Sch

erge

r A

ir B

ase

(~8

0 k

m S

SW o

f P

roje

ct s

ite)

in 2

01

4 a

nd

Sto

ne

Cro

ssin

g o

n t

he

Wen

lock

Riv

er (

~60

km

S o

f P

roje

ct

site

) in

2

01

0.

Po

ten

tial

ly

suit

able

d

enn

ing

and

fo

ragi

ng

hab

itat

co

nfi

rmed

to

o

ccu

r o

n t

he

Pro

ject

are

a. T

arge

ted

su

rvey

s in

2

01

4 a

nd

gen

eric

fau

na

surv

eys

in 2

01

0 a

nd

2

01

5 d

id n

ot

con

firm

pre

sen

ce o

f th

e sp

ecie

s.

Sk

ard

on

Riv

er B

auxi

te P

roje

ct

C

hap

ter

15

– T

erre

stri

al E

colo

gy

Pag

e 1

5-4

3

Nam

e EP

BC

Sta

tus

NC

A S

tatu

s H

abit

at P

refe

ren

ce

Like

liho

od

of

Occ

urr

ence

vege

tate

d

hab

itat

s u

sed

fo

r fo

ragi

ng

and

d

isp

ersa

l. H

abit

ats

usu

ally

hav

e a

hig

h s

tru

ctu

ral

div

ers

ity

con

tain

ing

larg

e d

iam

ete

r tr

ees,

te

rmit

e m

ou

nd

s o

r h

ollo

w

logs

fo

r d

enn

ing

pu

rpo

ses.

Spec

tacl

ed

Flyi

ng-

fox

(Pte

rop

us

con

spic

illa

tus)

Vu

lner

able

V

uln

erab

le

Fora

ges

in

rain

fore

st

and

ta

ll o

pen

fo

rest

s ad

join

ing

rain

fore

st

hab

itat

s,

and

in

tr

op

ical

w

oo

dla

nd

an

d

sava

nn

ah

hab

itat

s.

Typ

ical

ly

roo

sts

wit

hin

6.5

km

of

rain

fore

st h

abit

ats.

Po

ssib

le.

Rec

ent

(20

07

) re

cord

s fr

om

gal

lery

ra

info

rest

al

on

g th

e W

en

lock

R

iver

o

n

Pic

can

inn

y P

lain

s. P

ote

nti

ally

su

itab

le r

oo

stin

g an

d f

ora

gin

g h

abit

at c

on

firm

ed t

o o

ccu

r o

n t

he

Pro

ject

ar

ea.

Targ

eted

su

rvey

s in

2

01

4

and

ge

ner

ic f

aun

a su

rvey

s in

20

10

an

d 2

01

5 d

id n

ot

con

firm

pre

sen

ce o

f th

e sp

ecie

s o

r ro

ost

sit

es.

Bar

e ru

mp

ed

Shea

thta

il B

at

(Sa

cco

laim

us

sacc

ola

imu

s)

Cri

tica

lly

End

ange

red

En

dan

gere

d

Occ

urs

mo

stly

in

lo

wla

nd

are

as,

typ

ical

ly i

n a

ra

nge

o

f w

oo

dla

nd

, fo

rest

an

d

op

en

envi

ron

men

ts

such

as

E.

te

tra

do

nta

an

d

E p

laty

ph

ylla

, th

e sp

ecie

s fo

rage

s ab

ove

th

e ca

no

py

and

al

on

g th

e ed

ges

of

wo

od

lan

d

ho

wev

er

littl

e is

kn

ow

n

abo

ut

its

hab

itat

p

refe

ren

ce a

nd

bio

logy

.

Po

ssib

le:

Suit

able

fo

ragi

ng

and

ro

ost

ing

hab

itat

o

ccu

rs

on

th

e P

roje

ct

area

; h

ow

ever

n

o

con

firm

ed r

eco

rds

fro

m t

he

wes

tern

Cap

e Yo

rk.

The

nea

rest

co

nfi

rmed

rec

ord

is

fro

m t

he

Iro

n

Ran

ge ~

13

0 k

m S

E o

f th

e P

roje

ct a

rea.

Tar

gete

d

surv

eys

in 2

01

4 a

nd

gen

eric

fau

na

surv

eys

in

20

10

an

d 2

01

5 d

id n

ot

con

firm

pre

sen

ce o

f th

e sp

ecie

s. A

MEC

(2

01

5)

(ref

er S

ecti

on

15

.13

.1)

iden

tifi

ed a

po

ssib

le c

all o

n a

dja

cen

t w

oo

dla

nd

si

te h

ow

ever

th

is w

as n

ot

con

sid

ered

a p

osi

tive

id

enti

fica

tio

n a

s p

er A

MEC

’s r

epo

rt.

Fals

e W

ater

R

at,

Wat

er

Mo

use

(X

erom

ys m

yoid

es)

Vu

lner

able

V

uln

erab

le

Man

gro

ves

and

th

e as

soci

ated

sa

ltm

arsh

, se

dge

lan

ds,

cl

ay

pan

s,

hea

thla

nd

s an

d

fres

hw

ater

we

tlan

ds.

It

is c

urr

entl

y o

nly

kn

ow

n

fro

m

thre

e is

ola

ted

p

op

ula

tio

ns,

o

ne

in

the

No

rth

ern

te

rrit

ory

, o

ne

in c

entr

al Q

uee

nsl

and

an

d o

ne

in s

ou

th-e

ast

Qu

een

slan

d.

Co

re h

abit

at

incl

ud

es

hea

th

and

se

dge

al

on

g m

angr

ove

ec

oto

nes

fo

r n

esti

ng

and

fo

ragi

ng.

Po

ssib

le:

Po

ten

tial

ly

suit

able

h

abit

at

(sal

tmar

sh, s

edge

lan

ds

and

fre

shw

ater

wet

lan

d

area

s) c

on

firm

ed t

o o

ccu

r o

n t

he

site

. Ho

wev

er,

un

suit

able

hab

itat

at

the

Po

rt a

rea

for

nes

tin

g d

ue

to a

lac

k o

f ec

oto

ne

fro

m m

angr

ove

to

w

oo

dla

nd

.

Surv

eys

in

20

10

co

nfi

rmed

an

ab

sen

ce o

f n

ests

in t

he

Po

rt a

rea.

No

co

nfi

rmed

Sk

ard

on

Riv

er B

auxi

te P

roje

ct

C

hap

ter

15

– T

erre

stri

al E

colo

gy

Pag

e 1

5-4

4

Nam

e EP

BC

Sta

tus

NC

A S

tatu

s H

abit

at P

refe

ren

ce

Like

liho

od

of

Occ

urr

ence

reco

rds

of

the

spec

ies

fro

m

the

Cap

e Yo

rk

Bio

regi

on

.

The

fals

e w

ate

r ra

te is

als

o d

escr

ibed

in C

hap

ter

18

, w

hic

h c

on

clu

des

th

at i

t is

hig

hly

un

like

ly t

o

occ

ur

in t

he

Po

rt a

rea.

Bla

ck–f

oo

ted

Tre

e R

at

(no

rth

Qu

een

slan

d)

(Mes

ebri

om

ys

go

uld

ii ra

tto

ides

)

Vu

lner

able

N

ot

List

ed

Kn

ow

n

to

occ

ur

in

Euca

lyp

t fo

rest

s an

d

wo

od

lan

ds

wit

h d

enn

ing

pre

fere

nce

s fo

r tr

ee

ho

llow

s an

d o

ccas

ion

ally

Pan

dan

us

and

oth

er

den

se fo

liage

. Lim

ited

info

rmat

ion

is a

vaila

ble

on

th

is

sub

-sp

ecie

s h

ow

ever

it

is

kn

ow

n

to

be

arb

ore

al a

nd

fo

rage

on

th

e gr

ou

nd

fo

r fr

uit

s an

d

see

ds,

so

me

inve

rte

bra

tes

and

gra

sses

.

