Beasley River Limonites Baseline Fauna...

Beasley River Limonites

Baseline Fauna Survey

Prepared for Rio Tinto Iron Ore

December 2009

Beasley River Limonites Fauna Survey

© Biota Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd 2009 ABN 49 092 687 119

Level 1, 228 Carr Place Leederville Western Australia 6007

Ph: (08) 9328 1900 Fax: (08) 9328 6138 Project No.: 525 Prepared by: Erin Harris, David Keirle Checked by: Garth Humphreys Approved for Issue: Garth Humphreys

This document has been prepared to the requirements of the client identified on the cover page and no representation is made to any third party. It may be cited for the purposes of scientific research or other fair use, but it may not be reproduced or distributed to any third party by any

physical or electronic means without the express permission of the client for whom it was prepared or Biota Environmental Sciences Pty Ltd.

This report has been designed for double-sided printing. Hard copies supplied by Biota are printed on recycled paper.

Cube:Current:525 (Beasley River Limonites):Documents:Fauna:Beasley Fauna v2_2.doc 3


4 Cube:Current:525 (Beasley River Limonites):Documents:Fauna:Beasley Fauna v2_2.doc




Contents

1.0 Introduction 7 1.1 Project Background 7 1.2 Project Study Area and Scope 7 1.3 Purpose of this Report 7

2.0 Methodology 9 2.1 Survey Timing, Climate and Survey Team 9 2.2 Fauna Sampling 9 2.3 Study Limitations 13

3.0 Results 15 3.1 Fauna Habitats 15 3.2 Vertebrate Fauna Overview 17 3.3 Avifauna 17 3.4 Mammals 17 3.5 Herpetofauna 18 3.6 Invertebrate Short Range Endemics (SREs) 25

4.0 Discussion 27 4.1 Fauna Habitat Conservation Value 27 4.2 Threatened and Priority Fauna 27 4.3 Potential SRE Invertebrates 29 4.4 Conservation Significance Summary 30

5.0 Recommendations 31 5.1 Northern Quoll Dasyurus hallucatus (Schedule 1) 31 5.2 Pilbara Orange Leaf-nosed Bat Rhinonicteris aurantius (Schedule 1) 31 5.3 Short-range Endemic Invertebrates – Terrestrial Snails 32

6.0 References 33

Appendix 1 Regulation 17 “Licence to take fauna for scientific purposes” SF006901

Appendix 2 Anabat Results from Specialised Zoological

Appendix 3 Threatened Fauna Statutory Framework

Tables

Table 2.1: Daily weather observations for Tom Price during the Beasley River Limonites fauna survey. 9

Table 2.2: Beasley River trapping grid location and trap effort (Datum WGS84, Zone 50). 10

Table 2.3: Systematic avifauna censuses undertaken during the Beasley River Limonites fauna survey (* denotes opportunistic sampling). 10



Table 2.4: Bat sampling locations during the Beasley River Limonites fauna survey. 11

Table 2.5: Invertebrate Search Site Locations 13 Table 3.1: Fauna habitats present in the Beasley River Limonites study area

separated by landform. 15 Table 3.2: Overview of vertebrate fauna recorded during the Beasley River

Limonites fauna survey. 17 Table 3.3: Avifauna species recorded during the Beasley River Limonites

fauna survey (BRLOPP records were made while nightspotting; T denotes trace record of Fairy Martin nests). 19

Table 3.4: Non-volant Mammal species recorded during the Beasley River Limonites fauna survey (T denotes a trace record). 22

Table 3.5: Bat species recorded during the Beasley River Limonites fauna survey (C denotes Anabat record). 22

Table 3.6: Herpetofauna species recorded during the Beasley River Limonites fauna survey (BRLOPP records were made while nightspotting; T denotes a trace record). 23

Table 3.7: Terrestrial Snails collected during the Beasley River Limonites fauna survey. 25

Table 4.1: Fauna of conservation significance occurring or potentially occurring within the Beasley River study area (* denotes recorded in the study area). 27

Figures

Figure 2.1: Indicative layout of trapping grids used during the Beasley River Limonites fauna survey. 9

Figure 2.2: Fauna trapping sites utilised during the Beasley River Limonites fauna survey. 12

Plates

Plate 2.1: Site BRLHARP1. 11 Plate 2.2: Site BRLHARP2. 11 Plate 2.3: Site BRLHARP3. 11 Plate 2.4: Site BRLHARP4. 11 Plate 2.5: Site BRLANA04. 11 Plate 3.1: Site BRL01. 15 Plate 3.2: Site BRL03. 15 Plate 3.3: Site BRL04. 16 Plate 3.4: Site BRL06F. 16 Plate 3.5: Site BRL09. 16 Plate 3.6: Site BRL12F. 16 Plate 3.7: Site BRL13E. 16 Plate 3.8: Site BRL14. 16 Plate 3.9: Site BRL15E. 16 Plate 3.10: Site BRL16E. 16



1.0 Introduction

1.1 Project Background

Rio Tinto Iron Ore (RTIO) is conducting a series of baseline biological surveys at potential future development sites to provide early identification of environmental constraints and potential approvals issues. As part of this initiative, Biota Environmental Sciences (Biota) was commissioned to conduct a biological survey in the Beasley River study area in August 2009. This report has been prepared to summarise the results of the terrestrial fauna survey component of the study. The underlying tenet of RTIO’s approach to this early stage work is that it will:

• provide baseline data prior to significant disturbance of proposed impact areas;

• permit the identification of fauna habitats or species of particular conservation significance prior to commencement of activities associated with site exploration and development; and

• allow lead time prior to RTIO seeking environmental approvals during which environmental concerns can be addressed and species and /or habitat management plans developed and implemented.

Although each survey has been designed with regard to the specific area under consideration, two general features differentiate these surveys from standard Level 2 surveys. Standard survey methods (pit and Elliott trapping, bat call recording, bird censusing) were conducted at a lesser intensity than would be considered suitable for a complete Level 2 Fauna survey. In contrast, significantly more emphasis was placed on methods used to target specific fauna groups or taxa that may be of elevated conservation interest (and therefore potential development constraints or environmental approvals factors). Where practicable, each survey was planned and conducted in accordance with the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) Position Statement No. 3 “Terrestrial Biological Surveys as an Element of Biodiversity Protection” (EPA 2002), Guidance Statement No. 56 “Terrestrial Fauna Surveys for Environmental Impact Assessment in Western Australia” (EPA 2004), and Guidance Statement No. 20 “Sampling of Short Range Endemic Invertebrates Fauna for Environmental Impact Assessment in Western Australia” (EPA 2009).

