Mt Lucy Iron Ore Project - Environment · Mt Lucy Iron Ore Project Supporting documentation for an...

Mt Lucy Iron Ore Project Supporting documentation for an Environmental Authority amendment

November 2018 prepared for Tablelands Mining Group Pty Ltd

© Northern Resource Consultants, 2017

Contact Information Details

Organisation Northern Resource Consultants Pty Limited

Contact Person Marty Costello

Phone 07 4772 6500

Email [email protected]

Mail 12 Cannan Street, South Townsville QLD, 4810

ABN 55 126 894 693

Document Control Details including responsible party and date

Version 0.1 Draft for internal review.

Version 0.2 S Talbot – internal review.

Version 0.3 EA Amendment finalised for client review. S Hayes-Stanley 03.08.2018.

Version 1.0 G Kenny – application finalised based on Department feedback. Ready to lodge 15.11.2018


Limitations and Qualifications Client: Tablelands Mining Group Pty Ltd

Prepared by Northern Resource Consultants (NRC)

This document has been prepared for the sole and exclusive use of Tablelands Mining Group Pty Ltd (the Client). It may not be updated, amended, distributed or disclosed to any third party without the express written consent of Northern Resource Consultants (NRC).

NRC makes no representation or warranty (whether express or implied), undertakes no duty and accepts no responsibility to any third party who may use or rely upon this document or any part of it. If any reliance is placed on this document, or any part of it, by any third party, NRC hereby disclaims any and all liability for such reliance.

This document has been prepared on the basis of instructions provided to NRC by the Client. It is limited by the scope of those instructions and any qualifications which have been agreed between NRC and the Client or otherwise communicated to the Client prior to the date of this document (Date), whether verbally or in writing. The scope of those instructions may have been limited by a range of factors including, but not limited to, time, budget and access constraints.

Any statements, opinions, conclusions, advice or recommendations contained in this document (Conclusions) must be read and relied upon only in the context of the document as a whole.

This document is current as at the Date and the Conclusions may differ if further investigation, observation or analysis is undertaken by NRC or if any data, information, designs, plans or analysis (Data) relied upon by NRC when preparing this document is subsequently found to be incorrect or incomplete.

Unless otherwise specified in this document, NRC is not responsible for revising or updating this document if additional Data is obtained after the Date, through further investigation, observation, analysis or otherwise, which indicates that the content of this document, including any Conclusion, is inaccurate or incomplete.

Unless otherwise stated in this document, where Data used in this document, or upon which the Conclusions were based, was obtained from the Client or any third party, the accuracy and completeness of that Data has not been independently verified by NRC. Such Data was used in good faith and NRC is not responsible for its quality, accuracy or completeness, nor does NRC warrant or represent that such Data is accurate, up-to-date or complete.

Neither the Conclusions nor any part of this document constitutes legal advice, nor do they represent the opinions of the government or regulatory agencies responsible for the administration of the relevant legislation or regulatory regimes.

MT LUCY IRON ORE PROJECT – SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORITY AMENDMENT prepared by: Northern Resource Consultants Pty Ltd

Contents Project Description ......................................................................................................... 1

1. Project overview .............................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Purpose................................................................................................................................. 1

2. Project location ............................................................................................................................... 2

3. Property details ............................................................................................................................... 2

4. Proponent........................................................................................................................................ 2

5. Permits and licencing ...................................................................................................................... 2

Overview of Operations ................................................................................................. 3

1.1 Crushing and product sizing for shipment ............................................................................ 3

Proposed Amendment to the Environmental Authority ................................................... 4

1. Overview of environmentally relevant activities and notifiable activities......................................... 4

1.1 Environmentally relevant activities ....................................................................................... 4 1.2 Notifiable activities ................................................................................................................ 4

2. Proposed amendment to environmental authority EPVL03075115................................................ 4

3. Disturbance areas ........................................................................................................................... 5

4. Justifications of proposed amendment to environmental authority EPVL03075115 ...................... 6

Environmental Value: Air................................................................................................ 7

1. Surrounding land ............................................................................................................................. 7

1.1 Existing land uses ................................................................................................................. 7 1.2 Distance to sensitive receptors ............................................................................................. 7 1.3 Potential future land uses ..................................................................................................... 9

2. Scaled map ..................................................................................................................................... 9

3. Site topography ............................................................................................................................... 9

4. Wind direction ............................................................................................................................... 10

5. Ambient air quality ........................................................................................................................ 12


Possible Impacts to Environmental Value: Air .............................................................. 14

1. Overview of emissions and processes ......................................................................................... 14

1.1 Scaled plan showing layout of site and location of all sources of emissions ..................... 14 1.2 Process flow diagram detailing all sources of emissions ................................................... 15

2. Emissions ...................................................................................................................................... 15

2.1 Physical properties ............................................................................................................. 15 2.2 Description of how contaminants will or may be released.................................................. 16

3. Contaminants ................................................................................................................................ 16

3.1 Chemical properties ............................................................................................................ 16 3.2 Physical properties ............................................................................................................. 17

4. Evaluating the impacts of emissions ............................................................................................. 18

4.1 Environmental values of air ................................................................................................ 18

5. Proposed management actions .................................................................................................... 20

5.1 Measures implemented to minimise the emission of contaminants and air pollutants ............................................................................................................................ 20

6. Proposed monitoring programs..................................................................................................... 20

7. Contingency plans ........................................................................................................................ 20

Environmental Value: Noise ......................................................................................... 21

1. Sensitive places ............................................................................................................................ 21

1.1 Potential future land uses ................................................................................................... 23

2. Site description ............................................................................................................................. 23

2.1 Topography ......................................................................................................................... 23 2.2 Land use ............................................................................................................................. 23 2.3 Climate ................................................................................................................................ 23 2.4 Wind characteristics ............................................................................................................ 25

3. Background noise levels ............................................................................................................... 27

3.1 Existing noise sources ........................................................................................................ 27

Possible Impacts to Environmental Value: Noise ......................................................... 28

1. Noise sources ............................................................................................................................... 28

2. Emissions characteristics .............................................................................................................. 28

3. Noise management hierarchy ....................................................................................................... 28

3.1 Avoidance ........................................................................................................................... 28 3.2 Minimisation ........................................................................................................................ 29 3.3 Mitigation ............................................................................................................................ 29


4. Noise impact assessment ............................................................................................................. 29

4.1 Assessment criteria ............................................................................................................ 29 4.2 Modelling methodology ....................................................................................................... 30 4.3 Construction and operational noise levels .......................................................................... 30 4.4 Low frequency noise ........................................................................................................... 30 4.5 Transient noise events ........................................................................................................ 31 4.6 Description of controls ........................................................................................................ 31 4.7 Vibration risk assessment for blasting activities ................................................................. 31

5. Background creep ......................................................................................................................... 31


Environmental Value: Land .......................................................................................... 32

1. Physical description of the region ................................................................................................. 32

1.1 Terrain................................................................................................................................. 32 1.2 Geology............................................................................................................................... 32 1.3 Shallow groundwater systems ............................................................................................ 33 1.4 Floodplains ......................................................................................................................... 33 1.5 Springs ................................................................................................................................ 33 1.6 Soil descriptions .................................................................................................................. 33 1.7 Distinct or unique features .................................................................................................. 34

2. Soil health and function ................................................................................................................. 34

2.1 Land suitability classification .............................................................................................. 41

3. Bioregions and regional ecosystems ............................................................................................ 43

3.1 Regional ecosystems .......................................................................................................... 43 3.2 Interaction with other ecosystems ...................................................................................... 44

4. Flora .............................................................................................................................................. 45

4.1 Vegetation communities ..................................................................................................... 45 4.2 Endangered, vulnerable, rare or near threatened species ................................................. 46 4.3 Pest species ....................................................................................................................... 47

5. Fauna ............................................................................................................................................ 48

5.1 Fauna present ..................................................................................................................... 48 5.2 Endangered, vulnerable, rare or near threatened species ................................................. 49 5.3 Pest species ....................................................................................................................... 54

6. Areas of regional interest .............................................................................................................. 54

7. Acid sulfate soils ........................................................................................................................... 54

Possible Impacts to Environmental Value: Land .......................................................... 55

1. Site diagram .................................................................................................................................. 55

2. Land disturbance .......................................................................................................................... 56


3. Proposed and potential releases .................................................................................................. 56

4. Acid producing rock ...................................................................................................................... 56

5. Overburden ................................................................................................................................... 56

6. Tailings .......................................................................................................................................... 56

7. Waste storage ............................................................................................................................... 56

8. Land disturbance mitigation .......................................................................................................... 57


Environmental Value: Water ........................................................................................ 58

1. Topography ................................................................................................................................... 58

2. Hydrology ...................................................................................................................................... 58

2.1 Regional hydrology ............................................................................................................. 58 2.2 Site hydrology ..................................................................................................................... 58

3. Wetlands ....................................................................................................................................... 59

4. Rivers in strategic environmental areas ........................................................................................ 59

5. Groundwater ................................................................................................................................. 59

5.1 Groundwater dependent ecosystems ................................................................................. 59

6. Waste storage, processing, treatment and disposal locations ..................................................... 60

7. Environmentally sensitive places within or adjacent to the mining lease ..................................... 60

8. Surface water ................................................................................................................................ 60

9. Aquatic ecosystems. ..................................................................................................................... 60

10. Background water quality and contaminants of concern .............................................................. 61

10.1 Environmental values of surface water ............................................................................... 61 10.2 Physical and chemical parameters ..................................................................................... 63 10.3 Water quality objectives at Mt Lucy .................................................................................... 63

Possible Impacts to Environmental Value: Water ......................................................... 66

1. Discharges and releases .............................................................................................................. 66

1.1 Lateral seepage .................................................................................................................. 66 1.2 Groundwater mounding ...................................................................................................... 66

2. Unplanned and uncontrolled releases .......................................................................................... 66

3. Water infrastructure ...................................................................................................................... 66

4. Groundwater impact assessment ................................................................................................. 67


5.1 Runoff management and secondary containment .............................................................. 67


5.2 Water management hierarchy ............................................................................................ 67 5.3 Groundwater monitoring ..................................................................................................... 67

Environmental Value: Waste ........................................................................................ 69

1. Site plan ........................................................................................................................................ 69

2. Types of waste .............................................................................................................................. 70

3. Waste treatment processes .......................................................................................................... 70

4. Waste and resource management hierarchy ................................................................................ 70

4.1 Disposal of treated waste ................................................................................................... 71 4.2 Cleaner production or waste management strategies ........................................................ 71 4.3 Reuse.................................................................................................................................. 71

5. Waste transport ............................................................................................................................. 71

Environmental Risk Assessment .................................................................................. 72

1. Risk assessment approach ........................................................................................................... 72

2. Results of risk assessment ........................................................................................................... 73

References .................................................................................................................. 76

List of Tables

Table 1: Relevant tenures ..................................................................................................................... 2

Table 2: ERAs for Mt Lucy .................................................................................................................... 4

Table 3: Notifiable activities proposed in this amendment application ................................................. 5

Table 4: ERAs proposed in this amendment application ...................................................................... 5

Table 5: Disturbance areas at Mt Lucy ................................................................................................. 5

Table 6: Nearby sensitive receptors to the Mt Lucy site ....................................................................... 8

Table 7: BOM weather stations used to determine wind direction and speed .................................... 10

Table 8: Wind rose data for BOM weather stations in Table 6 ........................................................... 10

Table 9: Total emissions from the NPI for similar industries in similar areas to Mt Lucy.................... 13

Table 10: Dust mitigation measures. .................................................................................................. 20

Table 11: Nearby sensitive receptors to the Mt Lucy site ................................................................... 22

Table 12: BOM weather stations used to determine wind direction and speed .................................. 25

Table 13: Wind rose data for BOM weather stations in Table 11 ....................................................... 25

Table 14: Acoustic quality objectives for dwellings and other receivers relevant to Mt Lucy during the


day (7am to 6pm), evening (6pm to 10pm) and night (10pm to 7am). ............................................... 30

Table 15: Soil units at Mt Lucy ............................................................................................................ 33

Table 16: Soil descriptions of site 27 .................................................................................................. 35

Table 17: Soil profile for site S5 .......................................................................................................... 37

Table 18: Soil profile for site S7 .......................................................................................................... 37

Table 19: Soil profile description for site 15 ........................................................................................ 41

Table 20: Soil profile description for site 16 ........................................................................................ 41

Table 21: Agricultural land suitability classification ............................................................................. 42

Table 22: Limitations for grazing ......................................................................................................... 42

Table 23: Recommended WQOs for the downstream receiving environment at Mt Lucy .................. 62

Table 24: Water quality results obtained at Mt Lucy and compared to WQOs ................................... 64

Table 25: Environmental risk assessment matrix ............................................................................... 72

Table 26: Assessment of risk scores for the amendment risk assessment ........................................ 72

Table 27: Risk assessment for the proposed addition of minerals processing ................................... 74

List of Figures

Figure 1: Mt Lucy site layout ................................................................................................................. 9

Figure 2: Mt Lucy site layout ............................................................................................................... 14

Figure 3: Mean monthly rainfall at the Mareeba BOM station (ID: 031066) ....................................... 24

Figure 4: Mean monthly temperatures at the Mareeba BOM station (ID: 031066) ............................. 24

Figure 5: Site 5 particle size analysis .................................................................................................. 36

Figure 6: Site 7 particle size analysis .................................................................................................. 36

Figure 7: Site 15 particle size analysis ................................................................................................ 40

Figure 8: Example of soil exposure at a drainage feature (located in western drainage line, Mt Lucy) ............................................................................................................................................................ 40

Figure 9: Mt Lucy site layout ............................................................................................................... 55

Figure 10: Mt Lucy site layout ............................................................................................................. 69

Figure 11: Waste management hierarchy as detailed in EHP (2017b). ............................................. 70

List of Appendices

Appendix A Appendix B

Maps Mt Lucy Iron Ore EA Application – Flora and Fauna Technical Report

Project Description 1


Project Description 1. Project overview The Mt Lucy project (the project) is an iron ore and magnetite mining project owned by Tablelands Mining Group Pty Limited (TMG). TMG is a wholly owned subsidiary of L&P Mines Pty Limited (L&P Mines). L&P Mines hold mining lease (ML) 20488 and Environmental Authority (EA) EPML01722313, dated 15 September 2015.