Po

ssib

le:

Dis

trib

uti

on

is p

oo

rly

kno

wn

ho

wev

er

the

few

rec

ord

s o

f th

e sp

ecie

s h

ave

bee

n li

mit

ed

to B

roo

klyn

San

ctu

ary

(~2

00

eas

t), a

nd

Mar

eeb

a (~

65

0km

SE)

. It

has

th

e p

ote

nti

al t

o o

ccu

r in

tal

l Eu

caly

ptu

s te

tro

do

nta

w

oo

dla

nd

s ac

ross

th

e P

roje

ct a

rea

ho

wev

er r

esea

rch

su

gges

ts t

hat

p

op

ula

tio

ns

are

nat

ura

lly v

ery

low

ab

un

dan

ce

ther

efo

re d

iffi

cult

to

det

ect

thro

ugh

su

rvey

.

Gh

ost

B

at

(Ma

cro

der

ma

gig

as)

N

ot

List

ed

Vu

lner

able

P

refe

rs d

ry o

pen

fo

rest

, vi

ne

scru

b,

tall

fore

st

and

rai

nfo

rest

. In

rai

nfo

rest

, fo

rage

s in

cle

arin

gs

and

alo

ng

wat

erc

ou

rses

. O

fte

n f

lies

clo

se t

o t

he

gro

un

d.

Surv

ival

is

cr

itic

ally

d

epen

den

t o

n

fin

din

g n

atu

ral

roo

sts

in c

aves

, cr

evic

es,

dee

p

ove

rhan

gs,

and

ar

tifi

cial

ro

ost

s su

ch

as

aban

do

ned

min

es.

Un

likel

y:

Wh

ile

the

Pro

ject

ar

ea

con

tain

s su

itab

le f

ora

gin

g h

abit

at f

or

this

sp

ecie

s, it

lack

s th

e ro

ost

ing

hab

itat

req

uir

ed b

y th

e gh

ost

bat

(l

arge

ca

ves,

m

ines

o

r d

eep

ro

ck

fiss

ure

s).

Targ

eted

su

rvey

s in

2

01

4

and

ge

ner

ic

fau

na

surv

eys

in

20

10

an

d

20

15

d

id

no

t co

nfi

rm

pre

sen

ce o

f th

e sp

ecie

s.

Pap

uan

Sh

eath

tail

Bat

(S

acc

ola

imu

s m

ixtu

s)

No

t Li

sted

N

ear

Thre

aten

ed

Occ

urs

in

o

pen

w

oo

dla

nd

s h

abit

at

wit

h

pre

fere

nce

fo

r sc

lero

ph

yll

wo

od

lan

ds.

Fo

rage

s ab

ove

th

e ca

no

py

and

in

cle

arin

gs.

A p

auci

ty o

f re

cord

s o

n t

he

spec

ies

has

pro

vid

ed t

he

nea

r th

reat

ened

sta

tus

alth

ou

gh r

ece

nt

rese

arch

has

in

dic

ated

th

at

the

spec

ies

has

a

grea

ter

dis

trib

uti

on

acr

oss

Cap

e Yo

rk t

han

pre

vio

usl

y re

cord

ed.

Co

nfi

rme

d:

Th

is s

pec

ies

was

id

enti

fied

du

rin

g w

et

seas

on

su

rvey

s in

20

15

acr

oss

th

e P

roje

ct

area

.

Ch

estn

ut

Du

nn

art

(Sm

inth

op

sos

arc

her

i)

No

t Li

sted

N

ear

Thre

aten

ed

Ver

y lit

tle

is k

no

wn

of

its

eco

logy

an

d h

abit

s,

ho

wev

er,

the

spec

ies

is

bel

ieve

d

to

pre

fer

Po

ssib

le:

This

sm

all

carn

ivo

rou

s m

arsu

pia

l sp

ecie

s h

as

bee

n

pre

vio

usl

y co

llect

ed

at

Sk

ard

on

Riv

er B

auxi

te P

roje

ct

C

hap

ter

15

– T

erre

stri

al E

colo

gy

Pag

e 1

5-4

5

Nam

e EP

BC

Sta

tus

NC

A S

tatu

s H

abit

at P

refe

ren

ce

Like

liho

od

of

Occ

urr

ence

stri

ngy

bar

k w

oo

dla

nd

s o

n r

ed e

arth

so

ils o

f th

e la

teri

te-b

auxi

te p

late

au,

wh

ere

can

op

y sp

ecie

s in

clu

de

Eryt

hro

ph

leu

m

chlo

rost

ach

ys

and

Eu

caly

ptu

s n

eso

ph

ylla

, w

ith

an

un

der

sto

rey

of

Pa

rin

ari

n

on

da

, P

lan

chon

ia

care

yi,

Gre

ville

a p

ara

llela

an

d A

caci

a r

oth

iaw

ith

. It

is

po

ssib

ly

dis

trib

ute

d f

rom

To

wn

svill

e to

th

e ti

p o

f C

ape

York

Pen

insu

la.

Map

oo

n in

19

80

. It

has

th

e p

ote

nti

al t

o o

ccu

r in

ta

ll Eu

caly

ptu

s te

tro

do

nta

wo

od

lan

ds

acro

ss t

he

Pro

ject

are

a h

ow

ever

res

earc

h s

ugg

ests

th

at

po

pu

lati

on

s ar

e n

atu

rally

in lo

w a

bu

nd

ance

.


Page 15-46

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.

Sk

ard

on

Riv

er B

auxi

te P

roje

ct

C

hap

ter

15

– T

erre

stri

al E

colo

gy

Pag

e 1

5-4

7

Tab

le 1

5-8

Li

kelih

oo

d o

f O

ccu

rren

ce o

f M

NES

Lis

ted

Mig

rato

ry S

pec

ies

Scie

nti

fic

Nam

e C

om

mo

n

Nam

e St

atu

s EP

BC

Act

St

atu

s N

C A

ct

Hab

itat

pre

fere

nce

Li

kelih

oo

d o

f O

ccu

rren

ce

Ster

na

a

lbif

ron

s Li

ttle

Ter

n

Mig

rato

ry

Mar

ine;

Mar

ine

(Bo

nn

, C

AM

BA

, JA

MB

A,

RO

KA

MB

A)

Leas

t C

on

cern

Th

is s

pec

ies

occ

urs

alo

ng

shel

tere

d c

oas

tal

envi

ron

men

ts

of

lago

on

s es

tuar

ies

rive

r m

ou

ths

and

del

tas

par

ticu

larl

y th

ose

wit

h

san

d s

pit

s an

d e

xpo

sed

oce

an b

each

es.

Co

nfi

rme

d:

This

sp

ecie

s h

as

bee

n

con

firm

ed

wit

hin

5 k

m o

f th

e P

roje

ct a

rea

(AM

EC,

20

15

).

Ho

wev

er t

he

Pro

ject

are

a d

oes

no

t co

nta

in h

abit

at

suit

able

fo

r b

ree

din

g o

r fo

ragi

ng.

Ap

us

pa

cifi

cus

Fork

-tai

led

Sw

ift

Mig

rato

ry

Mar

ine;

Mar

ine

(CA

MB

A,

JAM

BA

, R

OK

AM

BA

)

Leas

t C

on

cern

Th

is s

pec

ies

is a

no

n-b

reed

ing

visi

tor

to a

ll st

ates

an

d

terr

ito

ries

o

f A

ust

ralia

. In

Q

uee

nsl

and

, th

e sp

ecie

s is

w

ides

pre

ad

we

st o

f th

e G

reat

Div

idin

g R

ange

an

d a

lso

ea

st o

f th

e ra

nge

bet

we

en C

oo

kto

wn

an

d

Tow

nsv

ille.

Th

ere

are

scat

tere

d r

eco

rds

in

the

Gu

lf C

ou

ntr

y, C

ape

York

Pen

insu

la, t

he

Cen

tral

Co

ast,

an

d t

he

sou

th e

ast.