1.2 Project Study Area and Scope

Pilbara Iron commissioned Biota to conduct a baseline Fauna survey at Beasley River Limonites deposit, which lies approximately 50 km west of Tom Price. The scope of the survey was to:

• document the fauna habitats present within the Beasley River Limonites study area;

• document the vertebrate fauna species inhabiting the study area;

• record the potential Short-range Endemic (SRE) invertebrate fauna of the study area;

• identify, from the above, fauna habitats or species of elevated conservation significance; and

• suggest measures which may be used to resolve potential environmental issues associated with these factors.

1.3 Purpose of this Report

This report documents the methods, results and key findings of a Phase I terrestrial fauna survey of the Beasley River Limonites deposit. It provides an assessment of the fauna assemblages and species recorded. The primary purpose of this report is to highlight potential conservation issues



that may require a longer than standard lead time to resolve, and to make recommendations as to how that resolution might be achieved prior to the project moving to pre-feasibility stage.



2.0 Methodology

2.1 Survey Timing, Climate and Survey Team

The survey (including trap installation) was conducted over an eleven-day period between 21st May and 31st May 2009. The weather during this period was consistently mild, with observations from Tom Price revealing minima averaging 9.7°C and maxima averaging 24.6°C (Table 2.1). There were four rainfall events recorded during the survey period, totalling 4.6 mm of rainfall (Table 2.1).

Table 2.1: Daily weather observations for Tom Price during the Beasley River Limonites fauna survey.

Date Minimum Temperature (°C) Maximum Temperature (°C) Rainfall (mm)

21/5/09 6.5 29.3

22/5/09 14.5 20.7

23/5/09 7.5 19.2 1.8

24/5/09 4.8 21.8

25/5/09 4.1 23.7

26/5/09 7.8 23.6

27/5/09 10.4 26.5

28/5/09 14.5 24.3 0.8

29/5/09 10.7 27.2 0.4

30/5/09 12.8 26.8 1.6

31/5/09 12.9 27.0

The vertebrate fauna sampling was conducted under “Licence to Take Fauna for Scientific Purposes” No. SF006901 issued to Dr Phil Runham (Appendix 1). The fauna survey team comprised Dr Phil Runham, Mr Michael Greenham, Mr Tim Sachse and Ms Jess Cairnes (all of Biota Environmental Sciences). Analysis of bat call recordings was completed by Dr Kyle Armstrong (Specialised Zoological). Invertebrate identifications were completed by Dr Phil Runham and Ms Zoë Hamilton (both of Biota).

2.2 Fauna Sampling

2.2.1 Systematic Sampling Sites

The sampling approach for this study consisted of a combination of systematic fauna sampling and targeted searches within habitats suitable for SRE or Threatened fauna. The systematic component of the survey consisted of 10 trapping grids, each located within a defined habitat (Table 2.2; Plate 3.1 - Plate 3.10). The majority of grids (n=5) comprised a single row of 10 pitfall traps (alternating 20 L buckets and 150 mm diameter x 600mm PVC tubes), spaced at approximately 10 m intervals and connected with a single length of 300 mm high flywire fence (Figure 2.1). Two trapping grids consisted of ten pairs of funnel traps (i.e. 20 traps) placed adjacent to a 90 m long flywire fence. Three lines of Elliott traps were also installed in areas in which pit-traps could not be installed (Table 2.2 and Figure 2.2).

Figure 2.1: Indicative layout of trapping grids used during the Beasley River Limonites fauna survey.

Buckets PVC Tubes Flywire



Table 2.2: Beasley River trapping grid location and trap effort (Datum WGS84, Zone 50).

Site Location Trap Type

Date Opened

Date Closed

Nights Open

No. of Traps

Total Effort (trap nights)

BRL01 519866mE; 7498902mN Pit 23/5/09 30/5/09 7 10 70

BRL03 523237mE; 7499112mN Pit 23/5/09 30/5/09 7 10 70

BRL04 522987mE; 7497743mN Pit 23/5/09 30/5/09 7 10 70

BRL06F 524871mE; 7496770mN Funnel 23/5/09 30/5/09 7 20 140

BRL09 524600mE; 7494492mN Pit 23/5/09 30/5/09 7 10 70

BRL12F 525925mE; 7493090mN Funnel 23/5/09 30/5/09 7 20 140

BRL13E 526137mE; 7492503mN Elliott 23/5/09 30/5/09 7 74 518

BRL14 526732mE; 7491241mN Pit 23/5/09 30/5/09 7 10 70



Total Pit Trap Effort 350

Total Elliott Trap Effort 1,148

Total Funnel Trap Effort 280

Total Trapping Effort 1,778

2.2.2 Avifauna Sampling

A total of 15 avifauna censuses were completed across the trapping sites during the survey period (Table 2.3). Avifauna was sampled using 40-minute censuses at established trapping grids, comprising a total of over ten hours dedicated to avifauna sampling. Censuses were conducted between 7:00 am and 13:00 pm and were supplemented by recording avifauna species observed opportunistically within the study area.

Table 2.3: Systematic avifauna censuses undertaken during the Beasley River Limonites fauna survey (* denotes opportunistic sampling).

Site 25/5/09 26/5/09 27/5/09 28/5/09 29/5/09 Total (min)

BRL01 0820-0900 0730-0810 0830-0910 0745-0825 160

BRL03 0725-0805 0730-0810 80

BRL04 0850-0930 0910-0950 80

BRL06F 0915-0955 0950-1030 * 80

BRL09 *

BRL12F *

BRL13E 1150-1300 1015-1055 0725-0815 160

BRL14 *

BRL15E 0800-0840 * 40

BRL16E 0920-1000 40

640 min

2.2.3 Bat Sampling

Bats within the project area were sampled using harp traps (direct capture) and also through the recording of echolocation calls. Caves and creek-line habitats at eight locations within the study area were targeted (Table 2.4; Figure 2.2; Plate 2.1 - Plate 2.5). Bat echolocation calls were recorded using Anabat II and Anabat SD1 bat detector units, which detect and record ultrasonic echolocation calls emitted during bat flight. The calls were stored on a compact flash card after being processed by an Anabat CF ZCAIM. Calls were visualised on Analook 3.3f software. Only sequences containing good quality search phase calls were considered for identification. Analysis of the bat recordings was completed by Dr Kyle Armstrong (Specialised Zoological; Appendix 2).



Table 2.4: Bat sampling locations during the Beasley River Limonites fauna survey.