The project site comprises a 33.5ha ML dominated by Mt Lucy, which rises approximately 90–100m above the surrounding landscape and takes up the eastern half of the ML area.

As a result of recent discussions with the Department of Environment and Science (DES), an amendment to the project EA is sought to include Environmentally Relevant Activity (ERA) 31: Minerals processing to facilitate the removal of iron ore stockpiles from the project site. Immediately following the removal of the iron ore stockpiles from the project site, the project will be closed and actively rehabilitated. It is expected that following rehabilitation, the project EA will be relinquished back to DES. This report is submitted as supporting documentation to the inclusion of notifiable activity 25 and ERA 31 to the EA for the Mt Lucy ML (20488).

1.1 Purpose

The Mt Lucy project forms a component of the amalgamated EA EPML01722313, which also includes the Mt Ruby project (ML20414) and Mt Paddy project (ML20701) sites. The purpose of this document is to provide supporting evidence for an amendment to EA EPML01722313 to include ERA 31 (2) (a) Minerals processing onto the EA for the Mt Lucy ML (20488) and address associated responses to the following guidelines:

- ESR/2015/1684 – Major and minor amendments (EHP, 2017a) - ESR/2015/1836 – Application requirements for activities with waste impacts (EHP,

2017b) - ESR/2015/1837 – Application requirements for activities with impacts to water (EHP,

2017c) - ESR/2015/1838 – Application requirements for activities with noise impacts (EHP, 2017d) - ESR/2015/1839 – Application requirements for activities with impacts to land (EHP,

2017e) - ESR/2015/1840 – Application requirements for activities with impacts to air (EHP, 2017f).

Project Description 2


2. Project location The project is located in north Queensland approximately 5km west of Almaden, along the Burke Development Road, and approximately 30km to the southeast of Chillagoe. A map of the site location is included in Appendix A.

3. Property details The Mt Lucy ML (20488) was granted on 22 April 2010 and expires on 30 April 2020. The ML covers 2.99% of Lot 3795 on SP139718. Details of the ML for Mt Lucy are summarised in Table 1.

Table 1: Relevant tenures

ML AREA OF ML (HA)

UNDERLYING TENURE

TOTAL TENURE AREA (HA)

PERCENT OF TENURE COVERED BY ML

ML20488 (Mt Lucy)

33.49 Lot 3795 SP 139718

1119.2 2.99

Land use across the site is for low intensity cattle grazing for beef production. An airstrip is situated approximately 250m to the southwest of the ML. Land 300m to the east of the project, described as Lot 2 on CP880994, is categorised as State Reserve in the Digital Cadastre Database (Queensland Globe, 2016).

To the north of the project site, 250m from the Burke Development Road and 400m from the northern ML boundary, is a local racecourse.

4. Proponent The proponent for this project is:

L & P Mines Pty Ltd 160 Greenhill Road Parkside, South Australia, 5063

5. Permits and licencing The site is authorised under EA EPML01722313. The most current version of the EA took effect on 15 September 2015.

Overview of Operations 3


Overview of Operations Mining operations previously consisted of open cut, free dig mining of Mt Lucy using an excavator. Crushing and screening of the ore occurred to allow for basic transport and safety requirements.

Run of Mine (ROM) material is currently located on the ROM pad awaiting classification and transportation from the mining area (Mt Lucy) to the site infrastructure using an articulated dump truck. Product will then be loaded onto road trains and transported off site.

1.1 Crushing and product sizing for shipment

It is expected that iron ore remaining on site will be classified and then treated via a mobile dry crushing and screening facility for safe transport only. Primary crushing will occur at the source of the iron ore material. A dozer will push up the material for the excavator to then load it into the crusher. The onsite facility will concentrate the ore using a Lokotrack ST620 mobile screening plant. It will separate the material into four streams:

- over size - lump ore (15mm–6mm) - fine ore (>6mm) - waste.

The final ore will be stored in the product load-out area on site. This is a truck loop that allows material to be stored on a campaign basis and then loaded onto road trains for transport off site. It is anticipated that loading will occur almost continually during operational hours.

The project will employ approximately seven people per shift on a 7am–6pm operating time. Support from the local area will be utilised for specialist expertise (e.g. electricians, equipment servicing).

Proposed Amendment to the Environmental Authority 4


Proposed Amendment to the Environmental Authority 1. Overview of environmentally relevant activities and

notifiable activities

1.1 Environmentally relevant activities

ERAs include prescribed ERAs or resource activities. EA EPML01722313 currently authorises L & P Mines to undertake the ERAs outlined in Table 2 at the Mt Lucy project ML (20488).

Table 2: ERAs for the Mt Lucy ML (20488)

ERA NUMBER ERA DESCRIPTION AGGREGATE ENVIRONMENTAL SCORE

- Non Scheduled Mining Activity Mining Lease - ML

-

1.2 Notifiable activities

Notifiable activities are activities identified as likely to cause environmental harm through land contamination and are outlined in Schedule 3 of the Environmental Protection Act 1994 (Qld). No notifiable activities are currently undertaken as part of the project.

2. Proposed amendment to environmental authority EPVL03075115

For TMG to process and remove the iron ore resource from the project, application is sought to include notifiable activity 25 to the Mt Lucy ML (20488) in EA EPML01722313. Table 3 details notifiable activities, which are proposed in this amendment application. Table 4 details ERAs that are proposed to be included to the Mt Lucy ML (20488) in EA EPML01722313.



Table 3: Notifiable activities proposed in this amendment application

NOTIFIABLE ACTIVITY NUMBER

DESCRIPTION

25 Minerals processing: Chemically or physically extracting or processing metalliferous ores.

Table 4: ERAs proposed in this amendment application

ERA NUMBER ERA DESCRIPTION AGGREGATE ENVIRONMENTAL SCORE

31 (2) (a) Minerals processing: (2) processing in a year, the following quantities of mineral products, other than coke – (a) 1000t to 100000t.

179

TMG is applying for ERA 31(2)(a) to cover the processing of approximately 7,000t of ore per month using dry magnetic separation, which accrues to 84,000t per annum.

3. Disturbance areas The disturbance areas at Mt Lucy are represented in a map included in Appendix A of this report, and described in Table 5 of this report. The total disturbance area at Mt Lucy is 9.92ha.

Table 5: Disturbance areas at Mt Lucy

INFRASTRUCTURE AREA (HA)

Access roads and tracks 0.82

Admin area 0.42

Mine area 3.07

ROM pad and stockpile area 4.66

Sediment dam 0.95

Total 9.92



4. Justifications of proposed amendment to environmental authority EPVL03075115

As per section 228 of the Environmental Protection Act 1994 (Qld), the administering authority is required to decide whether the proposed amendment to the EA is considered to be a major or minor amendment (threshold).

Amending the EA to include ERA31 (2)(a) to the Mt Lucy ML (20488) is a change to a standard condition identified in the EA as a standard condition; it is not a condition conversion and it does not replace a standard condition with another standard condition; and it will result in the removal of standard conditions from the EA and replacement by site specific conditions. This results in this EA being considered a major amendment.

Environmental Value: Air 7


Environmental Value: Air In preparing this assessment of environmental values for air, due consideration has been given to the potential for the proposed exploration program to have impacts to air quality as detailed in the EHP guideline ESR/2015/1840: Application Requirements for Activities with Impacts to Air (EHP, 2017f).

Under the Environmental Protection (Air) Policy 2008 , the following environmental values are listed to be enhanced or protected:

- The qualities of the air environment that are conducive to protecting the health and biodiversity of ecosystems.

- The qualities of the air environment that are conducive to human health and wellbeing. - The qualities of the air environment that are conducive to protecting the aesthetics of the

environment, including the appearance of buildings, structures and other property. - The qualities of the air environment that at conducive to protecting agricultural use of the

environment.

The environmental value for air at Mt Lucy is an airshed that is typical of a rural area impacted by agricultural, mining and transport infrastructure related activities. The environmental protection objective is to ensure emissions to air from the project do not impact on sensitive receptors.

1. Surrounding land

1.1 Existing land uses

Existing land uses within the Mt Lucy area are generally agricultural pursuits, racing and the township of Almaden.

1.2 Distance to sensitive receptors

Sensitive receptors are locations in close proximity to the Mt Lucy site that could be negatively impacted by the proposed operation and will be referred to in air, noise and vibration environmental aspects considered in this Operational Environmental Management Plan. These locations are typically homesteads, national parks, areas of ecological significance or sensitivity, or other commercial and industrial activities.

Sensitive receptors were reviewed for the site using a range of data sources, including: - Queensland Globe information (Queensland Globe, 2016). - Aerial photography (via Google Earth and World Online Imagery Service).

Using these sources, the sensitive receptors identified are mapped in Appendix A and outlined in Table 6.



Table 6: Nearby sensitive receptors to the Mt Lucy site

NAME OF RECEPTOR DIRECTION DISTANCE

Aerodrome Southwest 200m

Racecourse Northeast 380m to racecourse 500m to grandstands and buildings

Almaden township East-northeast 3.9km to the nearest residence

Aerodrome

There is an airstrip approximately 200m to the southwest of the project site. The airstrip is unsealed and for emergency use only (Mareeba Shire Council, 2015). There is a sealed more permanent runway at Chillagoe, approximately 26km from the site that would be used for any light aircraft activity in the area (Mareeba Shire Council, 2015).

The airstrip is considered a sensitive receptor when in use. Operational plans will be put in place to ensure that activities that could have a detrimental impact cease when the airstrip is being used.

Racecourse

The racecourse lies on the opposite side of the Burke Development Road to the project ML (20488). The racecourse is intact but in a state of disrepair. Works are required to restore the racecourse prior to the resumption of the facility for its intended purpose.

The racecourse sits on freehold land on Lot 3975 on SP139718, which is the same allotment that ML20488 lies on.

There are several mentions to recent races held at the site and the importance of the races to the local community. The most recently held bush race was in 2011 (Margo, 2011).

Subsequently, it is surmised that the racecourse is a sensitive receptor, but only while it is occupied and being used. Mitigation and control strategies will ensure that the project site has minimal impact on the racecourse and any events held there.

Almaden

The township of Almaden is situated approximately 3.9km to the east of the project. Almaden is a small rural-residential community of approximately 30 people. The town is an historic mining town with records indicating a police presence from at least 1907 (Queensland State Archives Agency). The town was a major rail hub servicing the nearby mines. Contemporary rail activities continue with the Savanahlander stopping at Almaden on Wednesday nights during the dry season on its way between Cairns and Forsayth (Queensland Police, date not specified).

Almaden is considered a sensitive receptor for the purposes of this assessment since the area is permanently inhabited.



1.3 Potential future land uses

The potential land uses for the Mt Lucy site is considered to be that of a native ecosystem with low intensity agricultural pursuits (i.e. low intensity grazing).

2. Scaled map Figure 1 provides an overview of the Mt Lucy site to indicate where potential sources of air emissions are likely to be generated.

Figure 1: Mt Lucy site layout

3. Site topography The Mt Lucy ML (20488) lies at elevations between 525m AHD and 590m AHD at the peak of Mt Lucy. Flat areas dominate the western half of the ML with a gradient of approximately 4% towards the west. Mt Lucy dominates the eastern half of the ML with the steepest gradient being approximately 25%. A map of the surface geology is included in Appendix A.



4. Wind direction Wind rose data was obtained from the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) weather stations with the capacity to record wind direction and speed. Table 7 details BOM weather stations for which wind rose data has been obtained (BOM, 2018).

Table 7: BOM weather stations used to determine wind direction and speed

BOM ID NAME DISTANCE FROM MT LUCY

DIRECTION

30036 Mount Surprise Township

95km SSW

31108 Walkamin Research Station

87km ENE

31195 Herberton Mowbray Rd 79km E

31210 Mareeba Airport 89km ENE

Wind rose data obtained from BOM weather stations detailed in Table 7 has been evaluated at both 9am and 3pm time periods. It should be noted that the Walkamin Research Station only provides 9am wind rose data. It is expected that wind direction and speed at Mt Lucy will be comparable with the weather stations assessed in this application. Table 8 presents the wind rose data for BOM weather stations in Table 7.

Table 8: Wind rose data for BOM weather stations in Table 7

WIND ROSE – 9AM WIND ROSE – 3PM

Mount Surprise Township




Walkamin Research Station

Not available.

Herberton Mowbray Rd




Mareeba Airport

Wind rose data presented in Table 8 has been assessed to determine the prevailing wind conditions for the Mt Lucy area over a 12-month period. Annual wind rose data demonstrates that the prevailing wind direction is from the southeast through to northeast and reflective of typical east coast wind conditions. On this basis, it is considered that the wind conditions at Mt Lucy will be reflective of these wind conditions.