Fo

rk-

taile

d s

wif

t ar

e al

mo

st e

xclu

sive

ly a

eria

l b

etw

een

30

m a

nd

30

0m

or

grea

ter.

Po

ssib

le:

Dat

abas

e se

arch

es d

id n

ot

retr

ieve

an

y co

nfi

rmed

rec

ord

s o

f th

is s

pec

ies

wit

hin

25

km o

f th

e P

roje

ct a

rea

bu

t th

e P

roje

ct a

rea

is w

ith

in t

his

sp

ecie

s’ d

istr

ibu

tio

n r

ange

. Th

e ex

clu

sive

ly a

eria

l lif

esty

le

of

this

sp

ecie

s en

sure

s th

at

it

is

no

t re

stri

cted

to

p

arti

cula

r h

abit

at

typ

es

and

th

eref

ore

may

occ

ur

alm

ost

an

ywh

ere.

Mar

gin

al

hab

itat

occ

urs

su

rro

un

din

g th

e P

roje

ct a

rea,

wh

ich

w

ou

ld

sup

po

rt

the

spec

ies.

Th

ere

are

no

si

gnif

ican

t th

reat

s to

th

e sp

ecie

s in

Au

stra

lia a

nd

th

e p

ote

nti

al

imp

acts

ar

e ex

pec

ted

to

b

e n

eglig

ible

du

e to

its

wid

e ra

nge

. Th

ere

are

no

re

cove

ry o

r co

nse

rvat

ion

pla

ns

for

this

sp

ecie

s,

ho

wev

er

the

Pro

ject

w

ill

man

age

po

ten

tial

im

pac

ts u

nd

er a

Sp

ecie

s M

anag

emen

t P

rogr

am.

Freg

ata

a

riel

Le

sser

Fr

igat

ebir

d

Mig

rato

ry

Mar

ine;

Mar

ine

(CA

MB

A,

JAM

BA

, R

OK

AM

BA

)

Spec

ial

Leas

t C

on

cern

The

Less

er

Frig

ateb

ird

b

ree

ds

on

sm

all,

rem

ote

tro

pic

al a

nd

su

b-t

rop

ical

isla

nd

s, in

m

angr

ove

s o

r b

ush

es,

and

eve

n o

n b

are

gro

un

d.

It f

eed

s m

ain

ly o

n f

ish

(e

spec

ially

fl

yin

g-fi

sh)

and

sq

uid

, b

ut

also

on

sea

bir

d

eggs

an

d c

hic

ks, c

arri

on

an

d f

ish

scr

aps.

Co

nfi

rme

d:

This

sp

ecie

s h

as b

een

rec

ord

ed a

t th

e Sk

ard

on

ri

ver

mo

uth

in

Se

pte

mb

er

20

15

. Th

is

spec

ies

is

a m

arin

e sp

ecia

list.

Th

eref

ore

, th

e P

roje

ct a

rea

is u

nlik

ely

to

su

pp

ort

a p

op

ula

tio

n o

f th

is s

pec

ies

and

will

on

ly u

tilis

e th

e P

roje

ct a

rea

as

a fl

yove

r.

Sk

ard

on

Riv

er B

auxi

te P

roje

ct

C

hap

ter

15

– T

erre

stri

al E

colo

gy

Pag

e 1

5-4

8

Scie

nti

fic

Nam

e C

om

mo

n

Nam

e St

atu

s EP

BC

Act

St

atu

s N

C A

ct

Hab

itat

pre

fere

nce

Li

kelih

oo

d o

f O

ccu

rren

ce

Ard

ea a

lba

Ea

ste

rn

Gre

at E

gret

M

igra

tory

W

etla

nd

s;

Mar

ine

(JA

MB

A

– as

Eg

rett

a a

lba

)

Spec

ial

Leas

t C

on

cern

This

sp

ecie

s o

ccu

rs a

lon

g th

e sh

allo

ws

of

rive

rs, e

stu

arie

s, t

idal

mu

dfl

ats,

fre

shw

ate

r w

etl

and

s, ir

riga

tio

n a

reas

an

d la

rger

dam

s.

Co

nfi

rme

d:

The

spec

ies

was

co

nfi

rmed

at

Big

foo

t Sw

amp

ad

jace

nt

to t

he

Pro

ject

are

a in

Sep

tem

ber

2

01

5 M

argi

nal

hab

itat

fo

r th

is s

pec

ies

occ

urs

in

p

roxi

mit

y to

th

e P

roje

ct a

rea

(e.g

. w

etla

nd

s).

The

Pro

ject

are

a it

self

pre

sen

ts li

mit

ed s

uit

able

hab

itat

fo

r th

is s

pec

ies.

Ard

ea ib

is

Cat

tle

Egre

t M

igra

tory

W

etla

nd

s;

Mar

ine

(JA

MB

A

as

Bu

bu

lcu

s ib

is)

Leas

t C

on

cern

Th

is

spec

ies

occ

urs

in

st

ock

p

add

ock

s,

cro

pla

nd

s,

pas

ture

s,

garb

age

tip

s,

we

tlan

ds,

tid

al m

ud

flat

s an

d d

rain

s. T

his

sp

ecie

s o

fte

n a

cco

mp

anie

s ca

ttle

an

d w

ill

catc

h

pre

y it

ems

dis

turb

ed

fro

m

catt

le

mo

vem

ents

.

Co

nfi

rme

d:

The

spec

ies

was

co

nfi

rmed

at

Big

foo

t Sw

amp

ad

jace

nt

to t

he

Pro

ject

are

a in

Sep

tem

ber

2

01

5.

Mar

gin

al h

abit

at f

or

this

sp

ecie

s o

ccu

rs i

n

pro

xim

ity

to t

he

Pro

ject

are

a (e

.g.

wet

lan

ds)

. Th

e P

roje

ct a

rea

itse

lf p

rese

nts

lim

ited

su

itab

le h

abit

at

for

this

sp

ecie

s.

Pa

nd

ion

cr

ista

tus

East

ern

O

spre

y M

igra

tory

W

etla

nd

s;

Mar

ine

(Bo

nn

)

Spec

ial

Leas

t C

on

cern

East

ern

O

spre

ys

occ

ur

in

litto

ral

and

co

asta

l hab

itat

s an

d t

erre

stri

al w

etla

nd

s o

f tr

op

ical

an

d

tem

per

ate

Au

stra

lia

and

o

ffsh

ore

isl

and

s. T

hey

are

mo

stly

fo

un

d i

n

coas

tal a

reas

bu

t o

ccas

ion

ally

tra

vel i

nla

nd

al

on

g m

ajo

r ri

vers

, p

arti

cula

rly

in n

ort

her

n

Au

stra

lia.

They

req

uir

e ex

ten

sive

are

as o

f o

pen

fre

sh,

bra

ckis

h o

r sa

line

wat

er f

or

fora

gin

g.

They

fr

equ

ent

a va

riet

y o

f w

etl

and

hab

itat

s in

clu

din

g in

sho

re w

ater

s,

reef

s,

bay

s,

coas

tal

clif

fs,

bea

ches

, es

tuar

ies,

man

gro

ve s

wam

ps,

bro

ad r

iver

s,

rese

rvo

irs

and

larg

e la

kes

and

wat

erh

ole

s.

Po

ssib

le:

Hig

h

qu

alit

y h

abit

at

for

this

sp

ecie

s in

clu

des

al

l sh

allo

w,

fres

hw

ater

w

etl

and

s in

clu

din

g fl

oo

dp

lain

are

as w

hic

h a

re n

ot

avai

lab

le

in t

he

Pro

ject

are

a, h

ow

ever

mar

ine

and

sal

ine

we

tlan

ds

are

also

co

nsi

der

ed t

o p

rovi

de

po

ten

tial

h

abit

at.

Suit

able

h

abit

at

for

this

sp

ecie

s is

p

reva

len

t w

ith

in t

he

bro

ader

lan

dsc

ape.