Site Location Structure Trap/Unit Date

Opened Date

Closed Number of

Nights

BRLHARP1 525920mE; 7492525mN Creekline Harp 24/5/09 30/5/09 6

BRLHARP2 525877mE; 7492538mN Creekline Harp 24/5/09 30/5/09 6

BRLHARP3 529047mE; 7488494mN Cave entrance Harp 24/5/09 30/5/09 6

BRLHARP4 529019mE; 7488483mN Cave entrance Harp 24/5/09 27/5/09 3

BRLANA02 525877mE; 7492538mN Creekline Anabat 24/5/09 29/5/09 5

BRLANA03 525896mE; 7492749mN Cave entrance Anabat 27/5/09 29/5/09 2



Total 32

Plate 2.1: Site BRLHARP1. Plate 2.2: Site BRLHARP2.

Plate 2.3: Site BRLHARP3. Plate 2.4: Site BRLHARP4.

Plate 2.5: Site BRLANA04.



Figure 2.2: Fauna trapping sites utilised during the Beasley River Limonites fauna survey.



2.2.4 Invertebrate Sampling

Opportunistic collecting was also undertaken at locations likely to support fauna of conservation significance, including potential SREs. Specific invertebrate groups were targeted using both systematic and non-systematic collection techniques during the survey. Invertebrate groups targeted were those considered to include potential SRE taxa, including:

• Mygalomorphae (trapdoor spiders);

• Diplopoda (millipedes);

• Pulmonata (land snails); and

• Pseudoscorpiones (pseudoscorpions).

Sampling for SRE taxa was conducted at 11 sites within the vicinity of the Beasley River Limonites study area (Table 2.5). Non-systematic SRE searches were selected to provide representative sampling within the range of land-systems and habitats present and targeted specific locations where SREs were judged more likely to occur (e.g. larger spinifex hummocks, rock piles and drainage lines).

Table 2.5: Invertebrate Search Site Locations

Site Location Date Taxa Targeted

BRLSN01 530593mE; 7487117mN 25/5/09 Snails and Mygalomorph Spiders



BRLSN04 525139mE; 7492265mN 27/5/09 Snails







BRL06F 524872mE; 7496770mN 28/5/09 Snails

2.3 Study Limitations

The following limitations should be recognised by the reader of this report:

• The Beasley River Limonites fauna survey represents a single phase of sampling only. The aim of this study was not to provide an exhaustive inventory of the fauna occurring in the study area, but to identify the fauna related factors that might require longer than normal lead times to resolve from an environmental approvals perspective.

• Not all sections of the study area were ground-truthed or equally sampled for fauna. Parts of the study area were inaccessible by vehicle hence regular checking of fauna traps in these areas would not have been possible. However, systematic fauna sampling was completed on the basis of trapping grid installation in habitats considered to be representative of the range of units present within the development area.

• Terrestrial invertebrate sampling was targeted at a small number of specific groups that are known to potentially harbour SRE taxa.



This page intentionally blank.



3.0 Results

3.1 Fauna Habitats

Five habitat units, distinguished primarily on the basis of landforms and their associated vegetation and soil types, predominated in the Beasley River Limonites study area (Table 3.1). These five fauna habitat types are:

• A – Eucalypts and Acacias over Triodia on stony loam drainage line;

• B – Corymbia woodland over mixed Acacias over *Cenchrus ciliaris on sandy loam drainage line;

• C – Acacia aneura (Mulga) with scattered Corymbias and mixed Acacias on gravelly loam mesa top;

• D – Acacia xiphophylla (Snakewood) and Acacia aneura over Triodia on cracking clay on mesa top; and

• E – Eucalypts and Acacias over Triodia on a rocky breakaway.

Table 3.1: Fauna habitats present in the Beasley River Limonites study area separated by landform.

Site Vegetation Description Substrate Habitat Type Plate

DRAINAGE LINE

BRL01 Eucalypts and Acacias over mid-dense Triodia Stony loam A Plate 3.1

BRL14 Scattered Eucalypts and mixed Acacias over Triodia

Colluvial stony loam A Plate 3.8

BRL04 Corymbia woodland over mixed Acacias over *Cenchrus ciliaris

Sandy loam B Plate 3.3

MESA TOP

BRL03 Acacia aneura with scattered Corymbias and mixed Acacias

Gravelly loam C Plate 3.2

BRL09 Acacia xiphophylla and Acacia aneura over Triodia

Cracking clay D Plate 3.5

ROCKY BREAKAWAY/GORGE

BRL06F Eucalypts and mixed Acacias over Triodia Stony scree slope E Plate 3.4

BRL12F Mixed Acacias over Triodia Rocky breakaway E Plate 3.6

BRL13E Eucalypts over Triodia Rocky breakaway E Plate 3.7

BRL15E Eucalypts and Acacias over Triodia Rocky breakaway E Plate 3.9

BRL16E Eucalypts and Acacias over Triodia Rocky breakaway E Plate 3.10

Plate 3.1: Site BRL01. Plate 3.2: Site BRL03.



Plate 3.3: Site BRL04. Plate 3.4: Site BRL06F.

Plate 3.5: Site BRL09. Plate 3.6: Site BRL12F.

Plate 3.7: Site BRL13E. Plate 3.8: Site BRL14.

Plate 3.9: Site BRL15E. Plate 3.10: Site BRL16E.



3.2 Vertebrate Fauna Overview

A total of 86 vertebrate fauna species were recorded during the Beasley River Limonites fauna survey (Table 3.2). This total comprised 45 bird species, seven native non-volant mammals, one introduced mammal, six bats, one frog and 29 reptiles.

Table 3.2: Overview of vertebrate fauna recorded during the Beasley River Limonites fauna survey.

Fauna Group Number of Species Number of Families

Avifauna 45 26

Native Non-volant Mammals 7 4

Introduced Non-volant Mammals 1 1

Bats 6 4

Amphibians 1 1

Reptiles 29 7

Total 89 42

3.3 Avifauna

3.3.1 The Assemblage

A total of 45 species of birds was recorded during the Beasley River Limonites fauna survey, comprising 26 families. This included 16 non-passerine species and 29 passerine species (Table 3.3). The most commonly recorded species was the Weebill Smicrornis brevirostris with a total of 58 records, representing 11.6% of all avifauna records (Table 3.3). The Zebra Finch Taeniopygia guttata was also relatively common, with 49 records representing a total of 9.9% of all avifauna records for the survey. The most abundant family was the Columbidae (doves and pigeons), with 60 records accounting for 12.0% of all records. The most speciose family observed was the Meliphagidae (honeyeaters), with five species (Table 3.3). The most species rich sites were BRL01 and BRL13E with 22 and 21 species respectively.

3.3.2 Avifauna of Conservation Significance

One avifauna species of elevated conservation significance, the Rainbow Bee-eater Merops ornatus, was recorded during the Beasley River Limonites fauna survey, there is the potential for at least six species of Threatened avifauna to occur within the study area(see Section 4.2).