5. Ambient air quality Potential sources of particulate emissions from the surrounding environment primarily comprise:

- farming and grazing activities - existing mining operations - unsealed roads - smoke from grass/bush fires (permitted or otherwise).

The National Pollutant Inventory (NPI) was searched to determine air quality emissions from similar industries within the surrounding area. Emissions are defined as either point source or fugitive emissions. Point source emissions are emitted to the atmosphere from a single point (typically a stack or vent) whereas fugitive emissions are emitted vehicle exhaust or other nonpoint sources. Emissions of carbon monoxide (CO), PM10 and PM2.5 and total volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were the emissions assessed to be most relevant to the Mt Lucy site. Total volumes (kg) from similar industries in similar locations are outlined in Table 9, which were obtained from the NPI for the period of 2015 to 2016.



Table 9: Total emissions from the NPI for similar industries in similar areas to Mt Lucy

SOURCE MEASUREMENT CO (kg) PM10 (kg) PM2.5 (kg) TOTAL VOC (kg)

Boral Tichum Quarry

Total 3413 54263 903 1165

Fugitive 1585 23665 319 543

Point 1828 598 584 621

Pajingo Gold Mine

Total 29709 246917 2978 3550

Fugitive 29660 246900 2973 3547

Point 49 17 5 4

Ravenswood Mine

Total 44730 1062736 7409 9181

Fugitive 47621 1062698 7398 9172

Point 110 38 12 9

Average Total 25950 454638 3763 4632

Fugitive 26288 444421 3563 4420

Point 662 217 200 211

Possible Impacts to Environmental Value: Air 14


Possible Impacts to Environmental Value: Air 1. Overview of emissions and processes

1.1 Scaled plan showing layout of site and location of all sources of emissions

Figure 2 provides an overview of the project site to indicate where potential sources of air emissions are likely to be generated.




1.2 Process flow diagram detailing all sources of emissions

A detailed process flow diagram is not provided as the only emissions proposed to be generated in relation to air quality values is dust as a result of vehicle movements. Activities that may relate to the emission of dusts include:

- Light vehicle movement on site. - Turning over pre-existing stockpile with machinery (e.g. front loader) for processing. - Truck movements to and from Mt Lucy (removing processed product).

Movements will be constrained to public access roads and the ML with dust suppression activities conducted during operations.

2. Emissions

2.1 Physical properties

Physical properties of air contaminants are typically related to their size, which affect their impact on human and animal health.

The potential for harmful effects of particulate matter depends on the chemical composition of the particulates as well as on the size of the particulates. Particles larger than approximately 10μm are less harmful to human health than smaller particles because of the human body’s in-built defence mechanisms.

Particles less than 2.5μm have the potential to impact humans with poor health or respiratory difficulties. These particles can be generated by vehicle exhaust and other combustion processes. Subsequently, particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5μm are the subject of the majority of air quality studies in Australia and are the main fraction investigated for airborne health impacts.

The total volume of particles suspended in the air column is often measured as particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than 50μm and is referred to as the total suspended particulates (TSP). Specialised fractions of the TSP are also investigated, with these being particles with an aerodynamic diameter of 10μm and 2.5μm. Particles larger than 50μm can cause nuisance effects and affect humans with extremely poor respiratory health. Subsequently, these particles are measured by total dust deposition rates.

Total dust deposition is used as an indicator of the possible nuisance effects of a development. Dust nuisances can include impacts to public amenity of residential areas, such as soiling of building surfaces and clothes. From a health and nuisance impact perspective, particles are classified primarily by size, as TSP (total suspended particulates), PM10 (particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter up to 10μm) and PM2.5 (particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter up to 2.5μm).

Human health effects of dust tend to be associated with particles with an aerodynamic diameter of 10μm or less (≤ PM10). These smaller particles tend to remain suspended in the air for longer periods and can penetrate into the lungs. The PM10–2.5 fraction (coarse fraction) is termed “thoracic particles”. These particles are inhaled into the upper part of the airways and



lungs. PM2.5 particles are fine particles that are inhaled more deeply and lodge in the gas exchange region (alveolar region) of the human lung and are termed “respirable dust”.

Emissions of TSP have the potential to result in nuisance impacts due to increased rates of dust deposition in the surrounding area.

Other potential pollutants that may be emitted as a result of the project include products of fuel combustion from the on-site vehicles and mobile/fixed equipment as well as from blasting activities, namely:

- oxides of nitrogen (NOx) - sulfur oxides (SOx) - CO - VOCs.

Given the small scale of these emissions, the fact that they will be emitted over a large area (as opposed to a single point source emission) and the relatively large distances between the site and nearby sensitive receptors (~4km), the proposed operation would not be expected to result in a significant increase in ambient concentrations of these pollutants at surrounding sensitive receptors and therefore have not been quantitatively assessed in this study.

Since the mobile plant and fleet are expected to be relatively small, emissions of diesel combustion products are not expected to result in any off-site impacts. Subsequently, these emissions have not been discussed further.

No potential sources of odour have been identified for the project and odours have not been considered further in this assessment. Based on the above, this assessment focuses on the following key pollutants of interest:

- PM2.5 - PM10 - CO - VOC.

2.2 Description of how contaminants will or may be released

The primary pathway for release of contaminants (i.e. dust) is via heavy machinery disturbance of land as a result of mining activities.

3. Contaminants

3.1 Chemical properties

Criteria pollutants

Criteria pollutants are common air pollutants found in relatively high concentrations The National Environmental Protection (Ambient Air Quality) Measure identifies and provides target ambient concentrations for the following pollutants:



- CO - Lead and compounds - NOx - Particulate matter <10μm (PM10) - Particulate matter <2.5μm (PM2.5) - Sulfur dioxide (SO2) - Ozone as a surrogate for photochemical compounds.

The Mt Lucy site is considered to be very low scale in nature and only relates to the removal of product already stockpiled on site and rehabilitation; therefore, an assessment of similar operations and their NPI output are assessed. Reference should be made to average concentrations in Table 9.

Air toxics

Air toxics are gaseous, aerosol or particulate contaminants that are present in the ambient air in trace amounts with characteristics (e.g. toxicity, persistence) that are a hazard to human health, and plant and animal life. It is not considered that air toxics pose a risk to the environment or human health as a result of the proposed amendment and no further information is provided.

Other air pollutants

“Other” air pollutants are those not included in the above categories and are generally less hazardous and less common. No additional air pollutants have been identified as a result of the proposed amendment and no further information is provided.

3.2 Physical properties

Physical properties of air contaminants are typically related to their size, which affect their impact on human and animal health.

The potential for harmful effects of particulate matter depends on the chemical composition of the particulates as well as on the size of the particulates. Particles larger than approximately 10μm are less harmful to human health than smaller particles because of the human body’s in-built defence mechanisms.

Particles less than 2.5μm have the potential to impact humans with poor health or respiratory difficulties. These particles can be generated by vehicle exhaust and other combustion processes. Subsequently, particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5μm are the subject of the majority of air quality studies in Australia and is the main fraction investigated for airborne health impacts.

The total volume of particles suspended in the air column is often measured as particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than 50μm and is referred to as the total suspended particulates (TSP). Specialised fractions of the TSP are also investigated, with these being particles with an aerodynamic diameter of 10μm and 2.5μmy. Particles larger than 50μm can cause nuisance



effects and affect humans with extremely poor respiratory health. Subsequently, these particles are measured by total dust deposition rates.

Total dust deposition is used as an indicator of the possible nuisance effects of a development. Dust nuisances can include impacts to public amenity of residential areas, such as soiling of building surfaces and clothes. From a health and nuisance impact perspective, particles are classified primarily by size, as TSP (total suspended particulates), PM10 (particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter up to 10μm) and PM2.5 (particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter up to 2.5μm).

Human health effects of dust tend to be associated with particles with an aerodynamic diameter of 10μm or less (≤ PM10). These smaller particles tend to remain suspended in the air for longer periods and can penetrate into the lungs. The PM10–2.5 fraction (coarse fraction) is termed “thoracic particles”. These particles are inhaled into the upper part of the airways and lung. PM2.5 particles are fine particles that are inhaled more deeply and lodge in the gas exchange region (alveolar region) of the human lung and are termed “respirable dust”.

Emissions of TSP have the potential to result in nuisance impacts due to increased rates of dust deposition in the surrounding area.

Other potential pollutants that may be emitted as a result of the project include products of fuel combustion from the on-site vehicles and mobile/fixed equipment as well as from blasting activities; namely:

- NOx - SOx - CO - VOCs.

Given the small scale of these emissions, the fact that they will be emitted over a large area (as opposed to a single point source emission) and the relatively large distances between the site and nearby sensitive receptors (~4km), the proposed operation would not be expected to result in a significant increase in ambient concentrations of these pollutants at surrounding sensitive receptors and therefore have not been quantitatively assessed in this study.

4. Evaluating the impacts of emissions

4.1 Environmental values of air

No adverse effect on human health and wellbeing

Due to the regional location of the Mt Lucy site and the scale of the proposed activities, it is not considered that there will be adverse effects on human health and wellbeing; therefore, no further information is provided.



No impacts to the health and biodiversity of ecosystems

Due to the regional location of the Mt Lucy site and the scale of the proposed activities, it is not considered that there will be impacts on the health and biodiversity of ecosystems; therefore, no further information is provided.

No impacts on agriculture

Due to the regional location of the Mt Lucy site and the scale of the proposed activities, it is not considered that there will be impacts on agriculture; therefore, no further information is provided.

No impacts on the aesthetics of the environment

Due to the regional location of the Mt Lucy site and the scale of the proposed activities, it is not considered that there will be impacts on the aesthetics of the environment; therefore, no further information is provided.

Odour

No potential sources of odour have been identified for the project and odours have not been considered further in this assessment.

Dust

Individual processes expected to generate dust will include: - dumping of ROM material into articulated dump trucks - vehicle induced dust emissions from unsealed roads and pads - movement of heavy vehicles and machinery.

It is proposed that a regular dust suppression system be established to manage dust on site (e.g. use of a water truck or cart) during activities.

Visibility reducing particles

Visibility reducing particles are particles less than 1μm in diameter and may remain suspended in the atmosphere for long periods and obscure visibility. Due to the low impact nature of the proposed activity, it is not considered that visibility reducing particles will be generated as a result of the activity.

Light

The Mt Lucy site is proposed to be operated during daylight hours only and, as such, no light impacts have been identified.



5. Proposed management actions

5.1 Measures implemented to minimise the emission of contaminants and air pollutants

Given the nature and scale of the proposed activity, typical dust control methods for roads and stockpiles will be utilised to manage the emission of contaminants to air (e.g. equivalent to a watering rate of 2L/h/m2 for actively used roads). Table 10 details mitigation measures to maintain air quality.

Table 10: Dust mitigation measures.

SOURCE MITIGATION MEASURE

Waste material movement

Disturb the minimum area necessary for mining and rehabilitate promptly.

ROM handling area Use water sprays and water trucks to keep handling areas moist.

Transport Maintain roads in good condition and ensure regular use of water trucks. Investigate use of chemical suppressants if roads become too slippery.

Other roads Keep to a minimum and maintain in good condition and ensure regular use of water trucks. Only drive on prepared/designated roads.

6. Proposed monitoring programs Air quality monitoring shall be complaint driven. Where a complaint is received, an investigation will be undertaken as required by the current EA.

7. Contingency plans As dust generation is considered the primary potential impact to air quality, dust suppression activities are considered to be most appropriate for maintaining environmental values. In the event of failure of dust mitigation measures, temporary use of additional water trucks shall be implemented.

Environmental Value: Noise 21


Environmental Value: Noise In preparing this assessment of environmental values, due consideration has been given to the potential for the proposed activities associated with the addition of ERA31 to the Mt Lucy ML to have noise emission impacts, as delineated in the EHP guideline ESR/2015/1838: Application Requirements for Activities with Impacts to Noise (EHP, 2017d).

Environmental values relevant to noise impacts include public amenity, public safety and ecological health. Environmental values prescribed under the Environmental Protection (Noise) Policy 2008 (EPP (Noise)) include:

- The qualities of the acoustic environment that are conducive to protecting the health and biodiversity of the ecosystem.

- The qualities of the acoustic environment that are conducive to human health and wellbeing, including by ensuring a suitable acoustic environment for individuals to do any of the following: - sleep - study or learn - be involved in recreation, including relaxation and conservation.

- The qualities of the acoustic environment that are conducive to protecting the amenity of the community.

The environmental value for noise at Mt Lucy is an airshed that is typical of a rural area impacted by agricultural, mining and transport infrastructure related activities. The environmental protection objective is to ensure noise emissions from the Mt Lucy do not impact sensitive receptors.

1. Sensitive places Sensitive receptors surround Mt Lucy and have been presented in the response to Air in this application. Sensitive receptors have been re-iterated in Table 11 and in the text below.

Sensitive receptors are locations in close proximity to the Mt Lucy site that could be negatively impacted by the proposed operation and will be referred to in the air, noise and vibration environmental aspects considered in this OEMP. These locations are typically homesteads, national parks, areas of ecological significance or sensitivity or other commercial and industrial activities.

Sensitive receptors were reviewed for the site using a range of data sources, including: - Queensland Globe information (Queensland Globe, 2016) - Aerial photography (via Google Earth and World Online Imagery Service).