Ga

llin

ag

o

ha

rdw

icki

i La

tham

's

Snip

e M

igra

tory

W

etla

nd

s;

Mar

ine

Leas

t C

on

cern

Th

is s

pec

ies

pre

fers

so

ft,

we

t gr

ou

nd

or

shal

low

wat

er

wit

h t

uss

ock

s o

r o

ther

gre

en

or

dea

d g

row

th,

sam

ph

ire

on

sal

tmar

shes

an

d m

angr

ove

fri

nge

s. I

t al

so f

avo

urs

wet

p

arts

of

pad

do

cks,

see

pag

e b

elo

w d

ams,

Un

likel

y: D

atab

ase

sear

ches

did

no

t re

trie

ve a

ny

con

firm

ed r

eco

rds

of

this

sp

ecie

s w

ith

in 1

0km

of

the

Pro

ject

are

a. H

ow

ever

, th

e P

roje

ct a

rea

is

wit

hin

its

dis

trib

uti

on

ran

ge a

nd

su

itab

le h

abit

at

pro

vid

es m

argi

nal

hab

itat

fo

r th

is s

pec

ies.

Th

e

Sk

ard

on

Riv

er B

auxi

te P

roje

ct

C

hap

ter

15

– T

erre

stri

al E

colo

gy

Pag

e 1

5-4

9

Scie

nti

fic

Nam

e C

om

mo

n

Nam

e St

atu

s EP

BC

Act

St

atu

s N

C A

ct

Hab

itat

pre

fere

nce

Li

kelih

oo

d o

f O

ccu

rren

ce

(BO

NN

, JA

MB

A,

RO

KA

MB

A)

irri

gate

d a

reas

, sc

rub

or

op

en w

oo

dla

nd

fr

om

sea

lev

el t

o a

lpin

e b

ogs

ove

r 2

00

0m

. It

tr

avel

s th

rou

gh

no

rth

ern

A

ust

ralia

to

re

ach

n

on

-bre

edin

g gr

ou

nd

s in

so

uth

-ea

ster

n A

ust

ralia

.

Pro

ject

ar

ea

itse

lf

do

es

no

t p

rovi

de

suit

able

h

abit

at a

nd

its

hab

itat

req

uir

emen

ts a

re s

pec

ific

, th

eref

ore

uti

lisat

ion

of

the

area

wo

uld

be

the

Skar

do

n r

iver

mo

uth

an

d s

altm

arsh

es l

oca

ted

to

th

e n

ort

hw

est

of

the

site

. N

on

-sp

ecif

ic u

se o

f th

e P

roje

ct a

rea

wo

uld

be

as f

ly o

ver

to s

ou

ther

n s

ites

. N

o a

spec

t o

f th

e P

roje

ct f

oo

tpri

nt

is w

ith

in h

abit

at

suit

able

fo

r b

reed

ing

fora

gin

g o

r ro

ost

ing

of

this

sp

ecie

s.

Hir

un

do

ru

stic

a

Bar

n

Swal

low

M

igra

tory

Te

rres

tria

l;

Mar

ine

(CA

MB

A,

JAM

BA

, R

OK

AM

BA

)

Leas

t C

on

cern

Th

e sp

ecie

s u

sual

ly o

ccu

rs i

n c

oas

tal

and

su

b-c

oas

tal n

ort

her

n A

ust

ralia

. Th

ey fo

rage

in

op

en c

ou

ntr

y co

asta

l lo

wla

nd

s an

d r

oo

st

nea

r th

is h

abit

at i

n f

resh

wat

er w

etla

nd

s,

Mel

aleu

ca

wo

od

lan

d,

mes

op

hyl

l sh

rub

th

icke

ts a

nd

tu

sso

ck g

rass

lan

d.

The

Asi

an

sub

spec

ies

ove

rwin

ters

in

In

dia

, so

uth

east

A

sia

and

In

do

nes

ia w

ith

few

er i

nd

ivid

ual

s o

verw

inte

rin

g in

Pap

ua

New

Gu

inea

an

d

Au

stra

lia

and

ar

e n

orm

ally

o

bse

rved

in

A

ust

ralia

bet

we

en N

ove

mb

er a

nd

Mar

ch.

Hig

h:

The

Pro

ject

ar

ea

occ

urs

w

ith

in

the

dis

trib

uti

on

ra

nge

o

f th

e sp

ecie

s an

d

suit

able

h

abit

at is

pre

sen

t o

n t

he

Pro

ject

are

a. T

his

sp

ecie

s is

lik

ely

to

occ

up

y th

e ai

rsp

ace

abo

ve t

he

Pro

ject

ar

ea.

Mer

ops

o

rna

tus

Rai

nb

ow

B

ee-e

ate

r M

igra

tory

Te

rres

tria

l;

Mar

ine

(JA

MB

A)

Spec

ial

Leas

t C

on

cern

The

Rai

nb

ow

Bee

-eat

er o

ccu

rs a

cro

ss m

ost

o

f m

ain

lan

d A

ust

ralia

an

d o

ccu

pie

s a

vast

ar

ray

of

hab

itat

s in

clu

din

g o

pen

w

oo

dla

nd

s,

shru

bla

nd

s,

farm

lan

d,

par

ks

and

ga

rden

s,

coas

tal

and

in

lan

d

du

ne

syst

ems,

man

gro

ve f

ore

sts

and

rai

nfo

rest

ge

ner

ally

in

th

e vi

cin

ity

of

per

man

ent

wat

er.

Po

pu

lati

on

s th

at b

ree

d i

n s

ou

ther

n

Au

stra

lia a

re m

igra

tory

an

d m

ove

no

rth

o

ver

win

ter

(Ap

ril-

Oct

ob

er).

H

ow

ever

,

Co

nfi

rme

d:

The

Pro

ject

are

a o

ccu

rs w

ith

in t

he

dis

trib

uti

on

ran

ge o

f th

e sp

ecie

s an

d t

he

spec

ies

is

com

mo

nly

rec

ord

ed lo

cally

an

d r

egio

nal

ly. D

ue

to

the

bro

ad r

ange

of

hab

itat

s u

sed

by

the

spec

ies,

th

e en

tire

P

roje

ct

area

co

uld

b

e co

nsi

der

ed

suit

able

hab

itat

. Ho

wev

er, i

t sh

ou

ld b

e n

ote

d t

hat

th

e P

roje

ct a

rea

do

es n

ot

con

tain

su

itab

le n

esti

ng

hab

itat

fo

r th

is s

pec

ies.

Sk

ard

on

Riv

er B

auxi

te P

roje

ct

C

hap

ter

15

– T

erre

stri

al E

colo

gy

Pag

e 1

5-5

0

Scie

nti

fic

Nam

e C

om

mo

n

Nam

e St

atu

s EP

BC

Act

St

atu

s N

C A

ct

Hab

itat

pre

fere

nce

Li

kelih

oo

d o

f O

ccu

rren

ce

po

pu

lati

on

s th

at

bre

ed

in

no

rth

ern

A

ust

ralia

are

co

nsi

der

ed t

o b

e re

sid

ent

and

d

o n

ot

un

der

take

mig

rati

on

.

Mo

na

rch

a

mel

an

op

sis

Bla

ck-f

aced

M

on

arch

M

igra

tory

Te

rres

tria

l;

Mar

ine

(Bo

nn

)

Spec

ial

Leas

t C

on

cern

This

sp

ecie

s is

w

ides

pre

ad

in

East

ern

A

ust

ralia

fr

om

th

e ti

p

of

Cap

e Yo

rk

to

sou

ther

n V

icto

ria.