3.4 Mammals

3.4.1 The Assemblage – Non-volant Mammals

Eight native non-volant mammal species were recorded during the fauna survey; this total includes one echidna (Tachyglossidae), three carnivorous marsupials (Dasyuridae), one macropod (Macropodidae) and three rodents (Muridae). One introduced species was also recorded (Table 3.4). The most commonly recorded mammal species was the Common Rock-rat Zyzomys argurus with a total of 21 records, representing 48.8% of all non-volant mammal records (Table 3.4). All other non-volant mammal species recorded represented less than 12% of all the records for the survey. The most abundant family was the Muridae (mice), with 28 records accounting for 65.1% of all records. The Muridae was also the most speciose family, with four species (Table 3.4).



3.4.2 The Assemblage - Bats

Three species of bat were directly captured in Harp nets during the course of the survey, and a further three species were recorded using Anabats (Table 3.5).

3.4.3 Mammals of Conservation Significance

Two mammalian species recorded in the study area are considered to be of conservation significance. The Pilbara Orange Leaf-nosed Bat (Rhinonicteris aurantius), listed as a Schedule 1 species under the state Wildlife Conservation Act 1950 and ‘Vulnerable’ under the EPBC Act 1999 was recorded at BRLH4. The Short-tailed Mouse (Leggadina lakedownensis) was recorded at site BRL05 (Table 3.4) and is listed by DEC as a Priority 4 species. A further five mammal species have the potential to occur within the study area, more information on these species can be found in Section 4.2.

3.5 Herpetofauna

3.5.1 The Assemblage

A total of 30 herpetofauna species were recorded during the Beasley River Limonites fauna survey (Table 3.6). This total comprised one tree frog (Hylidae), three dragons (Agamidae), eight geckos (Diplodactylidae and Gekkonidae), 12 skinks (Scincidae), three monitors (Varanidae), two pythons (Boidae) and one front-fanged snake (Elapidae). The most commonly recorded herpetofauna species was the skink Ctenotus saxatilis with a total of 21 records, representing 19.1% of all herpetofauna records. This was followed by Ctenophorus caudicinctus, with 19 records, representing 17.3%. The remaining species recorded represented less than 10% of the total herpetofauna species. The most abundant herpetofauna family recorded during the survey was the Scincidae with 52 records representing 47.3% of the total records. The Scincidae was also the most speciose family recorded comprising 12 species. The most speciose site for herpetofauna was BRL03 with 13 species recorded (Table 3.6).

3.5.2 Herpetofauna of Conservation Significance

One herpetofauna species of elevated conservation significance was recorded during the Beasley River Limonites fauna survey; this was the Pilbara Olive Python Liasis olivaceus barroni. The Pilbara Olive Python is listed at both State and Federal level. Further information on this species and other herpetofauna species of conservation significance potentially occurring within the study area can be found in Section 4.2.



Table 3.3: Avifauna species recorded during the Beasley River Limonites fauna survey (BRLOPP records were made while nightspotting; T denotes trace record of Fairy Martin nests).

FAMILY Common Name

Species Name

BRL01

BRL03

BRL04

BRL06F

BRL09

BRL12F

BRL13E

BRL14

BRL15E

BRL16E

BRLOPP

Total

ARDEIDAE

White-necked Heron Ardea pacifica 1 1

ACCIPITRIDAE

Wedge-tailed Eagle Aquila audax 1 1

FALCONIDAE

Brown Falcon Falco berigora 1 2 3

Australian Kestrel Falco cenchroides 1 1

TURNICIDAE

Little Button-quail Turnix velox 1 5 6

COLUMBIDAE

Crested Pigeon Ocyphaps lophotes 1 28 4 33

Spinifex Pigeon Geophaps plumifera 7 6 2 6 5 26

Diamond Dove Geopelia cuneata 1 1

PSITTACIDAE

Galah Cacatua roseicapilla 2 3 5

Budgerigar Melopsittacus undulatus 12 16 28

CUCULIDAE

Horsfield's Bronze Cuckoo Chrysococcyx basalis 1 1

STRIGIDAE

Boobook Owl Ninox novaeseelandiae 1 2 3

CAPRIMULGIDAE

Spotted Nightjar Eurostopodus argus 3 3

HALCYONIDAE

Blue-winged Kookaburra Dacelo leachii 1 1 2

Red-backed Kingfisher Todiramphus pyrrhopygia 1 1 3 5

MEROPIDAE

Rainbow Bee-eater Merops ornatus 4 3 7

MALURIDAE

Variegated Fairy-wren Malurus lamberti 2 4 7 3 10 4 30



FAMILY Common Name

Species Name

BRL01

BRL03

BRL04

BRL06F

BRL09

BRL12F

BRL13E

BRL14

BRL15E

BRL16E

BRLOPP

Total

PARDALOTIDAE

Red-browed Pardalote Pardalotus rubricatus 1 1

Striated Pardalote Pardalotus striatus 1 3 4 8

ACANTHIZIDAE

Weebill Smicrornis brevirostris 2 20 16 10 8 2 58

Western Gerygone Gerygone fusca 1 1

Chestnut-rumped Thornbill Acanthiza uropygialis 2 2

MELIPHAGIDAE

Brown Honeyeater Lichmera indistincta 2 6 8

Singing Honeyeater Lichenostomus virescens 6 6 2 1 15

Grey-headed Honeyeater Lichenostomus keartlandi 1 1

Yellow-throated Miner Manorina flavigula 3 3 6 5 17

Spiny-cheeked Honeyeater Acanthagenys rufogularis 1 2 3

PETROICIDAE

Red-capped Robin Petroica goodenovii 1 1

Hooded Robin Petroica cucullata 3 3

POMATOSTOMIDAE

Grey-crowned Babbler Pomatostomus temporalis 2 3 4 9

PACHYCEPHALIDAE

Crested Bellbird Oreoica gutturalis 2 2 4

Rufous Whistler Pachycephala rufiventris 4 1 3 2 1 11

Grey Shrike-thrush Colluricincla harmonica 1 1 2

DICRURIDAE

Willie Wagtail Rhipidura leucophrys 2 2 3 2 1 10

Magpie-lark Grallina cyanoleuca 1 2 7 10

CAMPEPHAGIDAE

Black-faced Cuckoo-shrike Coracina novaehollandiae 9 1 6 16

Ground Cuckoo-shrike Coracina maxima 4 4

ARTAMIDAE

Little Woodswallow Artamus minor 12 12

CRACTICIDAE

Pied Butcherbird Cracticus nigrogularis 4 4 1 4 2 3 18

Australian Magpie Cracticus tibicen 1 3 4



FAMILY Common Name

Species Name

BRL01

BRL03

BRL04

BRL06F

BRL09

BRL12F

BRL13E

BRL14

BRL15E

BRL16E

BRLOPP

Total

CORVIDAE

Torresian Crow Corvus orru 12 2 17 3 34

HIRUNDINIDAE

Fairy Martin Hirundo ariel T T

SYLVIIDAE

Spinifex-bird Eremiornis carteri 1 1

PASSERIDAE

Zebra Finch Taeniopygia guttata 28 1 1 3 10 6 49

Painted Finch Emblema pictum 1 33 4 2 40

Total Number of Individuals 95 82 16 59 6 12 128+T 4 75 16 5 498+T

Total Number of Species 22 17 5 17 2 1 21 1 19 6 2 45



Table 3.4: Non-volant Mammal species recorded during the Beasley River Limonites fauna survey (T denotes a trace record).