Using these sources, the sensitive receptors are mapped in Appendix A and outlined in Table 11.

Table 11: Nearby sensitive receptors to the Mt Lucy site

NAME OF RECEPTOR DIRECTION DISTANCE

Aerodrome Southwest 200m

Racecourse Northeast 380m to racecourse 500m to grandstands and buildings

Almaden township East-northeast 3.9km to the nearest residence

Aerodrome

There is an airstrip approximately 200m to the southwest of the project site. The airstrip is unsealed and for emergency use only (Mareeba Shire Council, 2015). There is a sealed more permanent runway at Chillagoe, approximately 26km from the site that would be used for any light aircraft activity in the area (Mareeba Shire Council, 2015).

The airstrip is considered a sensitive receptor when in use. Operational plans will be put in place to ensure that activities that could have a detrimental impact cease when the airstrip is being used.

Racecourse

The racecourse lies on the opposite side of the Burke Development Road to the Mt Lucy ML (20488). The racecourse is intact but in a state of disrepair. Works are required to restore the racecourse prior to the resumption of the facility for its intended purpose.

The racecourse sits on freehold land on Lot 3975 on SP139718, which is the same allotment that ML20488 lies on.

There are several mentions to recent races held at the site and the importance of the races to the local community. The most recently held bush race was in 2011 (Margo, 2011).

Subsequently, it is surmised that the racecourse is a sensitive receptor, but only while it is occupied and being used. Mitigation and control strategies will ensure that the Mt Lucy site has a minimal impact on the racecourse and any events held there.

Almaden

The township of Almaden is situated approximately 3.9km to the east of the project. Almaden is a small rural-residential community of approximately 30 people. The town is a historic mining town with records indicating a police presence from at least 1907 (Queensland State Archives Agency). The town was a major rail hub servicing the nearby mines. Contemporary rail activities



continue with the Savanahlander stopping at Almaden on Wednesday nights during the dry season on its way between Cairns and Forsayth (Queensland Police, date not specified).

Almaden is considered a sensitive receptor for the purposes of this assessment since the area is permanently inhabited.

1.1 Potential future land uses

As stated previously, the potential land uses for the Mt Lucy site is considered to be that of a native ecosystem with low intensity agricultural pursuits (i.e. low intensity grazing).

2. Site description

2.1 Topography

The Mt Lucy ML (20488) lies at elevations between 525m AHD and 590m AHD at the peak of Mt Lucy. Flat areas dominate the western half of the ML with a gradient of approximately 4% towards the west. Mt Lucy dominates the eastern half of the ML with the steepest gradient being approximately 25%. A map of the surface geology is included in Appendix A.

2.2 Land use

Existing land uses within the Mt Lucy area are generally agricultural pursuits, racing and the township of Almaden.

2.3 Climate

Located in the seasonally arid tropics, rainfall in the area is extremely unreliable in its intensity, duration and location. The climate of the area is dominated by intense rainfall events associated with tropical lows and tropical cyclones during the summer months. These rainfall events are often highly variable in terms of their spatial and temporal distribution with the majority of rain falling in distinct cells across the landscape.

Annual rainfall for the region (based on Mareeba climate statistics (BOM, 2018)) is 920.2mm with the majority of rainfall occurring within the warmer, summer months (Figure 3).

Mean maximum summer temperatures (e.g. December to February) are 31.3oC with mean minimum summer temperatures of 20.7oC. Mean maximum winter temperatures (June to August) are 25.7 oC with minimum winter temperatures being 11.7 oC (Figure 4).



Figure 3: Mean monthly rainfall at the Mareeba BOM station (ID: 031066)

Figure 4: Mean monthly temperatures at the Mareeba BOM station (ID: 031066)



2.4 Wind characteristics

Wind rose data was obtained from the BOM weather stations with the capacity to record wind direction and speed. Table 12 details BOM weather stations for which wind rose data has been obtained.

Table 12: BOM weather stations used to determine wind direction and speed

BOM ID NAME DISTANCE FROM MT LUCY

DIRECTION

30036 Mount Surprise Township

95km SSW

31108 Walkamin Research Station

87km ENE

31195 Herberton Mowbray Rd 79km E

31210 Mareeba Airport 89km ENE

Wind rose data obtained from BOM weather stations detailed in Table 12 have been evaluated at both 9am and 3pm time periods. It should be noted that the Walkamin Research Station only provides the 9am wind rose data. It is expected that the wind direction and speed at Mt Lucy will be comparable to the weather stations assessed in this application. Table 13 presents the wind rose data for those BOM weather stations in Table 12.

Table 13: Wind rose data for BOM weather stations in Table 12


Mount Surprise Township




Walkamin Research Station

Not available.

Herberton Mowbray Rd




Mareeba Airport

Wind rose data presented in Table 12 have been assessed to determine the prevailing wind conditions for the Mt Lucy area over a 12-month period. Annual wind rose data demonstrates that the prevailing wind direction is from the southeast through to northeast and reflective of typical east coast wind conditions. On this basis, it is considered that the wind conditions at Mt Lucy will be reflective of these wind conditions.

3. Background noise levels

3.1 Existing noise sources

Existing noise sources at and around the Mt Lucy site are typically a result of either road noise (e.g. highway traffic) or truck movements and mining activities from the operation itself. As the proposed amendment is not considered to increase noise levels generally, no further information has been provided.

Possible Impacts to Environmental Value: Noise 28


Possible Impacts to Environmental Value: Noise 1. Noise sources Sources of noise are expected to be as a result of machinery and vehicle movements including:

- Truck movements to and from Mt Lucy. - Machinery utilised to load material for processing (e.g. front-end loader). - Light vehicle movements on site. - Power generators (e.g. power for site office, lighting/amenities, etc.).

2. Emissions characteristics Noise emissions characteristics are proposed to be in line with those experienced through use of heavy machinery and transport vehicles (e.g. front-end loaders, haul trucks and semi-trailers). This includes a combination of tonal (i.e. distinguishable, discrete noises such as hums or hisses) and impulsive (i.e. bangs, clicks, and clatters).

3. Noise management hierarchy The noise management hierarchy details an approach to management of noise, vibration or air blast pressure in accordance with the EPP (Noise).

3.1 Avoidance

To the extent reasonably practical, the proposed activity shall avoid the generation of noise that may affect a sensitive receptor. This would include project planning for activities such as machinery movements to only occur during daytime hours (e.g. 7am to 6pm) and reflect criteria detailed in the EHP Model mining conditions (EHP, 2016). Additionally, and where possible, noise generating equipment shall be positioned in such a way that noise generated does not impact on sensitive receptors (e.g. undertake loading from the ROM pad during daylight hours only).



3.2 Minimisation

Where the generation of noise cannot be avoided, the proposed activity shall first attempt to orientate an activity such that noise impacts on sensitive receptors are minimised. This would include the orientation of vehicles being loaded, loading, etc.

Second, the proposed activity shall utilise best available technology on plant and equipment to minimise noise generated from plant and equipment use (e.g. use of silencers, baffles, etc.). Plant and equipment noise minimisation technology shall be maintained in accordance with manufacturer’s requirements and include regular servicing.

3.3 Mitigation

Where it is not practically possible to avoid or minimise noise generated as a result of operations, it is proposed that activities shall be managed in such a way that impacts to sensitive receptors are mitigated as much as reasonably practical. Examples of such measures would include the use of heavy machinery under certain conditions (e.g. during daylight hours only).

4. Noise impact assessment

4.1 Assessment criteria

The ‘Acoustic Quality Objectives’ seek to protect the amenity of an acoustic environment. The indoor night-time goals effectively address sleep disturbance and sleep awakenings, while during the day it protects conversation. It should be noted that these are not strictly design limits for individual sources but rather are objectives that are considered to provide acceptable health and wellbeing for the community. The acoustic quality objectives are the basis for assessment criteria for noise at Mt Lucy.

The acoustic quality objectives are expressed as indoor noise level goals for dwellings at night (10pm to 7am) and outdoor noise level goals during the day (7am to 6pm) and evening (6pm to 10pm). These objectives are all contained in Table 14.

The indoor noise quality objective for dwellings is converted to an outdoor noise level by conservatively assuming that the windows of the dwellings are wide open. The equivalent external noise levels (for the dwelling indoor noise level goals in Table 14) measured at least 4m from the dwelling would be 5dB higher (to allow for the reduction of noise through the building envelope).



Table 14: Acoustic quality objectives for dwellings and other receivers relevant to Mt Lucy during the day (7am to 6pm), evening (6pm to 10pm) and night (10pm to 7am).

LOCATION TIME OF DAY

ACOUSTIC QUALITY OBJECTIVES (MEASURED AT RECEPTORS) (DBA)

ENVIRONMENTAL VALUE

LAeq adj 1hr LA10 adj 1hr LA1 adj 1hr

Dwelling outdoors

Daytime and evening

50 55 65 Health and wellbeing

Dwelling indoors

Daytime and evening

35 40 45 Health and wellbeing

Dwelling indoors

Night time 30 35 40 Health and wellbeing, in relation to the ability to sleep

School or playground outdoors

When the children usually play outside

55 – – Health and wellbeing and community amenity

4.2 Modelling methodology

The proposed amendment is not expected to result in noise levels above what is approved in the current EA and as such no further information has been provided.

Contour maps


4.3 Construction and operational noise levels

No construction activities are proposed as part of this amendment. Additionally, operational noise levels are not expected to be above what is approved in the current EA and as such no further information has been provided.

4.4 Low frequency noise

Industrial sources may exhibit a spectrum that characteristically shows a general increase in sound pressure level with decrease in frequency. Annoyance due to low frequency noise can be high, even though the dB(A) level measured is relatively low. Typically, annoyance is experienced in the otherwise quiet environs of residences, offices and factories adjacent to, or near, low frequency noise sources. Generally, low level/low frequency noises become annoying when the masking effect of higher frequencies is absent. This loss of high frequency



components may occur because of transmission through the fabric of a building or in propagation over long distances.

Where a noise emission occurs exhibiting an unbalanced frequency spectrum, the overall sound pressure level inside residences should not exceed 50dB(Linear) to avoid complaints of low frequency noise annoyance.


4.5 Transient noise events

Transient noise events refer to short duration/non-steady noise impacts and/or impulse measured with LAmax. This noise descriptor is also used to assess sleep disturbance and awakening criteria and is a consideration under the EPP (Noise).


4.6 Description of controls

Due to the low risk of nuisance because of noise from Mt Lucy, it is proposed that noise mitigation controls relate to standard noise suppression measures installed by the plant manufacturers. An appropriate maintenance schedule shall be implemented to ensure that noise mitigation measures for all plant are fully operational.

4.7 Vibration risk assessment for blasting activities

No blasting activities are proposed at Mt Lucy and no further information has been provided.

5. Background creep As the proposed amendment is not expected to result in an increase of noise levels above what is currently authorised, no further information is provided.

6. Proposed management actions It is proposed that noise mitigation controls relate to standard noise suppression measures installed by the plant manufacturers. An appropriate maintenance schedule shall be implemented to ensure that noise mitigation measures for all plant are fully operational.

Environmental Value: Land 32


Environmental Value: Land 1. Physical description of the region

1.1 Terrain

The Mt Lucy ML (20488) lies at elevations between 525m AHD and 590m AHD at the peak of Mt Lucy. Flat areas dominate the western half of the ML with a gradient of approximately 4% towards the west. Mt Lucy dominates the eastern half of the ML with the steepest gradient being approximately 25%. A map of the surface geology is included in Appendix A.

1.2 Geology

The 1:1,000,000 geological map sheet for the Almaden area shows that the site lies above Cenozoic sand plains and is comprised of quartz sand sheets commonly with ferruginous pisoliths or pebbles, local clay, calcrete, laterite, silcrete, silt or colluvium.

The 1:100,000 Atherton Geological Map Sheet shows four surface units across the Mt Lucy ML. These surface units are provided in Appendix A with context to the ML. Mt Lucy itself is dominated by Early Silurian to Early Devonian chert and polymictic pebble to bounder conglomerate with limestone, mudstone and minor arenite of the Chillagoe Formation, which has been intruded by Carboniferous medium- to coarse-grained biotite adamellite.

The iron/magnetite resource is located within a skarn deposit that is formed at the contact zones between intrusions of granite and carbonate sedimentary rocks such as limestone and dolomite. Iron, silica, aluminium and magnesium rich waters are associated with the granitic magma mix in the contact zone and dissolve calcium bearing sedimentary rocks. Subsequently, skarn deposits are sometimes associated with mineable accumulations iron, copper, zinc, lead, gold and several others.

Northern Resource Consultants’ (NRCs’) experience with iron and magnetite mines has shown that mineable grades of zinc and lead are often associated with these kinds of skarn deposits. This waste rock is typically high in lead and zinc compared with national guidelines and for environmental releases. Fluoride can also leach out of certain lithologies and result in high concentrations in waters in contact with waste rock. Skarn deposits are often associated with limestone, which is a useful resource for preventing/minimising acidic or metalliferous drainage from the site.

The remainder of the ML is comprised of late tertiary to quaternary colluvial, gravel and soil deposits.



1.3 Shallow groundwater systems

Since the Mt Lucy site was originally only designed to involve minimal excavation, and the majority of works will involve cutting into the side of Mt Lucy itself, groundwater exploration has not been undertaken across the lease in significant detail.