In

Qu

een

slan

d,

they

are

m

ost

re

gula

rly

reco

rded

o

n

the

east

ern

sl

op

es o

f th

e G

reat

Div

idin

g R

ange

. Th

e sp

ecie

s d

isp

lays

a

pre

fere

nce

fo

r ra

info

rest

s in

clu

din

g tr

op

ical

, su

btr

op

ical

, an

d

tem

per

ate

rain

fore

st,

mo

nso

on

ra

info

rest

, vin

e th

icke

t an

d v

ine

fore

st, b

ut

also

dry

scl

ero

ph

yll

wo

od

lan

ds,

Bri

galo

w

scru

b,

coas

tal

scru

b a

nd

man

gro

ves.

Th

ey

are

kno

wn

to

occ

up

y m

ore

op

en h

abit

ats

du

rin

g m

igra

tio

n.

The

spec

ies

mig

rate

s n

ort

h a

lon

g th

e ea

st c

oas

t o

f A

ust

ralia

an

d

a la

rge

pro

po

rtio

n

ove

rwin

ter

in

Pap

ua

New

Gu

inea

fro

m M

arch

to

Au

gust

.

Po

ssib

le:

Dat

abas

e se

arch

es d

id n

ot

retu

rn a

ny

reco

rds

of

this

sp

ecie

s o

ccu

rrin

g w

ith

in 2

5km

of

the

Pro

ject

ar

ea.

The

spec

ies

is

kno

wn

to

o

ccas

ion

ally

occ

ur

in E

. tet

rad

on

ta w

oo

dla

nd

. Th

e P

roje

ct a

rea

is w

ith

in t

he

kno

wn

dis

trib

uti

on

ran

ge

of

the

spec

ies

and

th

ere

is

mar

gin

al

hab

itat

p

rese

nt

on

th

e P

roje

ct a

rea.

Mo

na

rch

a

triv

irg

atu

s Sp

ecta

cled

M

on

arch

M

igra

tory

Te

rres

tria

l;

Mar

ine

(Bo

nn

)

Spec

ial

Leas

t C

on

cern

The

Spec

tacl

ed

Mo

nar

ch

is

fou

nd

th

rou

gho

ut

coas

tal

no

rth

-eas

tern

an

d

east

ern

Au

stra

lia a

nd

co

asta

l isl

and

s, f

rom

th

e n

ort

her

nm

ost

po

int

of

Cap

e Yo

rk (

Qld

) to

P

ort

St

eph

ens

(NSW

).

The

spec

ies

inh

abit

s th

e u

nd

erst

ore

y o

f m

ou

nta

in a

nd

lo

wla

nd

rai

nfo

rest

s, t

hic

kly

wo

od

ed g

ulli

es

and

man

gro

ves.

Th

e Sp

ecta

cled

Mo

nar

ch is

a

sum

mer

bre

edin

g m

igra

nt

to s

ou

thea

st

Qu

een

slan

d a

nd

no

rth

east

N.S

.W.

Po

ssib

le:

Dat

abas

e se

arch

es d

id n

ot

retu

rn a

ny

reco

rds

of

this

sp

ecie

s o

ccu

rrin

g w

ith

in 2

5km

of

the

Pro

ject

are

a. W

hile

th

e P

roje

ct a

rea

is w

ith

in

the

kno

wn

dis

trib

uti

on

ran

ge o

f th

e sp

ecie

s an

d

ther

e is

mar

gin

al h

abit

at p

rese

nt

on

th

e P

roje

ct

area

. Th

e sp

ecie

s is

un

likel

y to

occ

ur

wit

hin

th

e P

roje

ct a

rea.

Sk

ard

on

Riv

er B

auxi

te P

roje

ct

C

hap

ter

15

– T

erre

stri

al E

colo

gy

Pag

e 1

5-5

1

Scie

nti

fic

Nam

e C

om

mo

n

Nam

e St

atu

s EP

BC

Act

St

atu

s N

C A

ct

Hab

itat

pre

fere

nce

Li

kelih

oo

d o

f O

ccu

rren

ce

Myi

ag

ra

cya

no

leu

ca

Sati

n

Flyc

atch

er

Mig

rato

ry

Terr

estr

ial;

Mar

ine

(Bo

nn

)

Leas

t C

on

cern

Th

e Sa

tin

Fl

ycat

cher

is

w

ides

pre

ad

in

east

ern

an

d s

ou

th-e

aste

rn A

ust

ralia

. It

has

a

bro

ad,

bu

t sc

atte

red

co

asta

l d

istr

ibu

tio

n

wh

ich

is e

spec

ially

pat

chy

in C

ape

York

bu

t co

mm

on

an

d w

ides

pre

ad in

th

e so

uth

-eas

t Q

ld. T

he

spec

ies

inh

abit

s h

eavi

ly v

eget

ate

d

gulli

es i

n e

uca

lyp

t-d

om

inat

ed

fo

rest

s an

d

talle

r w

oo

dla

nd

s.

Wh

ilst

mig

rati

ng,

th

ey

occ

ur

in

a b

road

er

ran

ge

of

hab

itat

s in

clu

din

g co

asta

l fo

rest

s,

wo

od

lan

ds,

m

angr

ove

s an

d t

ree

s in

op

en c

ou

ntr

y an

d

gard

ens.

Po

ssib

le:

Dat

abas

e se

arch

es d

id n

ot

retu

rn a

ny

reco

rds

of

this

sp

ecie

s o

ccu

rrin

g w

ith

in 2

5km

of

the

site

. Th

ere

are

reco

rds

for

Cap

e Yo

rk h

ow

ever

m

igra

tio

n

of

po

pu

lati

on

s ty

pic

ally

fo

llow

s th

e G

reat

Div

idin

g R

ange

(i.e

. w

ell

east

of

the

Pro

ject

ar

ea).

It

was

no

t co

nfi

rmed

on

sit

e d

uri

ng

wet

or

dry

sea

son

inve

stig

atio

ns.

Mar

gin

al h

abit

at o

ccu

rs

wit

hin

th

e P

roje

ct

area

. Th

ere

is

a p

oss

ible

lik

elih

oo

d o

f th

e Sa

tin

Fly

catc

her

occ

urr

ing

in t

he

frin

ges

of

the

Pro

ject

are

a d

ue

to a

vaila

bili

ty o

f su

itab

le h

abit

at i

n t

hes

e a

reas

nam

ely,

Nam

alet

a C

reek

an

d L

un

ette

Sw

amp

ho

wev

er;

it i

s u

nlik

ely

to o

ccu

r ac

ross

th

e m

ajo

rity

of

the

Pro

ject

are

a d

ue

to t

he

lack

of

suit

able

hab

itat

. Th

reat

s to

th

e sp

ecie

s ar

e cl

eari

ng

and

lo

ggin

g o

f b

reed

ing

hab

itat

in fo

rest

s in

so

uth

-eas

tern

Au

stra

lia. T

her

e ar

e n

o r

eco

very

or

con

serv

atio

n p

lan

s fo

r th

is

spec

ies,

h

ow

ever

th

e P

roje

ct

will

m

anag

e p

ote

nti

al i

mp

acts

un

der

a S

pec

ies

Man

agem

ent

Pro

gram

.

Rh

ipid

ura

ru

fifr

on

s R

ufo

us

Fan

tail

Mig

rato

ry

Terr

estr

ial;

Mar

ine

(Bo

nn

)

Spec

ial

Leas

t C

on

cern

Ru

fou

s fa

nta

il o

ccu

rs

in

coas

tal

and

su

bco

asta

l ar

eas

of

no

rth

ern

an

d e

aste

rn

Au

stra

lia.