FAMILY Species Name

Common Name BRL01 BRL03 BRL04 BRL06F BRL09 BRL13E BRL14 BRL15E BRL16E Total

TACHYGLOSSIDAE

Tachyglossus aculeatus Echidna T T

DASYURIDAE

Ningaui timealeyi Pilbara Ningaui 1 1 2 4

Planigale sp. 'k' Planigale sp. 'k' 1 1 1 1 4

Sminthopsis macroura Stripe-faced Dunnart 1 4 5

MACROPODIDAE

Macropus robustus Euro 1 1 2

MURIDAE

Leggadina lakedownensis Short-tailed Mouse 1 1

Mus musculus House Mouse 2 2

Pseudomys hermannsburgensis Sandy Inland Mouse 1 3 4

Zyzomys argurus Common Rock-rat 17 1 3 21

Total Number of Individuals 2 4 3 T 6 17 6 2 3 43+T

Total Number of Species 2 4 2 1 3 1 3 2 1 9

Table 3.5: Bat species recorded during the Beasley River Limonites fauna survey (C denotes Anabat record).

FAMILY Species Name

Common Name BRLANA02 BRLANA03 BRLANA04 BRLANA05 BRLHARP3 BRLHARP4 Total

HIPPOSIDERIDAE

Rhinonicteris aurantius Pilbara Orange Leaf-nosed Bat 5 5

EMBALLURONIDAE

Taphozous georgianus Common Sheath-tail Bat 2 10 9 21

VESPERTILIONIDAE

Chalinolobus gouldii Gould’s Wattled Bat C C C C 4C

Scotorepens greyii Little Broad-nosed Bat C C C C 4C

Vespadelus finlaysoni Finlayson’s Cave Bat C C C C 6 10 16+4C

MOLOSSIDAE

Tadarida australis White-striped Free-tail Bat C C C C 4C

Total Number of Individuals 4C 4C 4C 2+4C 16 24 42+16C

Total Number of Species 4 4 4 5 2 3 6



Table 3.6: Herpetofauna species recorded during the Beasley River Limonites fauna survey (BRLOPP records were made while nightspotting; T denotes a trace record).

FAMILY Species Name

BRL01 BRL03 BRL04 BRL06F BRL09 BRL12F BRL13E BRL14 BRL15E BRL16E BRLOPP BRLPOP1 BRLSN06 Total

HYLIDAE

Litoria rubella 1 1

AGAMIDAE

Ctenophorus caudicinctus 5 2 1 3 5 2 1 19

Ctenophorus isolepis 2 1 3

Amphibolurus longirostris 1 8 1 10

DIPLODACTYLIDAE

Diplodactylus savagei 1 1

Lucasium stenodactylum 1 1 2

Lucasium wombeyi 1 1 2

Oedura marmorata 1 1 2

GEKKONIDAE

Gehyra punctata 1 1

Gehyra variegata 3 3

Heteronotia binoei 1 1 2

Heteronotia spelea 2 2

SCINCIDAE

Carlia munda 3 1 4

Carlia triacantha 1 1

Cryptoblepharus ustulatus 3 3

Ctenotus aff. helenae 2 2

Ctenotus grandis 2 1 3

Ctenotus pantherinus 2 1 1 4

Ctenotus rubicundus 6 1 7

Ctenotus rutilans 3 3

Ctenotus saxatilis 4 1 1 11 3 1 21

Cyclodomorphus melanops 1 1

Egernia formosa 1 1

Morethia ruficauda exquisita 2 2

VARANIDAE

Varanus acanthurus 1 1

Varanus caudolineatus 2 2

Varanus tristis 1 1 2



FAMILY Species Name

BRL01 BRL03 BRL04 BRL06F BRL09 BRL12F BRL13E BRL14 BRL15E BRL16E BRLOPP BRLPOP1 BRLSN06 Total

BOIDAE

Antaresia stimsoni 1 1 2 4

Liasis olivaceus barroni T T

ELAPIDAE

Furina ornata 1 1

Total Number of Individuals 11 23 14 4 5 26 3 7 9 1 4 1+T 2 110+T

Total Number of Species 4 13 5 3 3 7 3 4 6 1 3 2 2 30



3.6 Invertebrate Short Range Endemics (SREs)

3.6.1 Overview of Potential Short Range Endemic Taxa

Taxonomic groups of invertebrates with naturally small distributions are described as short-range endemics and are, in part, characterised by poor dispersal capabilities, confinement to disjunct habitats, and low fecundity (Harvey 2002, Ponder and Colgan 2002). Given the importance of short-range endemism to the conservation of biodiversity, the assessment of such invertebrate taxa is a potentially important component of impact assessment. Examples of taxonomic groups that show high levels of short-range endemism in this respect include mygalomorph spiders, millipedes, pseudoscorpions and freshwater and terrestrial molluscs. 3.6.1.1 Terrestrial Snails

In his review of the conservation status of Australia’s non-marine molluscs, Ponder (1997) identified over 900 described terrestrial land snails from 23 families, with the most speciose families being the Camaenidae (408 taxa), Helicarionidae (60 taxa), Pupillidae (41 taxa), Bulimulidae (31 taxa), Punctidae (23 taxa) and Pupinidae (19 taxa). There are 230 described taxa In Western Australia, with 201 of these restricted to this State (Ponder 1997). Within the Pilbara bioregion, the most conspicuous elements of this fauna are the Rhagada and Quistrachia species (Camaenidae), though several Bothriembryon species (Bulimulidae) are also known. Two genera, Rhagada and Quistrachia, were collected during the Beasley River Limonites fauna survey (Table 3.7).

Table 3.7: Terrestrial Snails collected during the Beasley River Limonites fauna survey.

Site Date Location Taxa Number Collected

BRLSN01 25/5/09 530593mE; 7487117mN Rhagada 5








BRL06F 28/5/09 524872mE; 7496770mN Quistrachia 3

Total Number Collected 86



This page intentionally blank.