A search of the Department of Natural Resources and Mines’ Registered Bore Database shows that the nearest registered bores to the Mt Lucy site are approximately 4km to the east within the township of Almaden. It is suggested that these bores are used for rural-residential water supply since they are closely clustered in Almaden. These bores will not be affected by mining activities as a result of their distance and the limited nature of the proposed mining activities.

No impact to shallow groundwater systems is anticipated.

1.4 Floodplains

A search of Queensland Globe did not identify any floodplains within the area.

1.5 Springs

A search of Queensland Globe did not identify any springs within the area.

1.6 Soil descriptions

An extensive soil study was conducted at the Mt Lucy ML in 2015 by NRC. Despite what soil maps would appear to suggest, soils vary on a continuum and do not occur in homogenous, discrete units across a landscape; however, it is still useful to conceptualise soils into discrete units mapped at a suitable scale. Descriptions of the soil sites mapped across the Mt Lucy site are shown in Table 15.

Table 15: Soil units at Mt Lucy

UNIT DESCRIPTION AREA (ha) PERCENTAGE OF ML

SOIL PROFILE SITE

Unit 1 Dusky Red Podosol on granite

7.68 22.91 Site 27

Unit 2 Yellowish Red Podosols on sedimentary

6.25 18.66 Site 15 or 16



UNIT DESCRIPTION AREA (ha) PERCENTAGE OF ML

SOIL PROFILE SITE

Transition zone Soil Unit 1 and Soil Unit 2 are both present within the transition zone. Soil Unit 2 occurs at depth, indicating that soil Unit 1 is younger.

2.64 7.88 Site 7

Limited soil development

There is limited to no soil development associated with the sedimentary chert and intrusive granite.

16.94 50.53 None

There are two soil units across the project site. A transition zone between the two units has also been nominated. Both units are present within the transition zone, however, at different depths. Detailed descriptions of both soil units present on the site are provided in the below sections of this report.

Calcarosols are not found across the project site, disagreeing with the Australian Soil Resource Information System soil mapping. There were no obvious nodules of calcium carbonate and there were no samples that reported highly alkaline pH values. Exchangeable calcium percentages were not high in the cation exchange capacity, also indicating that soils based on limestone and carbonate were not found (NRC, 2015).

1.7 Distinct or unique features

No distinct or unique features have been identified in relation to the proposed amendment; therefore, no further information is provided.

2. Soil health and function

Soil unit 1 – Dusky red podosols on granite

This soil unit is characterised by a very strong dark red or dusky red colour generally occurring between 30cm and 60cm below ground. Very dusky red colours (5R 2.5/4; 7.5R 2.5/4; 5R, 2.5/3) are found at sites S00, S03 and S04 and do not occur in the soil profile for site 27. Dark red colours (2.5YR 3/6; 7.5R 3/8; 5R 2/6) are found throughout all soil profiles sampled for this assessment (NRC, 2015). Descriptions of site 27 are detailed in Table 16.



Table 16: Soil descriptions of site 27

DEPTH FROM (cm)

DEPTH TO (cm)

FIELD TEXTURE MUNSELL COLOUR

MUNSELL CODE

0 12 Sandy loam Olive brown 2.5Y 4/4

12 37 Sandy clay loam (increasing rock content)

Olive brown 2.5Y 4/4

37 50 Sandy clay loam (with gravel) Red 2.5YR 4/8

50 60 Sandy loam Dark red 2.5YR 3/6

60 70 Sandy loam (with gravel) Dark red 2.5YR 3/6

70 75 Sandy loam (with gravel) Dark red 2.5YR 3/6

The soil unit is also characterised by the minor presence of gravel compared to soil profiles in the transition zone and the Yellow Podosols on sedimentary rocks.

The thickness of the soil unit is highly variable, dependant on the slope and distance from Mt Lucy. Profile S00 and S03 were installed to approximately 50–60cm depth before auger refusal because of high rock content. Site 27 was installed to a depth of 75cm, whereas the profile for S04 was installed to 190cm depth before auger refusal because of rock content. This indicates that the soil profile has developed in-situ on top of the host geology of the Mt Lucy outcrop (NRC, 2015).

Transition zone

Soils in the transition zone are characterised by a mixture of soil colours between dark and dusky red found in the red podosols associated with soil unit 1 and reddish yellow that is found in the yellow podosols of soil unit 2.

The majority of the profiles are characterised by a clay loam texture for the majority of their length. The particle size distribution for site 5 (Figure 5) and site 7 (Figure 6) show that there is a relatively high percentage of fines (approximately 20–30%) through the soil profile in the transition zone. There is also a comparable percentage of gravels within the soil profile. Gravel content generally increases with depth; however, the dominant particle size is sands, which comprise 50–70% of the profile. Additional soil descriptions are provided for site 5 and site 7 in Table 17 and Table 18, respectively.

Based on soil colour and texture in the transition zone it appears that soil unit 1 has developed on the top of soil unit 2. This aligns with the overall geological history of the area where the skarn deposit (Mt Lucy) intruded into the surrounding sedimentary landscape. It is theorised that soil unit 1 has formed from in-situ weathering of the younger granites, with colluvial processes washing it down over the top of soil unit 2 (NRC, 2015).



Figure 5: Site 5 particle size analysis




Table 17: Soil profile for site S5

DEPTH FROM (cm)

DEPTH TO (cm)


MUNSELL CODE

0 2 Clay loam Brown

2 45 Sandy clay loam Dark red 2.5YR 3/6

45 80 Sandy clay loam with minor gravel Very dusky red 7.5R 2.5/4

80 180 Cay loam Very dusky red 7.5R 2.5/4

180 190 Clay loam Reddish yellow 5YR 6/8

Table 18: Soil profile for site S7

DEPTH FROM (cm)

DEPTH TO (cm)


MUNSELL CODE

0 17 Sandy loam Dark reddish brown

5YR 3/4

17 50 Sandy clay loam Yellowish red 5YR 4/6

50 80 Clay loam Red 2.5YR 4/8

80 105 Clay loam Red 2.5YR 4/8

105 170 Sandy loam Reddish yellow 7.5YR 6/8

170 180 Sandy loam Reddish yellow 7.5YR 7/6

180 Clay loam with gravel Pink 7.5YR 7/4

Soil unit 2 – Yellowish red podosols on sedimentary rocks

Only two soil profiles were categorised under soil unit 2. These profiles describe a yellowish red/reddish yellow soil profile composed of sand and loam sized particles with clay and a relatively high gravel content (Figure 7).



Figure 8: Example of soil exposure at a drainage feature (located in western drainage line, Mt Lucy)

Table 19 and Table 20).

The soil profile is relatively deep with the profile of site 15 evident to 160cm. At depth, a sandy textured reddish yellow substrate was encountered at site 15 and site 16.




Table 19 and Table 20).

Drainage lines past the western edge of the ML were encountered and the soil profiles photographed for reference purposes (Figure 8). It is obvious that the soil profile in Figure 8 has a much thicker A horizon than what is present in the remainder of the soil profiles described for the project. This is because the exposure in Figure 8 is from a bank of a drainage line, which exhibits different vegetation properties and higher accumulation of organic matter. Evident in Figure 8 is the massive, sandy-clay-loam based texture as described in the profiles for site 15 and site 16.



Table 19: Soil profile description for site 15

DEPTH FROM (cm)

DEPTH TO (cm)


MUNSELL CODE

0 25 Clayey loam Dark red 2.5YR 3/6

25 50 Sandy clay (with gravel) Dark red 2.5YR 3/6

50 70 Sandy clay (with gravel, less clay content)

Yellowish red 5YR 4/6

70 90 Coarse sandy clay Yellowish red 5YR 4/6

90 120 Clay loam (no gravel) Yellowish red 5YR 4/6

120 150 Clay loam and sand (no gravel) Reddish yellow 7.5YR 6/6

150 160 Sand Reddish yellow 7.5YR 6/6

Table 20: Soil profile description for site 16

DEPTH FROM (cm)

DEPTH TO (cm)


MUNSELL CODE

0 10 Clayey loam Dark yellowish brown

10YR 3/6

10 20 Clayey loam (red rocks and gravel present)

Yellowish red 5YR 4/6

20 50 Clayey sand (with gravel) Yellowish red 5YR 4/6

50 70 Sandy clay (with gravel) Yellowish red 5YR 4/6

70 80 Sandy clay (with gravel) Yellowish red 5YR 4/6

2.1 Land suitability classification

The Department of Mines and Energy (DME) Technical Guidelines for Environmental Management of Exploration and Mining Activities (1995) provide a guiding framework for determining pre- and post-mine land use suitability. The guidelines provide five land use suitability classifications for agricultural land suitability (Table 21).

Land classes are determined based on a number of factors that cause limitations in the soil profile. Limitations of the soil profile for beef cattle grazing include:

- Plant available water capacity (PAWC) - Nutrient deficiency - Salinity - Soil physical factors

- Workability - Susceptibility to flooding - Microrelief - Flooding



- Erosion - Wetness

The Technical Guidelines for Environmental Management of Exploration and Mining Activities (1995) outline values of the above parameters that fall into each land class. The soil unit has a land class of the highest parameter. An assessment of the soil properties against land classes of the above parameters is outlined in Table 21. All soil units across the site fall into Class 2 lands (Table 22).

Table 21: Agricultural land suitability classification

AGRICULTURAL LAND CLASS

DESCRIPTION

Class 1 Suitable land with negligible limitations – Land which is well suited to a proposed end use

Class 2 Suitable land with minor limitations – Land which is suited to a proposed use but which may require minor changes in management to sustain the use

Class 3 Suitable land with moderate limitations – Land which is moderately suited to a proposed use but which requires significant inputs to ensure sustainable use

Class 4 Marginally suitable land – land which is marginally suited for a proposed use and would require major inputs to ensure sustainability. These inputs may not be justified by the benefits to be obtained using the land for the particular purpose and is hence considered presently unsuited.

Class 5 Unsuitable land with extreme limitations – Land which is unsuited and cannot be sustainably used for a proposed use.

Table 22: Limitations for grazing

SOIL UNIT LIMITATION CLASSIFICATION AND REASONING

Red Podosols PAWC = 1 Soil Physical = 1 Salinity = 1 Rockiness = 1 Microrelief = 1 ESP = 2 Wetness = 1 Topography = 1 Water Erosion = 2 Regrowth = 2

Class 2 Water erosion: the site has a general gradient of 4% Regrowth: vegetation exhibits an ironbark woodland without wattle understorey pH: values of 6.8 are encountered.



SOIL UNIT LIMITATION CLASSIFICATION AND REASONING

Yellow Podosols PAWC = 1 Soil Physical = 1 Salinity = 1 Rockiness = 1 Microrelief = 1 pH = 2 ESP = 1 Wetness = 1 Topography = 1 Water Erosion = 2 Regrowth = 2

Class 2 ESP: one sample recording 10% causes it to fall within Class 2 lands Water erosion: the site has a general gradient of 4% Regrowth: vegetation exhibits an ironbark woodland without wattle understorey pH: values of 6.8 are encountered.

3. Bioregions and regional ecosystems NRC (2015) previously completed flora and fauna studies for Mt Lucy during the original EA application progress and information pertinent to this application has been included where relevant. The completed technical report is available for consideration in Appendix B.

3.1 Regional ecosystems

The regional ecosystem (RE) mapping for the Mt Lucy study area shows that the entire area is comprised of remnant vegetation (Department of Natural Resources and Mines, 2015). Table 23 provides a summary of all the REs mapped throughout the study area.

Table 23: RE status and description of mapped remnant vegetation within the study area

RE CODE VMA STATUS*

BIODIVERSITY STATUS

RE DATABASE SHORT DESCRIPTION

9.11.13 Least concern No concern at present

Eucalyptus cullenii and Corymbia hylandii or C. erythrophloia open-woodland on undulating plains and rises.

9.11.32 Of concern Of concern Eucalyptus leptophleba and/or Corymbia terminalis +/- C. dallachiana woodland on aprons surrounding limestone outcrops.


Eucalyptus cullenii +/- Corymbia leichhardtii +/- C. erythrophloia woodland on igneous rocks


Eucalyptus melanophloia and/or E. shirleyi +/- Corymbia erythrophloia low open woodland on igneous rocks



RE CODE VMA STATUS*

BIODIVERSITY STATUS

RE DATABASE SHORT DESCRIPTION

*Vegetation Management Act (VMA) Status

3.2 Interaction with other ecosystems

Vegetation communities

All remnant vegetation communities observed within the study area have a least concern Vegetation Management Act 1999 (VMA) status and a ‘no concern at present’ biodiversity status. These communities are common in the local area and throughout the region. Vegetation assessments included a 100m buffer surrounding the ML to ensure that all communities within close proximity to the proposed project were considered. No REs with a higher conservation status were present within this buffer area.

The RE code and status of the communities observed does not equate to an environmentally sensitive area or matter of state environmental significance (MSES), and therefore no environmental offsets are required under the Queensland Environmental Offset Policy for disturbance to these communities.

Watercourse habitat and riparian vegetation

No significant watercourses or drainage features exist within the ML area. There are minor drainage features in the surrounding landscape, including at the northwest edge of the ML. None of these features retain water in such a way that they would provide significant aquatic habitat. These drainage features would likely only flow for very short periods immediately after rainfall events. The drainage features do not support riparian vegetation communities and in general they do not contain any significant additional biodiversity to the surrounding landscape. The vegetation in these drainage areas is a continuation of the non-riparian eucalypt woodland communities of the surrounding area. None of the drainage features in close proximity to the ML are shown on a Vegetation Management Watercourse Map, and therefore they do not represent a MSES under the Queensland environmental offsets framework.