This

sp

ecie

s o

ccu

pie

s w

et

scle

rop

hyl

l fo

rest

s u

sual

ly

wit

h

a d

ense

sh

rub

by

un

der

sto

rey,

sec

on

dar

y re

gro

wth

in

fo

rest

s o

r ra

info

rest

s. T

hey

occ

asio

nal

ly

use

dry

scl

ero

ph

yll

fore

sts

or

wo

od

lan

ds

wit

h

a sh

rub

by

or

he

ath

u

nd

erst

ore

y d

uri

ng

mig

rati

on

. In

no

rth

an

d n

ort

h-e

ast

Au

stra

lia,

they

o

fte

n

occ

ur

in

tro

pic

al

rain

fore

st

and

m

on

soo

n

rain

fore

sts,

Co

nfi

rme

d: T

his

sp

ecie

s h

as b

een

rec

ord

ed w

ith

in

25

km

of

the

Pro

ject

ar

ea

and

th

ere

is

som

e su

itab

le h

abit

at p

rese

nt

on

th

e P

roje

ct a

rea

The

adja

cen

t w

etla

nd

hab

itat

is

like

ly t

o s

up

po

rt a

p

op

ula

tio

n o

f th

is s

pec

ies

and

th

e P

roje

ct a

rea

pro

vid

es s

uit

able

fo

ragi

ng

pla

nts

.

Sk

ard

on

Riv

er B

auxi

te P

roje

ct

C

hap

ter

15

– T

erre

stri

al E

colo

gy

Pag

e 1

5-5

2

Scie

nti

fic

Nam

e C

om

mo

n

Nam

e St

atu

s EP

BC

Act

St

atu

s N

C A

ct

Hab

itat

pre

fere

nce

Li

kelih

oo

d o

f O

ccu

rren

ce

incl

ud

ing

sem

i-ev

ergr

een

mes

op

hyl

l vi

ne

fore

sts,

se

mi-

dec

idu

ou

s vi

ne

thic

kets

o

r th

icke

ts o

f P

aper

bar

ks.

Cec

rop

is

da

uri

ca

Red

-ru

mp

ed

Swal

low

Mig

rato

ry;

Terr

estr

ial

(CA

MB

A,

RO

KA

MB

A)

Leas

t C

on

cern

Th

e sp

ecie

s is

vag

ran

t to

Au

stra

lia o

uts

ide

its

bre

edin

g ra

nge

an

d a

re t

ypic

ally

fo

un

d

aro

un

d g

rass

lan

ds

wh

ere

they

fo

rage

fo

r in

sect

s w

hile

air

bo

rne.

Th

e sp

ecie

s b

reed

s in

op

en h

ills

acro

ss s

ou

ther

n E

uro

pe

and

A

sia.

Un

likel

y:

This

sp

ecie

s h

as

no

t b

een

re

cord

ed

wit

hin

2

5km

o

f th

e si

te

and

th

ere

is

limit

ed

fora

gin

g h

abit

at

avai

lab

le.

E.

tetr

od

on

ta

wo

od

lan

ds,

an

d t

he

man

gro

ve, s

edge

lan

d h

abit

ats

do

no

t p

rovi

de

suff

icie

nt

op

en h

abit

ats

acro

ss t

he

Pro

ject

are

a fo

r th

is s

pec

ies

to i

nh

abit

as

mo

re

than

a p

assi

ng

visi

tor.

Cu

culu

s o

pta

tus

Ori

enta

l C

uck

oo

M

igra

tory

;

Terr

estr

ial

(CA

MB

A)

Spec

ial

Leas

t C

on

cern

The

spec

ies

has

a l

arge

bre

edin

g ra

nge

in

Eu

rasi

a h

ow

ever

it o

verw

inte

rs a

s fa

r so

uth

as

Au

stra

lia a

nd

occ

asio

nal

ly N

ew Z

eala

nd

. Th

e sp

ecie

s is

in

sect

ivo

rou

s an

d o

ccu

rs i

n

mix

ed, d

ecid

uo

us

and

co

nif

ero

us

fore

sts

at

all l

evel

s o

f fo

rest

can

op

y.

Po

ssib

le:

This

sp

ecie

s h

as

no

t b

een

re

cord

ed

wit

hin

25

km o

f th

e si

te h

ow

eve

r th

ere

is s

uit

able

h

abit

at

pre

sen

t o

n

the

site

. A

s th

e sp

ecie

s se

cret

ive

it w

ou

ld p

rove

dif

ficu

lt t

o d

eter

min

e o

ccu

pan

cy o

n t

he

site

.

Lim

osa

la

pp

on

ica

B

ar-t

aile

d

Go

dw

it

Mig

rato

ry;

Mar

ine

(Bo

nn

, C

AM

BA

, JA

MB

A,

RO

KA

MB

A).

Leas

t C

on

cern

A

lar

ge

no

n b

reed

ing

po

pu

lati

on

of

the

spec

ies

occ

urs

aro

un

d A

ust

ralia

alo

ng

the

East

Asi

an-

Au

stra

lasi

an F

lyw

ay.

Its

hab

itat

is

m

ain

ly

coas

tal

san

dfl

ats,

m

ud

flat

s,

estu

arie

s, la

goo

ns,

etc

. Th

e sp

ecie

s fo

rage

s in

ti

dal

es

tuar

ies

and

sh

allo

w

wat

er

pre

ferr

ing

to r

oo

st i

n s

and

y b

each

es a

nd

sa

nd

bar

s.

Un

likel

y; T

he

spec

ies

has

no

t b

een

rec

ord

ed in

th

e ar

ea a

nd

th

ere

is n

o s

uit

able

hab

itat

in t

he

vici

nit

y o

f th

e si

te.

The

clo

sest

su

itab

le h

abit

at i

s at

th

e m

ou

th

of

the

Sk

ard

on

R

iver

h

ow

ever

th

ere

is

limit

ed o

pen

san

d a

nd

mu

dfl

at h

abit

ats

avai

lab

le

to t

he

spec

ies

wit

hin

th

at a

rea.

Wit

hin

th

e P

roje

ct

area

th

ere

are

limit

ed

are

as w

her

e in

div

idu

als

cou

ld r

oo

st o

r fo

rage

th

eref

ore

th

e P

roje

ct a

rea

wo

uld

be

char

acte

rise

d a

s fl

yove

r o

nly

.


Page 15-53

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 15-54

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.

15.6.11 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.

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.


Page 15-55

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 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_151008.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 15-57

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 relatively coarse scale resource modelling, with potential inaccuracies of approximately 100 m. Therefore there are some areas with mapped Project footprint where impacts will not necessarily occur.

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 (RE 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 regional ecosystems is shown in Figure 15-17 with the area of potential footprint within each regional ecosystem shown in Table 15-10. Figure 15-18 shows the Project footprint overlap in the southern portion of the Project (ML 60125) and Namaleta Creek).

The majority of the Project footprint (1,313 ha or 96%) occurs within 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.

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

RE 3.2.10 (vegetation unit 8) – 33 ha

RE 3.5.22 (vegetation unit 2) – 10.4 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.

The crossing upgrade to Namaleta Creek will result in approximately 1 ha of disturbance to REs associated with Namaleta Creek (RE 3.3.49, RE 3.3.9, RE 3.3.12 / vegetation units 5a, 5c, 5d).

Due to the coarse scale of resource mapping, there are minor overlaps of some vegetation units with the mapped mining areas as follows; however mining will not occur in these areas:

REs associated with Lunette Swamp (RE 3.3.14 / 3.3.22, vegetation unit 7c) – 0.5 ha

RE 3.3.22a (vegetation unit 9) – 1 ha.


Page 15-58

All REs are classified as least concern (LC) under the VM Act, with exception of RE 3.3.12 (unit 5d) (clearing of 0.2ha) which is an ‘of concern’ RE (OC).

Table 15-10 Regional Ecosystems in Project Footprint

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

6 RE 3.5.2 (LC) 1,207 87.9%

1 RE 3.5.2 (LC) 106 7.7%

2 RE 3.5.22 (LC) 10.4 0.8%

4 NA – non remnant 14 1.0%

5a RE 3.3.49 (LC) 0.8 0.1%

5c RE 3.3.9 (LC) 0.1 <0.1%

5d 3.3.12 (OC) 0.2 <0.1%

7c 3.3.14/3.3.22 (LC) 0.5 <0.1%

8 RE 3.2.10 (LC) 33 2.4%

9 RE 3.3.22a (LC) 1 0.1%

Estimated Total Area of Vegetation Clearing 1,374 100%

!(

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

Pit #14Pit #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_Field_Mapped_REs_151008.mxd

Revision: R1



Project Footprint and FieldMapped Regional Ecosystems



!