4.0 Discussion

4.1 Fauna Habitat Conservation Value

None of the habitats present in the Beasley River Limonites study area are listed as either Threatened Ecological Communities (TECs) or Priority Ecological Communities (PECs). However, numerous areas of lower slope mulga, an ecosystem considered to be at risk due to altered fire regimes, were recorded. It should be noted however, that lower slope mulga communities do not represent significant habitat for any known fauna of elevated conservation value. Vegetation mapping (Biota 2009), Land Systems mapping, previous surveys in the locality and ground-truthing of the study area (Biota 2009), all indicate that the remaining habitat types are well represented in the locality and wider region and not of elevated conservation significance.

4.2 Threatened and Priority Fauna

The fauna survey of the Beasley River Limonites study area yielded a total of 86 species of vertebrate fauna, four of which are listed under the State Wildlife Conservation Act 1950 and/or the Federal Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act 1999 (Appendix 3):

• the Pilbara Orange Leaf-nosed Bat Rhinonicteris aurantius was recorded from a harp trap at BRLHARP4 (Figure 2.1);

• the Pilbara Olive Python Liasis olivaceus barroni was recorded from a skin slough at BRLPOP1 (Figure 2.1);

• the Short-tailed Mouse Leggadina lakedownensis was recorded from one individual at BRL09; and

• the Rainbow Bee-eater Merops ornatus was recorded from two sites, BRL13E and BRL15E (Figure 2.1).

Based on known distributions and habitat preferences, an additional 11 fauna species of elevated conservation significance may occur within the Beasley River study area (Table 4.1).

Table 4.1: Fauna of conservation significance occurring or potentially occurring within the Beasley River study area (* denotes recorded in the study area).

Status FAUNA GROUP Common Name

Species Name State Federal

AVIFAUNA

Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus Schedule 4

Grey Falcon Falco hypoleucos Priority 4

Australian Bustard Ardeotis australis Priority 4

Bush Stone Curlew Burhinus grallarius Priority 4

Star Finch (western) Neochmia ruficauda subclarescens Priority 4

Rainbow Bee-eater Merops ornatus* Migratory

MAMMALS

Northern Quoll Dasyurus hallucatus Schedule 1 Endangered

Pilbara Orange Leaf-nosed Bat Rhinonicteris aurantius* Schedule 1 Vulnerable

Short-tailed Mouse Leggadina lakedownensis* Priority 4

Ghost Bat Macroderma gigas Priority 4

Western Pebble-mound Mouse Pseudomys chapmani Priority 4

Long-tailed Dunnart Sminthopsis longicaudata Priority 4

HERPETOFAUNA Pilbara Olive Python Liasis olivaceus barroni* Schedule 1 Vulnerable

Ramphotyphlops ganei Priority 1

Notoscincus butleri Priority 4



The majority of species listed above (Table 4.1) are either unlikely to occur at Mesa G or are able to be actively managed in respect of mining developments. Avifauna species for instance are highly mobile and would be expected to be encountered only periodically, as would species that are typically encountered infrequently due to naturally low densities (e.g. Sminthopsis longicaudata, Liasis olivaceous barroni). Consequently, any developmental impacts on these taxa are likely to be at the level of individual animals, rather than being of local or regional significance. Recommendations for mitigation of these impacts subsequently would be limited to management approaches including:

• suitable environmental training of personnel;

• limitation of vegetation clearing to disturbed areas where practicable; and

• fire control / response measures; and

• pest species controls. In contrast, two of the species listed (Dasyurus hallucatus and Rhinonicteris aurantius) are likely to occur in the study area at various times on the basis of the available habitats and historical records of the occurrence in the vicinity. Moreover, these species have proven to be of specific environmental approval interest in light of their EPBC Act 1999 listing in recent years. Both species are discussed further in Section 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 respectively.

4.2.1 Dasyurus hallucatus Northern Quoll (Schedule 1; Endangered)

The uplands of the Beasley River study area are bisected in several areas by the main drainage line of the river itself. Where this occurs, the floor of the drainage line is flanked by high screes topped with large strike faces containing numerous caves. Its is currently unclear whether there are any permanent water bodies within the gorges but, irrespective of this, the gorges are likely to represent core habitat for the Northern Quoll. DEWHA (2009) have identified three processes as having adverse impacts on quoll populations:

1. inappropriate fire regimes;

2. predation following fire; and

3. ingestion of Cane toad (Bufo marinus) toxins leading to death. It is apparent however, that these impacts on Northern Quoll populations may be more serious in the Kimberley, Northern Territory and Queensland than in the Pilbara, the latter populations being disjunct from the remainder. Claims that Northern quolls in the Pilbara have suffered a substantial decline (Braithwaite and Griffiths 1994) have been demonstrated to be unsubstantiated (Biota 2009e), and it seems that variation in numbers of individuals caught over time probably relate more to natural fluctuations than any anthropogenic effects. Hence the continuing interest in the Northern Quoll at national level may not properly recognise the species’ status in the Pilbara, and that there is a limited evidence base that relatively small-scale mining developments adversely affect the species at the Pilbara scale. Notwithstanding that the threatening processes defined by the EPBC Act 1999 are related to landscape level effects, it is considered probable that any development at the Beasley River Limonites will require referral to the Federal Environment Minister under the terms of the act.

4.2.2 Rhinonicteris aurantius Pilbara Orange Leaf-nosed Bat (Schedule 1; Vulnerable)

The Orange Leaf-nosed bat is distributed throughout much of the Pilbara Bioregion, with a total estimated occurrence of over 122,000 km2, with several individuals having been recorded from the vicinity of Beasley River over recent years (Source: Biota Internal Database). Five individuals were recorded during the Beasley River Limonites fauna survey (Table 3.5), and it is likely that the



gorges and breakaways described above represent significant habitat for the species on a local scale. DEWHA (2009) lists nine threats to the conservation status of the Pilbara Orange Leaf-nosed Bat, of which five may be exacerbated by site development:

1. heat and water loss: the species is known for its poor ability to maintain body temperature and water. Consequently, where roosts are disturbed the risk and/or rate of mortality may increase;

2. mine development: may result in the destruction of roost sites;

3. blasting: resulting in abandoning of roost sites by bats;

4. human entry to roost sites: resulting in animals abandoning the site; and

5. roadkills: direct mortality resulting from increased vehicle activity. In essence, the suggested threat abatement measures outlined by DEWHA centre on identification and protection of known roost sites for the species, as one of the primary factors with the potential to compromise the species persistence on a subregional scale. The most significant threats to the status of the species arising from the development of the Beasley River Limonites therefore should focus on the roost cave located at BRLHARP04 (Table 2.4 & Figure 2.2), and any other large or deep caves that are found to offer stable microclimates.