Wetlands

There are no wetland areas as shown on the Queensland referrable wetland mapping or the vegetation management wetland mapping sources. The study area does not contain any features that support wetland values and there are no such features known in the local area. It is unlikely that there would be any significant impact to any wetland values as a result of the proposed amendment.



4. Flora

4.1 Vegetation communities

Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 threatened ecological communities

No threatened ecological communities listed under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) have been identified within the study area.

Vegetation Management Act 1999 regional ecosystems

Ground-truthing of the remnant vegetation within the study area revealed that there are two remnant REs present—RE 9.11.13 and RE 9.12.7a.

The canopy composition throughout the study area is generally homogeneous and is comprised of open eucalypt woodland. Differences in the REs are mostly due to variation in geology across the mapped areas. RE 9.11.13 is present in the western part of the study area on red podosols on flat to undulating terrain. RE 9.12.7a occurs in the eastern part of the study area on rocky granite slopes and is also associated with the iron/magnetite resource located within a skarn deposit that is formed at the contact zones between intrusions of granite and carbonate sedimentary rocks.

The structural form of both communities is open woodland to woodland with a canopy dominated by Cullen’s Ironbark (Eucalyptus cullenii), Variable-barked Bloodwood (Corymbia erythrophloia) and Cooktown Ironwood (Erythrophleum chlorostachys). Rough-leaved Carbeen (Corymbia confertifolia) and Dallachy’s Gum (Corymbia dallachiana) were also occasionally present as canopy species. An open sub-canopy layer is often present and is typically dominated by species such as Cooktown Ironwood, Terminalia spp. (particularly Terminalia aridicola subsp. chillagoensis), Soapbush (Alphitonia pommaderroides), Slender-flowered Wattle (Acacia longispicata), Quinine Berry (Petalostigma pubescens), Bushman’s Pegs (Grevillea glauca) and, in rocky areas, Kapok Tree (Cochlospermum gregorii) and Kurrajong (Brachychiton chillagoensis).

The shrub layer varies over the study area from virtually absent to sparse, with a greater biomass generally present in rocky areas. Common shrub species include canopy and sub-canopy species, as well as Corkwood Wattle (Vachellia bidwillii), Yellowberry Bush (Denhamia cunninghamii), Coffee Bush (Breynia oblongifolia), Indigofera spp. and, in rocky areas, Native Gardenia (Larsenaikia ochreata), Tracey’s Puzzle (Margaritaria dubium-traceyi), Bridelia (Bridelia tomentosa), Psychotria daphnoides var. angustifolia, Broad-leaved Native Cherry (Exocarpos latifolius) and Currant Bush (Carissa ovata).

Vines such as the Small-leaf Grape (Clematicissus opaca), Native Grape (Ampelocissus acetosa) and Snake Vine (Tinospora smilacina) occur frequently in the rocky areas in the eastern part of the study area.

The ground cover is dominated by native grasses such as Black Spear Grass (Heteropogon contortus), Firegrass (Schizachyrium fragile), Wiregrass (Aristida spp.), Kangaroo Grass



(Themeda triandra), Giant Spear Grass (Heteropogon triticeus), Lindley Nineawn (Enneapogon lindleyanus), Cockatoo Grass (Alloteropsis semialata) and Northern Canegrass (Mnesithea rottboelloides). Common ground cover species also include Spermacoce brachystema, Bipinnate Beggars Ticks (Bidens bipinnata*), Woolly Glycine (Glycine tomentella), Spade Flower (Hybanthus enneaspermus), Pink Tongues (Rostellularia adscendens), Uraria lagopodioides, Love Flower (Pseuderanthemum variabile) and Emu Berry (Grewia retusifolia).

Non-remnant vegetation

Apart from the road from the Burke Development Road to the Almaden Aerodrome that dissects the study area, there is little disturbance to the remnant vegetation in the study area. However, there is a track cleared from the aerodrome road to the top of the hill on the eastern side of the study area. There are also areas on the hill where vegetation has been cleared and there is evidence of some minor earthworks most likely a result of historical exploration activities. These areas are generally devoid of canopy trees and contain regrowth of surrounding canopy and shrub species. The ground layer in these areas is frequently dominated by exotic species, particularly Hyptis (Hyptis suaveolens*) and Bipinnate Beggars Ticks , which is likely a result of the soil disturbance in these areas. Consequently, these disturbed areas on the hill have been excluded from the RE mapping and are shown as non-remnant on the ground-truthed regional ecosystem map (Appendix A).

Flora species

A total of 126 flora species from 49 families were recorded within the study area. The majority of flora species observed throughout the study area are common and widespread throughout the region in eucalypt woodland communities. The floristic composition is generally consistent throughout the study area, with some variation due to changes in geology and topography. There is evidence of disturbance from past exploration activities, exotic species invasion and cattle grazing throughout. A full list of flora identified during the flora surveys is included in Appendix E of NRC, 2015. The flora list in Appendix E of NRC, 2015 includes details of the RE in which each species was observed.

Threatened flora species

No threatened or near threatened flora species (as listed under the EPBC Act or Nature Conservation Act (NC Act)) were identified during the vegetation surveys, despite targeted surveys in potentially suitable habitat areas.

4.2 Endangered, vulnerable, rare or near threatened species

Macropteranthes montana

Macropteranthes montana is listed as vulnerable under the EPBC Act and the NC Act. Little information is known about this species, but records show that it has been collected from areas of shallow soil in low woodland and vine thicket (Pedley, 1990) and can be locally common in



some areas (BRI Collection Records). This species is known only from a small area south of the Cape York Peninsula. Localities include Mount Mulligan, Chillagoe, Dimbulah, Petford, Irvinebank, Elizabeth Creek Gorge, Bulleringa National Park and southwest as far as the northern Newcastle Range (BRI Collection Records).

During the desktop assessment, this species was identified as having some potential to occur within the study area due to the presence of local records and suitable habitat. This species was not observed in the study area despite considerable survey effort over multiple seasons. This is a conspicuous species, and given that the study area was comprehensively surveyed, it is considered unlikely this species is present within the study area. It is therefore unlikely that there will be any significant impact to this species from the proposed development of the site.

Euphorbia carissoides

Euphorbia carissoides is listed as vulnerable under the EPBC Act and the NC Act. Euphorbia carissoides is restricted to northeast Queensland, where it has been collected from near Georgetown and east to Stannary Hills, with a disjunct occurrence near Hopevale. This species has been recorded approximately 25km from the study area among rocky outcrops and hillsides in shrubland and eucalypt low open woodland (Queensland Herbarium record data).

The desktop assessment for this study identified that this species could possible occur within the study area due to the presence of suitable habitat and multiple records within 25km. This species was not detected during the flora surveys despite comprehensive coverage of the study area involving targeted effort for this species over multiple seasons. It is therefore unlikely there will be any significant impacts to this species as a result of the proposed development.

Solanum angustum

Solanum angustum is listed as endangered under the NC Act. This species has been recorded at two locations less than 5km to the east of the study area. At one of these nearby locations, the species was recorded in eucalypt woodland on rocky granite hills. The desktop assessment identified this species was likely to occur due to the presence of suitable habitat and the presence of records in the vicinity of the study area. This species was not detected during field surveys in the study area despite targeted surveys over multiple seasons. It is therefore unlikely this species would be significantly impacted by the proposed development of the study area.

It is noteworthy that an uncommon species of the same genus, Solanum multiglochidiatum, was detected during the wet season survey (NRC, 2015). This species was formerly listed as rare under the NC Act, but the current status of this species is least concern. It is now known to be relatively widespread in northern Australia and is therefore not considered a conservation significant species.

4.3 Pest species

No declared pest plant species under the Land Protection Act 2002 were observed within the study area.



5. Fauna

5.1 Fauna present

An array of fauna has been identified within the study area using a variety of different observation and trapping techniques (NRC, 2015). The following sections provide a brief discussion of the species observed for each taxonomic group. Further detail is provided in the report by NRC ( 2015) in Appendix B.

Mammals

Thirteen species of terrestrial or arboreal mammals were observed within the study area over the two survey periods, including five introduced species. Several Macropod species and Brushtail Possums were commonly observed throughout all parts of the study area. Mareeba Rock Wallabies (Petrogale mareeba) and Common Rock Rats were observed at multiple locations in the rocky habitat on the hill. This rocky habitat clearly provides suitable shelter and foraging habitat for these species.

Bats showed the greatest diversity of all mammal groups observed, with 12 species positively identified to species level and 2 species positively identified to genus from the call data collected. The call data indicates as many as 17 species occur within the study area. The microbat call interpretation reports from the Anabat and data collected during the two fauna survey periods is included in NRC (2015).

A Short-beaked Echidna (Tachyglossus aculeatus) was observed on two occasions during the dry season survey period. On both occasions it was recorded on the eastern slope of the hill in granite boulder habitat. It is possible that the two observations represent the same individual animal. This species is classed as a ‘special least concern animal’ in the Queensland Environmental Offsets Regulation 2014 and the habitat for this species is a MSES.

No evidence of any mammals listed as threatened or near threatened was observed within the study area during either of the fauna survey periods.

Reptiles

Twenty-four species of reptiles from seven families were observed within the study area. The majority of reptile species recorded are common and widespread throughout the region and in many cases distributed over a large expanse of coastal and sub-coastal Queensland.

The rocky hill slopes in the eastern part of the study area in particular provide habitat for a diverse array of skink and gecko species. However, a significant portion of the total reptile species recorded for the study area was from within the woodland areas in the surrounding flat terrain.

No evidence of any reptiles listed as near threatened or threatened was observed within the study area.



Amphibians

The only amphibian species recorded within the study area was the introduced pest species, the Cane Toad (Rhinella marina). No native amphibian species were recorded within the study area during either of the fauna survey periods. There is a lack of suitable habitat within the study area for many amphibian species, due to a lack of aquatic habitat and breeding sites. It is likely that some amphibian species would occur within the study area from time to time, but the overall value of the study area for any such species is low.

There are no threatened amphibian species known from the local area surrounding the study area.

Birds

A total of 44 species of birds were observed within the study area over the two survey periods. This species assemblage includes a number of sedentary, nomadic and migratory species. The majority of species observed are common in eucalypt woodland habitat throughout the region. A single Rainbow Bee-eater (Merops ornatus) was observed within the study area near the southwest boundary. The Rainbow Bee-eater is listed as migratory under the EPBC Act. This species occurs in a variety of habitats over a broad distribution comprising much of mainland Australia.

5.2 Endangered, vulnerable, rare or near threatened species

Red goshawk

The Red Goshawk (Erythrotriorchis radiatus) is listed as endangered under the EPBC Act and the NC Act. This species is very sparsely distributed from the western Kimberly area in Western Australia to northeastern New South Wales (Marchant & Higgins, 1993). It typically occurs in coastal and sub-coastal areas in wooded and forested lands of tropical and warm-temperate Australia (Marchant & Higgins, 1993). It nests in large trees, typically less than 1km from a permanent water source (Aumann & Baker-Gabb, 1991).

There are no records of the Red Goshawk in the local area. The nearest record on the Atlas of Living Australia and the Atlas of Australian Birds is southwest of Petford, approximately 30km from the survey site. The home range for this species is very large, between 50 and 220km2 (Debus & Czechura, 1988).

No evidence of this species was detected during the fauna surveys. Given that this species is sparsely distributed and occupies large ranges, it is possible that this species may fly over the study area or use the area as part of a much larger home range. However, the study site does not contain any unique habitat features for the Red Goshawk. Rather, the study area is characteristic of the vast expanses of eucalypt woodland in the surrounding landscape. It is unlikely this species would be significantly impacted by the relatively minor loss of potential habitat associated with the proposed development.



Masked owl (northern)

The Masked Owl (northern) (Tyto novaehollandiae kimberli) is listed as vulnerable under the EPBC Act and the NC Act. In Queensland, this subspecies occurs along the southern rim of the Gulf of Carpentaria, Cape York Peninsula and south at least as far as the Atherton Tablelands (Garnett et al., 2011, and references therein). There is some uncertainty about the southern limit of this subspecies in Queensland (Department of the Environment (DoE), 2015).

This species has been recorded in a variety of habitats including riverside forests, rainforest, open forest and paperbark swamps (Garnett et al., 2011). This subspecies is known to occupy home-ranges of over 1,000ha during the non-breeding season (Higgins, 1999; Kavanagh & Murray, 1996). Given the uncertainty regarding the southern limit of the distribution of this species, and the large home range that would encompass a variety of habitats, it is considered possible that this subspecies may occur within the study area. However, there are no records of the Masked Owl (northern) in the local area. The nearest record on the Atlas of Living Australia and the Atlas of Australian Birds is approximately 30km southwest of Port Douglas, which is more than 100km from the survey site. The proposed project will not cause a significant decline in the availability and quality of the habitat for this species and is therefore unlikely to lead to a decline in the size of the population or the area of occupancy of this species. It is unlikely this species will be significantly impacted by the proposed development.

Northern quoll

The Northern Quoll (Dasyurus hallucatus) is listed as endangered under the EPBC Act. There are no records of this species within the study site or surrounding local area. This species is not known from the area, but the area is shown on the modelled distribution for this species as an area where the species may occur (Commonwealth of Australia, 2011; DoE, 2014). Consequently, the outcome of the desktop assessment was that this species could potentially occur within the study area.