!

!

!

Queensland

CAIRNS

BRISBANE

TOWNSVILLE

ROCKHAMPTON

±



Mining Lease BoundariesExisting Disturbance FootprintProject FootprintSouthern Haul RoadWatercourses

Wetland BufferField Mapped Regional EcosystemsVM Status (v8.0)


NAMALETA CREEK

3.3.49

3.3.12

3.3.12

3.3.123.3.513.3

.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

3.3.493.3.9

3.3.643.5.2

3.5.2

3.3.49

3.5.2

3.5.23.3.12

3.5.2

3.5.22

3.3.22a

Pit #14

Pit#15 1:20,000


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

3.3.22a 9

ML 6025

NAMAL

ETACREE

K

3.3.493.3.513.3.12

3.3.123.3.513.3.12

3.3.49

3.3.50 3.3.123.3.12

3.3.49

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

3.5.23.5.2

3.5.2

3.5.2

3.2.10

3.2.103.3.12

3.3.12

3.5.2

3.5.2

3.5.2

3.5.2

3.5.2

3.3.14

/ 3.3.

22 3.3.14

/ 3.3.

22

3.3.14

/ 3.3.

22

3.5.22

3.3.22aPit #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_Field_Mapped_REs_151008.mxd

Revision: R1



Footprint in ML 6025 andNamaleta Creek

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


!

!

!

!

Queensland

CAIRNS

BRISBANE

TOWNSVILLE

ROCKHAMPTON

±



Mining Lease BoundariesExisting Disturbance FootprintProject FootprintHaul RoadCrossingWatercourses

Wetland BufferField Mapped Regional EcosystemsVM Status (v8.0)


Namaleta CreekCrossing

NAMALETACREEK

3.3.49

3.3.12

3.3.12

3.3.12

3.3.12

3.3.49 3.3.12

3.3.49

3.3.9 3.3.64

3.5.2

3.3.12

3.3.12

Pit#14

Pit #141:10,000


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

3.3.22a 9


Page 15-61

15.7.2 Buffer Zones

In order to protect wetlands and wetland associated ecosystems from direct Project disturbance, the buffers zones listed in Table 15-11 have been proposed. Environmental buffer lines follow natural contours and vegetation type boundaries. A practical means of establishing the limits of wetland function and influence is through interpretation of floristic composition. Invariably, changes in floristic composition, or the presence of a certain ‘indicator’ plant species is linked to a change in the state of the soil and its drainage. Several surveys were undertaken to determine and delineate on mapping unique and important vegetation communities. The results of these surveys informed the mapping of environmental buffers. These vegetation surveys are considered a more accurate representation of potential wetland areas than State mapped wetland areas.

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. With the exception of the 50 m buffer to the mapped HES wetlands bisecting Pits 14 and 15, a minimum 100 m buffer has been proposed for all other 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 20111. 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 15-11 Buffer Zones

Wetland Map Units

Equivalent RE

Proposed Buffer

Lunette Swamp 7a, 7b 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 n/a RE 3.3.14/ 3.3.22

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

Namaleta Creek 3, 5a, 5b, 5c, 5d, 5e, 5f

RE 3.3.50, RE 3.3.49, RE 3.3.64, RE 3.3.9, RE 3.3.12, RE 3.3.51

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

Supratidal wetlands to the west of the Skardon River South Arm

5 RE 3.1.1 / 3.1.3/ 3.1.6

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

The HES wetlands bisecting Pits 14 and 15

9 RE 3.3.22a Will be protected from direct impacts by a buffer of at least 50m from mining activities, except where the southern haul road transects the HES wetland.

Wetland complexes to the west and north

n/a 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 15-62

Wetland Map Units

Equivalent RE

Proposed Buffer

of the Project area

The only direct impact on wetlands and watercourses will be the upgraded crossing of Namaleta Creek and the extension of the haul road across RE 3.3.2a (vegetation map unit 9 -the mapped HES wetland), resulting in approximately 2 ha of disturbance within mapped wetlands. Section 15.6.2.5 notes that the map unit 9 (RE3.3.22a) is not associated with wetland habitat.

The overlap of REs, including REs associated with wetlands is shown in Figure 15-17 and Figure 15-18. These overlaps are described in Table 15-12, with an explanation of the potential mapping issues giving rise to the overlap.

Table 15-12 Buffer Zones and Mining Overlaps

Description of Buffer Overlap Explanation

A small part of the eastern edge of Pit 1 near, but not within, the supratidal wetland of the Skardon River

This overlap is due to either the coarse scale of resource mapping or low accuracy of wetland mapping. Mining will not occur in the buffer zones. Inspections will be undertaken prior to mining to accurately delineate wetland boundaries and a 100m buffer zone.

A very small portion at the north eastern extent of Pit 3 near, but not within the supratidal wetland of the Skardon River

This overlap is due to either the coarse scale of resource mapping or low accuracy of wetland mapping. Mining will not occur in the buffer zones. Inspections will be undertaken prior to mining to accurately delineate wetland boundaries and a 100m buffer zone.

Fragments of the southern end of Pit 12, near, but not within the Namaleta Creek wetlands

Figure 15-17 shows that vegetation in this area is map unit 2 (RE 3.5.22), which is not a wetland associated map unit.

This overlap is likely to due to the low accuracy of wetland mapping, although the coarse scale of resource modelling may also give rise to the overlap. Mining will not occur in the buffer zones. Inspections will be undertaken prior to mining to accurately delineate wetland boundaries and a 100m buffer zone.

Small parts of the northern extent of Pits 14 and 15 including the extension of the Southern Haul Road through the HES wetland to the south of Namaleta Creek

Figure 15-17 and Figure 15-18 show that vegetation in this area is map unit 9 (RE 3.3.22a), which is not a wetland associated map unit.

This overlap is likely to due to the low accuracy of State wetland mapping, although the coarse scale of resource modelling may also give rise to the overlap. Mining will not occur in the buffer zones. Inspections will be undertaken prior to mining to accurately delineate wetland boundaries and a 50m buffer zone.


Page 15-63

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 1,374 ha of 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 hollow-bearing trees can be considered as contributing to the key threatening process for 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.


Page 15-64

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.

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.

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


Page 15-65

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 and monitoring of rehabilitation is provided in Chapter 7 and Appendix 5.

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:


Page 15-66

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 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

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.


Page 15-67

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.

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 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.


Page 15-68

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

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.


Page 15-69

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 and Weed and Pest Management Plan 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 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).


Page 15-70

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-site workers will be provided with information about the surrounding environment, its ecology and importance. 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.

15.9 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.

An assessment of the significance of impacts, in accordance with the Commonwealths Significant Impact Guidelines, is provided in Table 15-13 for the red goshawk. The assessment demonstrates that the Project will not have a significant impact on the red goshawk.


Page 15-71

Table 15-13 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 habitat as a result of the proposed Project. However, the Project will clear 1,374 ha (including 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. 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.

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.


Page 15-72

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

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 15-14 for the eastern curlew. The assessment demonstrates that the Project will not have a significant impact on the eastern curlew.

Table 15-14 Eastern Curlew - Assessment of Significant Impact

Eastern Curlew - Critically Endangered (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.


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.


Page 15-73

Eastern Curlew - Critically Endangered (EPBC) / Vulnerable (NCA)


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 15-15 or the masked owl. The assessment demonstrates that the Project will not have a significant impact on the masked owl.

Table 15-15 Masked Owl - Assessment of Significant Impact

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



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.


Page 15-74

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


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 unlikely they are 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 (1,374 hectares), however this habitat is continuous through the landscape.


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.


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 15-16 for the northern quoll. The assessment demonstrates that the Project will not have a significant impact on the northern quoll.