4.3 Potential SRE Invertebrates

The conservation significance of many potential SRE taxa is currently uncertain due to difficulties in making this determination when:

• taxa are represented by one or few specimens;

• contextual information from the Western Australian Museum is unavailable; and

• additional targeted surveys are unlikely to yield additional results. Ideally, it would be beneficial to directly determine the broader distribution of potential SRE taxa recorded within, and in the vicinity of, the study area. Although targeted searches outside the study area may result in confirmation of certain species being more widely distributed, targeting species represented by few specimens is unlikely to yield meaningful results. In regards to the potential SRE invertebrates recorded during the survey of the Beasley River study area, the most practicable approach currently available with many groups is to adopt a risk-based assessment using defined habitat units as a surrogate for inferring distributional boundaries.

4.3.1 Terrestrial Snails

The majority of the snails collected during the survey of the Beasley River study area belonged to the genus Rhagada, and were collected from under Triodia bushes on the flat plains surrounding the uplands. Three individuals belonging to the genus Quistrachia were also found amongst rocks on a breakaway at site BRL06F. Given the extent of the habitat type from which these animals were collected in the local area, it appears likely that the type will be represented outside of the current study area within the locality (R. Teale Pers. Comm.). However, the species level identity of the snails collected from Beasley River remains uncertain. Similar animals have previously been collected extensively throughout the Hamersley subregion and it is considered unlikely that the specimens collected during the Beasley River survey represent taxa that are restricted to the study area. The individuals have been lodged with the University of WA where they will undergo molecular analyses to place the in a broader taxonomic context.



4.4 Conservation Significance Summary

With regard to the terrestrial fauna found, or expected to be found, in the Beasley River study area, there are a number of factors that may be considered of significance in future development scenarios. The fauna habitats found within the areas are widespread and relatively common in both the Pilbara Bioregion, and in the Hamersley subregion. Similarly, the fauna assemblage contained, or is likely to contain, some elements considered to be of elevated conservation significance that may be adversely affected by prospective developments. Amongst the vertebrate fauna recorded or expected to occur within the study area, two species, the Northern Quoll and Pilbara Orange Leaf-nosed Bat, require further consideration, as do the terrestrial snails amongst the invertebrates potentially containing SRE taxa. Recommendations relating to these factors are provided in Section 5.0.



5.0 Recommendations The text following summarises actions that might be taken by RTIO to mitigate impacts associated with the future development of the Beasley River study area, and to resolve situations where the conservation status of specific species might be considered to be at risk during formal environmental assessment of mining proposals.

5.1 Northern Quoll Dasyurus hallucatus (Schedule 1)

The potential development of Beasley River would not be expected to significantly impact the conservation status of the species in a bioregional or subregional context, given its known distribution. Moreover, the threatening factors identified by the EPBC occur over a landscape scale as opposed to a localised scale and are not specifically related to mining activity (Section 4.2.1). Finally, given the prevalence of habitat available to quolls in the Pilbara Bioregion and Hamersley subregion, it is likely that the species will continue to persist in ecological refugia represented by their core habitat (rocky gullies and gorges). However, under the EPBC Act 1999, an action requires referral to the Federal Environment Minister if it is deemed likely to have a significant impact on a matter of national environmental significance (in this case a listed threatened species the Northern Quoll Dasyurus hallucatus). Previous experience has shown that where quolls or their habitat may be at risk of even minor impact from a development, a conservative response is favoured by DEWHA. To this end, a number of actions that may support such formal assessment of impact on the species and its habitat in the locality of Beasley River are recommended:

1. Compilation of all Northern Quoll records across the Pilbara focussing on the habitat types from which the species has been recorded. This has been completed for Hope Downs IV (Biota 2009e), but there is now a quantity of recently available data from various Pilbara surveys to supplement the data. This exercise could also be run in conjunction with that suggested for the Mesa G study area (Biota In prep.).

2. Multi-seasonal Elliott trapping of quolls in the vicinity of the Beasley River study area and mapping of occurrence of the species against available habitat types over a period of two years prior to formal assessment being undertaken. A single-phase trapping exercise was conducted in 2005 across several mesas to the west of Pannawonica (Biota and Howe 2005) but lacked a temporal element (Biota 2005). Northern Quoll populations are known to vary substantially in abundance and local distribution over time (R. How, WA Museum pers. comm. 2009). Conducting a multi-phase trapping programme in a number of areas of habitat comparable to that found at Beasley River will serve to increase understanding of population stability over time, thereby providing the basis for a more accurate assessment of potential impacts on the species on a broader scale. Such a programme should also address individual animal condition (breeding state and other data) as this can be informative in respect of overall population status. This may also have value to RTIO for other future development proposals in the vicinity of Beasley River.

3. A comprehensive review of the available data should be undertaken after the first two trapping phases and each subsequent phase. This will permit a determination of the utility of the data generated by the trapping programme for assessment of impacts prior to any submissions being made to the Federal Environment Minister.

5.2 Pilbara Orange Leaf-nosed Bat Rhinonicteris aurantius

(Schedule 1)

In essence, the suggested threat abatement measures for this species outlined by DEWHA centre on identification and protection of known roost sites. Disturbance of roost sites has been shown



previously to cause abandonment of the site by colonies inhabiting them. Given their requirement for roost sites of specific, stable microclimates, abandonment is speculated to increase mortality rates. The most significant threats to the status of the species arising from the development of Beasley River therefore should focus on the possibility that a core roost exists somewhere within the study area: • Investigation of the gorge and cave system from which the records of the species were

collected during the recent survey of Beasley River to establish its importance as a roost site. This should be conducted under the auspices of the survey guidelines set out in DEWHAs Species profile and threats database; and

• Review of the status of the cave at Beasley River prior to any submission to the Federal Environment Minister.

5.3 Short-range Endemic Invertebrates – Terrestrial Snails

It is considered probable that the snails belonging to the two genera represented here: Rhagada and Quistrachia, have been collected by Biota at other locations within the Pilbara (source: Biota Internal Database). However, it should be noted here that neither type collected is currently described to species level. Hence, we recommend placement of the specimens into the molecular programme analysing a broad suite of snails from across the Pilbara Bioregion currently under way. The objective of this programme, which RTIO currently supports, is to provide a genetic framework for the taxonomy of terrestrial snails throughout the Pilbara.



6.0 References Biota Environmental Sciences and How, R. (2006). Mesa A Targeted Northern Quoll Survey.

Unpublished report prepared for Robe River Iron Associates, Perth.

Biota Environmental Sciences (2006). Fauna Habitats and Fauna Assemblage of the Mesa A Transport Corridor and Warramboo. Unpublished report for Pilbara Iron Pty. Ltd.