This species was formerly distributed across much of northern Australia, but its distribution has contracted significantly since European settlement to several disjunct populations (Oakwood, 1997). Poisoning from eating the introduced Cane Toad is a major mechanism for the decline of this species (Oakwood, 1997). A report by Woinarski et al. (2008) suggests that the following factors are important for the persistence of the Northern Quoll in parts of Queensland:

- steep slopes - shallow soils - abundant rocky habitat (particularly large rocks, boulders and outcrops) - minimal disturbance from fires.

Based on these habitat attributes, the field assessments confirmed the study area comprises habitat that is suitable for the Northern Quoll. However, there are no known records of this species from the locality or from the broader area of at least a 50km radius. The nearest museum specimen records for this species are from the Hann Tableland, which is approximately 75km from the study area. Multiple survey techniques targeted species detection during the wet and dry season survey periods. Areas containing preferred habitat attributes, such as the rocky slopes in the east of the study area, were targeted in particular, using



techniques such as cage trapping and motion-sensing infra-red cameras. All traps were baited with material targeted at attracting Northern Quolls, including a mix of rolled oats and sardines, and a variety of meats, particularly chicken.

No evidence of the Northern Quoll was detected during the field survey programs despite substantial targeted effort using multiple techniques. The use of ‘camera traps’ revealed the presence of Feral Cats (Felis catus) within the area of potential habitat for the Northern Quoll. Predation by the Feral Cat is listed as a key threatening process for the Northern Quoll. The presence of Feral Cats reduces the likelihood of the Northern Quoll occupying the habitat within the study area.

Given the lack of local records and the lack of any evidence observed during the two survey periods to suggest the Northern Quolls occur within the study area, it is unlikely this species would be significantly impacted by the proposed development.

Koala

The combined Queensland, New South Wales and Australian Capital Territory populations of the Koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) are listed as vulnerable under the EPBC Act. The listed population of this species extends from north-eastern Queensland through to the Victorian border. Koala habitat can be broadly defined as any forest of woodland containing species that are known food trees (DoE, 2015).

The diet of the Koala is mainly restricted to foliage of Eucalyptus spp.; however, it may also consume foliage of related genera, including Corymbia spp., Angophora spp. and Lophostemon spp. The dominant canopy species throughout the study area are typically Cullen’s Ironbark (Eucalyptus cullenii) and Variable-barked Bloodwood (Corymbia erythrophloia), both of which represent potentially suitable food trees for the Koala.

There are no records of the Koala near the Mt Lucy locality and very few records in the broader region. This species is distributed very sparsely in far north Queensland and the study area is near the limit of its predicted distribution.

Due to the reasonably small scale of the project, the lack of local records for this species, and the abundance of similar habitat in the locality, it is unlikely that the operation of the proposed project will:

- lead to a long-term decrease in the size of the population of the species (if present) - reduce the area of occupancy of the population - fragment any population into multiple populations - adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of the species - disrupt the breeding cycle of an important population - modify, destroy, remove or isolate; or decrease the availability or quality of habitat to the

extent that the species is likely to decline - result in invasive species that are harmful to Koalas becoming established in Koala

habitat - introduce disease that may cause the species to decline - interfere substantially with the recovery of the species.



It is therefore considered unlikely there will be any significant impacts to the listed population of the Koala as a result of this proposed project.

Greater large-eared horseshoe bat

The Greater Large-eared Horseshoe Bat (Rhinolophus philippinensis) is listed as endangered under the EPBC Act and the NC Act. This species occurs only in northern Queensland, from the Iron Range southwards to Townsville and west to the karst regions of Chillagoe and Mitchell-Palmer. It is found in lowland rainforest, along gallery forest-lined creeks within open eucalypt forest, Melaleuca forest with rainforest understorey, open savannah woodland and tall riparian woodland of Melaleuca, Eucalyptus tereticornis and C. tessellaris (Churchill, 2009).

This species was identified during the desktop assessment as having the potential to occur within the study area due to the presence of potentially suitable habitat and that it is known from the Chillagoe region. While the field surveys revealed that the study area contains some potentially suitable foraging habitat, no echolocation data from this species were recorded in the study during either survey period. Given this species was not recorded during either of the field surveys, and there is an abundance of similar foraging habitat at the locality and in the broader region, it is unlikely the proposed project will have a significant impact on this species.

Chillagoe fine-lined slider

The Chillagoe Fine-lined Slider (Lerista storri) is listed as near threatened under the NC Act. There are two records within 10km of the study area. There is little published information on the distribution and habitat preferences for this species. Wilson and Swan (2010) identify that it is known from woodlands on sandy soils and outcrops between Chillagoe and Mt Surprise and south to Charters Towers area. Greer et al. (1983) describe the habitat for this species as leaflitter and loose soil in vine thickets and open forest.

It is considered possible that this species would occur in the study area due to the presence of local records and habitat that falls within the broad habitat preference descriptions available. This species was not detected during the field surveys, despite targeted searches in areas of potential habitat. However, this species can be quite cryptic and difficult to detect in the field and therefore its absence in survey data does not necessarily confirm its absence from the study area. Nonetheless, the study area does not contain any unique habitat features for this species. Habitat of a similar nature is abundant in the locality and the broader region. It is unlikely that this species would be significantly impacted by any disturbance to the potential habitat within the study area.

Chillagoe litter-skink

The Chillagoe Litter-skink (Lygisaurus rococo) is listed as near-threatened under the NC Act. There is one record within 10km of the study area. This species is known from limestone outcrops and granite boulders around Chillagoe (Wilson & Swan, 2010). The desktop assessment for this study identified that this species could occur in the study area due to the presence of local records and suitable habitat features. This species was specifically targeted during the field surveys and not detected. Given this species was not detected in the field



survey and the study area does not contain any unique or critical habitat features for this species, it is unlikely there would be any significant impact to the Chillagoe Litter-skink as a result of the proposed development.

Short-beaked echidna

The Short-beaked Echidna (Tachyglossus aculeatus) is listed as ‘special least concern’ wildlife under the NC Act. This species was identified at two locations within the study area during the dry season field survey. Both locations were within the rocky slope habitat in the east of the study area and were in close proximity to each other. One individual was identified by direct observation and one individual was recorded on a camera trap. It is possible the two records obtained were the same individual.

This well-known species occurs throughout Australia in almost all terrestrial habitats except intensively managed farmland (Menkhorst & Knight, 2010). It is a mostly solitary species, occupying large home ranges and feeding on soil invertebrates.

Special least concern wildlife habitat is a MSES under the Queensland environmental offsets framework. Any action involving significant impacts to special least concern wildlife habitat may require the provision of an environmental offset under this framework.

While the habitat within the study area clearly contains habitat that is suitable for the Short-beaked Echidna, it represents a small area within a vast expanse of similar habitat. There are no habitat features unique to the study area on which this species would be relying and the area does not represent a link between other habitat areas. It is unlikely that any disturbance within the study area would result in:

- a long-term decrease in the size of the local population - a reduced extent of occurrence of the species - fragmentation of the existing population - the formation of genetically distinct populations as a result of habitat isolation - disruption to ecologically significant locations for the species.

It is therefore unlikely there would be any significant impacts to the Short-beaked Echidna as a result of the proposed development.

Migratory species

Listed migratory bird species also considered to have potential to occur in the local area include: - Fork-tailed Swift (Apus pacificus) - White-bellied Sea-Eagle (Haliaeetus leucogaster) - Rainbow Bee-eater (Merops ornatus) - Black-faced Monarch (Monarcha melanopsis) - Satin Flycatcher (Myiagra cyanoleuca) - Great Egret (Ardea alba) - Cattle Egret (Ardea ibis) - Sarus Crane (Grus antigone)



- Rufous Fantail (Rhipidura rufifrons).

All of these listed migratory bird species are common and widespread throughout coastal and sub-coastal Queensland. These species occur in a broad range of habitats and the study area does not exhibit any unique habitat features for any of these species. Similar habitat is abundant in the local area and throughout the region.

The highly mobile nature, large distribution and broad habitat requirements of these migratory bird species indicate the operation of the proposed project is unlikely to have a significant impact on individuals or populations of these species.

5.3 Pest species

Evidence or direct observation of six pest species was detected during the fauna surveys, all of which commonly occur in disturbed habitats throughout Queensland. The following species were observed within the study area:

- Cattle (Bos taurus*) - European Rabbit (*Oryctolagus cuniculus*) - Dog (Canis lupus*) - Feral Pig (Sus scrofa*) - Feral Cat (Felis catus*) - Cane Toad (Rhinella marina*).

The European Rabbit, Feral Pig, Dog and Feral Cat are all classified as class 2 declared pest animals in Queensland.

6. Areas of regional interest No areas of regional interest were identified in the project area and no further information is provided.

7. Acid sulfate soils No acid sulfate soils were identified within the project area and no further information is provided.

Possible Impacts to Environmental Value: Land 55


Possible Impacts to Environmental Value: Land 1. Site diagram Figure 9 provides an overview of the Mt Lucy site,.




2. Land disturbance The project area has been previously operated by TMG and is currently moving to detailed closure. As such, there are a number of mining features evident on site currently that are awaiting decommission. Figure 9 provides a layout of the project site that will be decommissioned and rehabilitated in the short term.

3. Proposed and potential releases The project is moving to detailed closure; therefore, there is no active mining activities currently occurring. A product stockpile exists on the site currently that is to be removed following approval of this amendment application. No releases are proposed and there is no potential for releases under the Mt Lucy ERA’s including:

- No releases from low point drains. - No release from pipelines (and no pipelines exist). - No irrigation of treated effluent. - No waste disposal on site (to be managed by third party contractors).

4. Acid producing rock Acid producing rock is not expected to be generated as a result of the proposed amendment and no impacts are identified.

5. Overburden Overburden is not expected to be generated as a result of the proposed amendment and no impacts are identified.

6. Tailings Tailings are not expected to be generated as a result of the proposed amendment and no impacts are identified.

7. Waste storage The project is approaching detailed closure; therefore, there are no active mining operations currently occurring. A small number of staff are expected to be on site to undertake rehabilitation activities and, as such, a small volume of waste is expected to be generated.

Waste storage will be undertaken through the use of an appropriate qualified contractor with various waste storage bins located on site. Waste shall be separated into different streams for removal by the same, appropriately qualified contractor. Waste streams include:



- General waste. - Recyclable wastes (e.g. timber, certain recyclable plastics). - Steel. - Regulated wastes (e.g. oil, oil filters, grease, etc.).

Additionally, it is not expected that waste volumes above what is currently approved within the EA will be produced at any time and no impact as a result of waste has been identified.

8. Land disturbance mitigation The project is moving to detailed closure; therefore, there is no active mining activities currently occurring. A product stockpile exists on the site currently, which is to be removed following approval of this amendment application. Rehabilitation of already disturbed land will commence shortly after and no further disturbance to land is proposed.

9. Proposed management actions It is proposed that ongoing activities be managed in accordance with the current project EA conditions. No additional actions are proposed at this time.

Environmental Value: Water 58


Environmental Value: Water 1. Topography The Mt Lucy ML (20488) lies at elevations between 525m AHD and 590m AHD at the peak of Mt Lucy. Flat areas dominate the western half of the ML with a gradient of approximately 4% towards the west. Mt Lucy dominates the eastern half of the ML with the steepest gradient being approximately 25%. A map of the surface geology is included in Appendix A.

2. Hydrology

2.1 Regional hydrology

Watercourses are mapped under various pieces of legislation and using a variety of different methods, based on the aim and intention of watercourse mapping. This information is available as GIS layers from state and federal government agencies. Watercourse mapping from the following data sources were obtained and mapped against the Mt Lucy ML area to identify whether there were any drainage features on the site:

- Queensland Vegetation Management Act 1:250,000 Watercourse Mapping. - Geoscience Australia Geodata Topo 250k Series 3 Watercourse Lines. - BOM Geofabric V2x – Surface Hydrology – Mapping.

The Australian Hydrological Geospatial Fabric (Geofabric) is a geographic information system developed by the BOM under the Water Act 2007 and registers spatial relationships between hydrological features such as rivers, water bodies, aquifers and monitoring points. Data is freely available and can be input into GIS. In the Chillagoe–Almaden area, the Geofabric layers represent the most comprehensive third party source for mapping drainage lines.

The Geofabric layers have been mapped and are included in Appendix A. It is highly evident that there are no drainage features on the ML, although the western end of the ML area comes in very close proximity to an unnamed drainage line. It is not expected that this will be impacted during the operations of the project.

2.2 Site hydrology

Streams have been previously digitised at a 1:5,000 scale using Google Earth imagery to demonstrate recognisable paths of concentrated overland flow in proximity to the site. The



mapped streams are provided in Appendix A. It is evident that there are no drainage features within the ML.

Comparison between the Geofabric mapped streams and digitised streams shows that Geofabric has delineated drainage lines across the area with reasonably high confidence. There are additional flow paths that are not picked up by Geofabric to the east of ML20488. The dimensions of these drainage lines are larger (i.e. deeper and wider) than drainage lines to the west of ML20488 picked up by Geofabric, although their catchment area is much smaller and are limited to the area draining Mt Lucy itself.

3. Wetlands A search of Queensland Globe did not identify any wetlands within the vicinity of the project.

4. Rivers in strategic environmental areas A search of Queensland Globe did not identify any strategic environment areas within the vicinity of the project.