Page 15-75

Table 15-16 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 1374 ha with extensive areas of similar habitat remaining intact across the region.


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.


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.


Page 15-76

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


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 15-17 for the spectacled flying-fox. The species is highly dispersive and 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 15-17 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.


Page 15-77

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


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.


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. There is currently no Commonwealth Recovery Plan for the species.

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 15-18 for the bare-rumped sheathtail bat. The assessment demonstrates that the Project will not have a significant impact on the bare-rumped sheathtail bat.


Page 15-78

Table 15-18 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.


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.


Page 15-79

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


The proposed Project will result in the clearing of 1374 ha of potential foraging or roosting habitat for bare-rumped sheathtail bat. 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.


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 15-19 for the false water rat. The assessment demonstrates that the Project will not have a significant impact on the false water rat.

Table 15-19 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.


Page 15-80

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


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.


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.


Page 15-81

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 15-20 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 15-20 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.


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 1374 ha 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.


Page 15-82

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



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.


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 15-21 for the rainbow bee-eater

Table 15-22 for the rufous fantail

Table 15-23 for the lesser frigate bird

Table 15-24 for the barn swallow

Table 15-25 for the little tern

Table 15-26 for the eastern great egret

Table 15-27 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 and roosting range of the species across the Project footprint represents a total of 1,374 ha of available 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.


Page 15-83

Table 15-21 Rainbow Bee-eater - Assessment of Significant Impact

Rainbow Bee-eater (Merops ornatus)


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.

The total area of impact of the site is 1374 hectares. 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 and roosting range of the species across the Project footprint represents a total of 1,374 ha of available 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 15-22 Rufous Fantail - Assessment of Significant Impact

Rufous Fantail (Rhipidura rufifrons)

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 total area of impact of the site is 1374 hectares. The development does not prevent access to important habitat for the species and does not prevent habitat utilisation.


Page 15-84

Rufous Fantail (Rhipidura rufifrons)


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 that habitat critical to the Rufous Fantail is present on the proposed site. The development footprint of 1374 hectares would impact little of the overall 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 15-23 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 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 15-85

15.9.4.4 Barn Swallow

The potential foraging and roosting range of the species across the Project footprint represents a total of 1,374 ha of available 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 15-24 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. The total area of impact of the site is 1374 hectares. 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 proposed site. The development footprint of 1374 hectares would impact little of the overall 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 15-25 Little Tern - Assessment of Significant Impact

Little Tern (Sterna albifrons)



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.


Page 15-86

Little Tern (Sterna albifrons)


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 15-26 Eastern Great Egret - Assessment of Significant Impact

Eastern Great Egret (Ardea alba) Special Least Concern



The total area of impact of the Project is 1374 ha. 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.


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.


Page 15-87

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 15-27 Cattle Egret - Assessment of Significant Impact

Cattle Egret (Ardea ibis) Special Least Concern



The total area of impact of the Project is 1374 ha. 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 15-28. 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 15-28 Chapter of EIS Describing Each MSES

MSES EIS Chapter

Endangered regional ecosystem Chapter 15

Of concern regional ecosystem Chapter 15

Regional ecosystem intersecting with vegetation management wetlands Chapter 16


Page 15-88

MSES EIS Chapter

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 #14Pit #15

61000086

9000

0

8690

000

8700

000

8700

000

Figure15-19

G:\CLIENTS\E-TO-M\Gu lf Alu m ina\GIS\Maps\EIS\Ch 15_TerrestrialEc o\FIG_15_19_MSES_151008.m xd

Revision: R 1

Date: 8/10/2015 Author: m alc olm .nu nn1:80,000Map Scale:


Matters of StateEnvironmental Significance

0 1 2 3 4 5Kilom eters


!

!

!

!

Qu eensland

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 Skardon R iver

Mining Lease Bou ndariesExisting Distu rb anc eFootprintProjec t FootprintSou th ern Hau l R oad

MSES v4.1 Wetland ValuesR eg u lated veg etation(intersec ting a waterc ou rse)MSES - ’Hig h Ec olog ic alSig nific anc e’ wetlands

MSES v4.1 - Vegetation andHabitat

Wildlife h ab itatMSES - R eg u latedveg etation

Pit #14

Pit #151:20,000


Page 15-90

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 REs with the Project footprint are classified as least concern under the VM Act, with exception of RE 3.3.12 (unit 5d) (clearing of 0.2ha) which is an ‘of concern’ RE. RE 3.3.12 is considered a ‘mid-dense’ structural category regional ecosystem where clearing of greater than 0.5 ha is considered a significant residual impact. As the extent of potential impact within RE 3.3.12 is 0.2 ha, the residual impact is not considered to be significant.

RE 3.3.12 (vegetation map unit 5d) occurs at the proposed crossing location, which is already subject to disturbance (10 – 15 m wide) from the existing crossing. The additional crossing width may be 25 m, however with the proposed mitigation measures for the crossing (Section 15.7.4 and Chapter 16), impacts are not expected to be significant.

It is noted that the Namaleta Creek crossing area is currently mapped by DEHP (version 8 of RE maps) as non-remnant cleared areas (refer Figure 15-3) and therefore this criteria is not triggered for the Namaleta Creek crossing using State RE map, which recognises the pre-existing disturbance.

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.


Page 15-91

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 15-29. 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 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 15-29 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:


Page 15-92

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)

All of these species, except the beach-stone curlew are listed as threatened under the EPBC Act. 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 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 15-30. The assessment demonstrates that the Project will not have a significant impact on the beach stone-curlew.

!(

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_151008.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 15-94

Table 15-30 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 15-95

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:

Palm Cockatoo (Probosciger terrimus)

Radjah Shelduck (Tadorna radjah)

Papuan Sheathtail Bat (Saccolaimus mixtus)

Chestnut Dunnart (Sminthopsos archeri)

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 environments2. Echidnas have large overlapping home ranges of 45–50 ha3. 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

2 http://australianmuseum.net.au/short-beaked-echidna 3 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 15-96

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 beach stone-curlew, in accordance with the State Significant Residual Impact Guidelines, is provided in Table 15-31. The assessment demonstrates that the Project will not have a significant impact on the beach stone-curlew.

Table 15-31 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 MNES or MSES from the Project. No offsets are proposed for the Project.

15.12 Risk Assessment

A risk assessment assessing the likelihood and significance of impacts to terrestrial ecology from the Project is provided in Table 15-32. The risk assessment considers mitigated risk; that is, the impact from


Page 15-97

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 15-32 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 0. 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 0. 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 0. 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.

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, 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 pre-feasibility information 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. The Bauxite Hills


Page 15-98

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 conceptual mine plan 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 Conceptual Mine Plan – Bauxite Hills Project

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 prevent fragmentation of critical habitats such that landscape connectivity and corridor linkages are maintained.


Page 15-99

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 0.2 ha of clearing of a Melaleuca community for the Skardon River Bauxite Project’s Namaleta Creek crossing. The majority of potential


Page 15-100

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.

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.

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.

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 (1,313 ha out of 1,374 ha or 96%) occurs within 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. Other REs within the Project footprint include RE 3.2.10 (Eucalyptus tetrodonta forest, 33 ha, 2.4%), RE 3.5.22 (tall grassy woodland, 10 ha, 0.8%), 14 ha (1%) of non-remnant vegetation and less than 1 ha of other REs. There is no proposed vegetation clearing in wetland REs.

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 1,374 ha of remnant vegetation. All regional ecosystems proposed for clearing are classified as least concern under the VM Act, with exception of RE 3.3.12 ((open forest of Melaleuca quinquenervia) which is an ‘of concern’ regional ecosystem within the Namaleta Creek crossing upgrade. Approximately 0.2 ha of RE 3.3.12 will be cleared, which is not considered to be a significant impact.

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.


Page 15-101

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:

environmental buffers zones surrounding wetlands and watercourses (mostly 100m) 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