Biota Environmental Sciences (2007). Bungaroo Trial Pit and Transport Corridor to Mesa J, near Pannawonica: Fauna Assemblage Seasonal Survey. Unpublished report for Pilbara Iron Pty. Ltd.

Biota Environmental Sciences (2008). Tom Price Airport Desktop Review and SRE Fauna Survey. Unpublished report for Pilbara Iron Pty. Ltd.

Biota Environmental Sciences (2009a). A Vegetation and Flora Survey of Mesa G. Unpublished report for Pilbara Iron Pty. Ltd.

Biota Environmental Sciences (2009b). West Pilbara Iron Ore Project Mine Areas Seasonal Fauna Survey. Unpublished report for API Management Pty. Ltd.

Biota Environmental Sciences (2009c). Tom Price Power Line West Detritals: Two-Phase Fauna Survey. Unpublished report for Pilbara Iron Pty. Ltd.

Biota Environmental Sciences (2009d). Western Range Phase 1 Fauna Survey: Interim Report. Unpublished report for Pilbara Iron Pty. Ltd.

Biota Environmental Sciences (2009e). Hope Downs IV Northern Quoll Position Paper. Unpublished report for Pilbara Iron Pty. Ltd.

Braithwaite, R. and Griffiths, A.D. (1994). Demographic variation and range contraction in the northern quoll, Dasyurus hallucatus (Marsupialia: Dasyuridae). Wildlife Research 21: 203- 217.

Crews, S.C and Harvey, M.S. (2009). Selenopid Spiders of Western Australia with Emphasis on the Pilbara Region. Unpublished Report for Biota Environmental Sciences.

DEWHA (2005). http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/dasyurus-hallucatus.html - conservation

DEWHA (2008) http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/pubs/66887-conservation-advice.pdf

Environmental Protection Authority (2002). Position Statement No. 3: Terrestrial Biological Surveys as an Element of Biodiversity Protection. http://www.epa.wa.gov.au/docs/1033_ps3.pdf

Environmental Protection Authority (2004). EPA Guidance Statement No. 56: Terrestrial Fauna Surveys for Environmental Impact Assessment in Western Australia. http://www.epa.wa.gov.au/docs/1850_GS56.pdf

Environmental Protection Authority (2009). EPA Guidance Statement No. 20: Sampling of Short Range Endemic Invertebrate Fauna for Environmental Impact Assessment in Western Australia. . http://www.epa.wa.gov.au/docs/2953_GS20SRE250509.pdf

Harvey, M. S. (2002). Short-range endemism among Australian fauna: some examples from non-marine environments. Invertebrate Systematics, 16: 555-570.



Kendrick, P. (2001). Pilbara 3 (PIL3- Hamersley Subregion). In: A biodiversity Audit of Western Australia’s 53 Biogeographical Subregions. Department of Conservation and Land Management, WA.

McKenzie, N.L. and Bullen R.D. (2009). The echolocation calls, habitat relationships, foraging niches and communities of Pilbara microbats. Rec. West. Aust. Mus. (Supplement) In press.

Poinar, G., Curcic, B., and Cokendolpher, J. (1998). Arthropod Phoresy Involving Pseudoscorpions in the Past and Present. Acta Arachnol 47(2): 79-96.

Ponder, W.F. and D.J. Colgan (2002). What makes a narrow-range taxon? Insights from Australian fresh-water snails. Invertebrate Systematics 16: 571–582.


Cube:Current:525 (Beasley River Limonites):Documents:Fauna:Beasley Fauna v2_3.doc

Appendix 1

Regulation 17 “Licence to take fauna for scientific purposes” SF006901



This page has been left blank intentionally



Appendix 2

Anabat Results from Specialised Zoological



Appendix 3

Threatened Fauna Statutory Framework



Threatened Fauna Statutory Framework Native fauna species that are rare, threatened with extinction, or have high conservation value are specially protected by law under the Western Australian Wildlife Conservation Act 1950-1979. In addition, many of these species are listed under the Federal Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act 1999). EPBC Act 1999 Fauna species of national conservation significance are listed under the EPBC Act 1999, and may be classified as ‘critically endangered’, ‘endangered’, ‘vulnerable’ or ‘conservation dependent’ (consistent with IUCN categories: http://www.unep-wcmc.org/species/animals/categories.html). Migratory wader species are also protected under the EPBC Act 1999. The national List of Migratory Species consists of those species listed under the following International Conventions:

• Japan-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement (JAMBA);

• China-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement (CAMBA); and

• Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (Bonn Convention). Wildlife Conservation Act 1950-1979 Classification of rare and endangered fauna under the Wildlife Conservation (Specially Protected Fauna) Notice 2008 recognises four distinct schedules of taxa:

Schedule 1 taxa are fauna which are rare or likely to become extinct and are declared to be fauna in need of special protection;

Schedule 2 taxa are fauna which are presumed to be extinct and are declared to be fauna in need of special protection;

Schedule 3 taxa are birds which are subject to an agreement between the governments of Australia and Japan relating to the protection of migratory birds and birds in danger of extinction, which are declared to be fauna in need of special protection; and

Schedule 4 taxa are fauna that are in need of special protection, otherwise than for the reasons mentioned in paragraphs (1), (2) and (3). In addition to the above, fauna are also classified under five different Priority codes:

Priority One Taxa with few, poorly known populations on threatened lands. Taxa which are known from a few specimens or sight records from one or a few localities on lands not managed for conservation. The taxon needs urgent survey and evaluation of conservation status before consideration can be given to declaration as threatened fauna.

Priority Two Taxa with few, poorly known populations on conservation lands, or taxa with several, poorly known populations not on conservation lands. Taxa which are known from few specimens or sight records from one or a few localities on lands not under immediate threat of habitat destruction or degradation. The taxon needs urgent survey and evaluation of conservation status before consideration can be given to declaration as threatened fauna.

Priority Three Taxa with several, poorly known populations, some on conservation lands. Taxa which are known from few specimens or sight records from several localities, some of which are on lands not under immediate threat of habitat destruction or degradation. The taxon needs urgent survey and evaluation of conservation status before consideration can be given to declaration as threatened fauna.

Priority Four Taxa in need of monitoring. Taxa which are considered to have been adequately surveyed or for which sufficient knowledge is available and which are considered not currently threatened or in need of special protection, but could be if present circumstances change. These taxa are usually represented on conservation lands. Taxa which are declining significantly but are not yet threatened.

Priority Five Taxa in need of monitoring. Taxa which are not considered threatened but are subject to a specific conservation program, the cessation of which would result in the species becoming threatened within five years.

Beasley River Limonites Baseline Fauna...

Documents

Transcript of Beasley River Limonites Baseline Fauna...