5. Groundwater The project only involved minimal excavation with the majority of works involving cutting into the side of Mt Lucy itself; therefore, groundwater exploration has not been undertaken across the ML in any great detail.

A search of the Department of Natural Resources and Mines’ Registered Bore Database shows that the nearest registered bores to the Mt Lucy site are approximately 4km to the east within the township of Almaden. It is suggested that these bores are used for rural-residential water supply since they are closely clustered in Almaden. These bores will not be affected by mining activities as a result of their distance and the limited nature of the proposed mining activities.

5.1 Groundwater dependent ecosystems

Groundwater dependant ecosystems (GDEs) have been mapped by the Queensland Government across the state. These maps are available online through the Queensland Government’s Wetland Mapping tool as well as Queensland Globe.

Online mapping shows that there is a potentially subterranean GDE approximately 700m to the south of the closest point of the Mt Lucy ML. This GDE has the following attributes (Queensland Globe, 2016):

- Low confidence of caves present. - Moderate confidence of groundwater being reached by vegetation. - Associated with limestone.



- Geological description of: “Chillagoe Formation/I, white to bluish grey, rarely pink, fossiliferous limestone and limestone breccia; extensively recrystallised adjacent to granitic intrusions to marble and skarn rocks”.

6. Waste storage, processing, treatment and disposal locations

Waste generated on site as a result of the proposed amendment is waste rock separated from iron ore. The waste generated is benign host rock proposed to be stored on site and rehabilitated.

As there is no open pit or underground facility, it is anticipated that the waste rock will be returned to its original location, stabilised and rehabilitated.

7. Environmentally sensitive places within or adjacent to the mining lease

No environmentally sensitive places have been identified within the project area and none are proposed to be impacted by this amendment.

8. Surface water The Environmental Protection (Water) Policy 2009 (EPP Water) provides the framework for the management of water in Queensland. Under the EP Act, the EPP Water outlines:

- The environmental values to be enhanced or protected. - Specific water quality guidelines. - Decision making with respect to promoting efficient use of resources and best practice

environmental management. - Community consultation through communication and liaison.

The Australia and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (ANZECC) & Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand (ARMCANZ) (2000) guidelines align with the EPP Water to assign specific water quality objectives (WQOs) depending on the users and health of the waters. Specific sets of WQOs are separated into the following environmental values:

9. Aquatic ecosystems. - Primary industry (Cattle drinking, irrigation, aquaculture and human consumption of

aquatic foods). - Recreation and aesthetics. - Drinking water.



- Industrial water. - Cultural and spiritual values.

Subsequently, the environmental values of the receiving waters must be identified to determine which set of WQOs should be applied to the Mt Lucy mining project to prevent degradation and deterioration of downstream environments.

Specific environmental values are designated for catchments in Schedule 1 of the EPP Water; however, there are no environmental values prescribed for the Walsh River catchment in which the Mt Lucy site lies.

Land use in the receiving environment is limited to cattle grazing only. Subsequently, it is assessed that the following environmental values apply to the drainage lines immediately downstream of Mt Lucy to their intersection with Crooked Creek:

- Aquatic ecosystem (95% species protection level). - Primary industry (cattle drinking). - Recreation and aesthetics. - Drinking water.

10. Background water quality and contaminants of concern

10.1 Environmental values of surface water

The Queensland Water Quality Guidelines (QWQG) (EHP, 2009) align with the ANZECC & ARMCANZ (2000) guidelines and the EPP Water to provide a framework for developing locally relevant WQOs. Under the QWQG, the ecosystem condition of downstream receiving waters is determined to be:

- Level 2 – Slightly to moderately disturbed system: - “Ecosystems in which the biological diversity may have been adversely affected to a

relatively small but measureable degree by human activity. The biological communities remain in healthy condition and ecosystem integrity is largely retained. Typically, freshwater systems would have slightly to moderately cleared catchments and/or reasonably intact riparian vegetation; marine systems would have largely intact habitats and associated biological communities. Slightly to moderately disturbed systems could include rural streams receiving runoff from land disturbed to varying degrees by grazing or pastoralism, or marine ecosystems lying immediately adjacent to metropolitan areas.”

This classification has been chosen because the drainage features immediately upstream and downstream of the Mt Lucy site exhibit the following characteristics:

- Low intensity cattle grazing occurs throughout most of the catchment. - Substantial impacts to riparian vegetation throughout the catchment. - Increased sediment load delivery to streams as a result of cattle grazing.

The allocation of a ‘slightly to moderately disturbed system’ allows guideline values to offer a 95% species protection with >50% certainty level. Subsequently, it is proposed to adopt the



95% species protection level, combined with stock watering guidelines as WQOs for the receiving environment at the Mt Lucy site. These values are outlined in Table 23.

Table 23: Recommended WQOs for the downstream receiving environment at Mt Lucy

PARAMETER WQO (mg/L)

pH (pH units) 6 – 9

Electrical Conductivity (μS/cm) 1000

Sulphate as SO4 1000

Aluminium 0.055

Arsenic 0.024

Boron 0.370

Cadmium 0.0002

Chromium 0.001

Cobalt 0.090

Copper 0.0014

Iron 0.300

Lead 0.004

Manganese 1.9

Mercury 0.0002

Molybdenum 0.0340

Nickel 0.011

Selenium 0.010

Silver 0.001

Uranium 0.001

Vanadium 0.001

Zinc 0.008

Ammonia 0.900

Nitrate 1.1

Fluoride 2 (total)



10.2 Physical and chemical parameters

Physical and chemical parameters were obtained at monitoring points detailed in Table 24 in 2015 (NRC, 2015). Parameters were assessed against WQOs as detailed below and in Table 24.

As evident in mapping provided in Appendix A, there is an airstrip to the southwest of ML20488. Drainage from this airstrip enters the receiving environment immediately downstream of the mine.

Impacts from the airstrip on the local drainage lines were observed during the site inspection, particularly, an oversupply of sediment to the environment in proximity to the airstrip. This sediment is sourced from the exposed soil profile at the airstrip and is being washed into the local drainage lines.

Subsequently because of the extremely small catchment areas and overland flow paths, it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish impacts between the Mt Lucy operation and the airstrip from a stream sediment monitoring campaign.

10.3 Water quality objectives at Mt Lucy

Samples were gathered from the monitoring points outlined in Table 24 and Appendix A as part of the OEMP to begin the baseline assessments of surface waters and sediments within drainage lines. One sample was collected from each monitoring point and analysed at a NATA accredited laboratory. Results of this analysis are presented below in Table 24.

The WQO for iron (0.30mg/L) was exceeded at all surface water sampling sites, which recorded values between 0.26 and 0.58mg/L. This is to be expected as the host geology has high iron content. The copper WQO (0.001mg/L) were met or exceeded at all sites downstream of the project at concentrations between 0.001 and 0.002mg/L. All other parameters were well below the WQOs recommended for the site.



Table 24: Water quality results obtained at Mt Lucy and compared to WQOs

PARAMETER UNIT LIMIT OF REPORT

WQO REF1 SW1 SW2 SW3

pH pH units 0.1 6 – 9 7.2 7.6 6.4 7.3

Electrical Conductivity

μS/cm 2 1000 110 140 60 110

Sulphur as Sulphate, SO4

mg/L 0.5 1000 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.7

Fluoride mg/L 0.1 2.0 0.05 0.1 0.05 0.05

Arsenic mg/L 0.003 0.024 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015

Barium mg/L 0.005 0.037 0.055 0.025 0.042

Beryllium mg/L 0.0001 0.0002 0.0001 0.0004 0.0001

Boron mg/L 0.005 0.370 0.0025 0.011 0.016 0.009

Cadmium mg/L 0.0001 0.002 0.00005 0.00005 0.00005 0.00005

Chromium mg/L 0.001 0.001 0.0005 00005 0.0005 0.0005

Copper mg/L 0.001 0.001 0.0005 0.001 0.002 0.001

Iron mg/L 0.005 0.300 0.46 0.32 0.58 0.26

Lead mg/L 0.001 0.004 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.001

Manganese mg/L 0.005 1.9 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025

Mercury mg/L 0.00005 0.0002 0.000025 0.000025 0.000025 0.000025

Molybdenum mg/L 0.005 0.034 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025



PARAMETER UNIT LIMIT OF REPORT

WQO REF1 SW1 SW2 SW3

Nickel mg/L 0.001 0.011 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005

Selenium mg/L 0.003 0.01 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015 0.0015

Silver mg/L 0.00005 0.001 0.000025 0.000025 0.000025 0.000025

Uranium mg/L 0.0005 0.001 0.00025 0.00025 0.0006 0.00025

Zinc mg/L 0.005 0.008 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.006

Nitrate + Nitrite mg/L 0.005 1.1 0.53 0.29 0.014 0.085

NOTE: Red italicised values are 50% of the limit of reporting as per QWQG (EHP, 2009).

Possible Impacts to Environmental Value: Water 66


Possible Impacts to Environmental Value: Water 1. Discharges and releases As the project is entering the detailed closure phase, no discharges or releases are planned as a result of this amendment above what is already approved by the project EA.

1.1 Lateral seepage

As the project is not an open cut or underground mining operation (e.g. mining into the side of Mt Lucy itself), no lateral seepage has been identified to date and impact as a result of lateral seepage is considered unlikely.

1.2 Groundwater mounding

As the project is not an open cut or underground mining operation (e.g. mining into the side of Mt Lucy itself), no mounding of groundwater has been identified to date and impacts as a result of groundwater mounding are considered unlikely.

2. Unplanned and uncontrolled releases As the site is currently in care and maintenance, there are no processing facilities that utilise water and there are no significant water features within close vicinity of the project: therefore, no unplanned or uncontrolled releases are envisaged.

3. Water infrastructure A sediment dam and secondary sediment dam exist on the Mt Lucy site, which are utilised to capture and control any overland runoff from the Mt Lucy operation.



4. Groundwater impact assessment The scale and method of mining has greatly reduced chances of encountering groundwater during mining activities. As such, no additional impacts to groundwater (above the current project EA approval) have been identified.

5. Proposed management actions

5.1 Runoff management and secondary containment

There are considered to be no potential impacts to the existing condition of drainage channels in close proximity to the project. Clean water will be diverted away from the mine site by bunding around the mine. This strategy will ensure that the quality of water and integrity of drainage lines is not impacted.

5.2 Water management hierarchy

The following water management hierarchy will be used at the site: - Water conservation to reduce the use of water and the production of waste water or

contaminants. Since the mining activities at the site are only relatively small scale, it is expected that water use will be minimal.

- Waste/contamination prevention. This involves segregating clean water runoff from mine affected areas to ensure that excess water does not have to be managed by the site’s water management system.

- Treatment and recycling options. Mine affected water will be reused wherever possible on the site. If routine monitoring shows that mine affected water is not contaminated and will not adversely affect environmental values of land, it will be used for dust suppression during critical periods.

- Release of water to (in order of priority): - waste facility or sewer - treatment and release to land - treatment and release to surface water or groundwater.

It is expected that the high evaporation rate, low scale intensity of activities on the site, as well as high rates of reuse of mine affected water will ensure that releases to the receiving environment will not be required.

5.3 Groundwater monitoring

As outlined earlier, there are negligible groundwater bores in the area in close proximity to the ML.

The scale and method of mining has greatly reduced the chances of encountering groundwater during mining activities and any applications for additional or deeper mining areas will provide



comprehensive groundwater information as necessary. As such, no additional groundwater monitoring (above the current project EA requirements) is considered as part of this application.

Environmental Value: Waste 69


Environmental Value: Waste 1. Site plan Figure 10 provides an overview of the Mt Lucy project site.




2. Types of waste The project is approaching detailed closure and rehabilitation; therefore, no significant volumes of waste will be generated. The most likely types of waste to be generated are as follows:

- General waste. - Recyclable waste (e.g. timber, certain recyclable plastics, etc.). - Regulated wastes (e.g. oils, oil filters, grease, etc.). - Steel.

Additionally, waste rock materials existing on site will be relocated to the designated waste rock dump and rehabilitated accordingly.

3. Waste treatment processes As the majority of wastes generated on site are to be managed by a third party waste contractor, it is considered that no waste treatment processes will be required and no further information is provided.

4. Waste and resource management hierarchy Waste will be managed on site in consideration to the waste management hierarchy shown in Figure 11.

Figure 11: Waste management hierarchy as detailed in EHP (2017b).



4.1 Disposal of treated waste

No treated wastes are proposed to be disposed of on site and no further information is required.

4.2 Cleaner production or waste management strategies

The project is approaching detailed closure; therefore, no additional production is proposed to occur beyond the removal of currently existing stockpiles. Waste management on site will be via the use of third party contractors and waste segregation by waste stream.

4.3 Reuse

Where possible, any wastes suitable to be reused on site (e.g. mulched timber pallets) will be identified and stored separately on site.

5. Waste transport All waste transport and handling shall be managed by an approved third party contractor and no further information is provided.

Environmental Risk Assessment 72


Environmental Risk Assessment 1. Risk assessment approach For the proposed amendment to the EA, a likelihood rating and consequence rating have been applied using the matrix in Table 25. The initial risk rating has been determined prior to the implementation of control measures. Control measures have been developed as required for the environmental risks to ensure that the level of risk is maintained at an acceptable level. The risk methodology applied has been developed based on the Australian and New Zealand Standard AS/NZS for Risk Management – Principles and Guidelines (ISO 31000:2009). Table 26 shows the assessment of risk scored for the undertaken risk assessment.

Table 25: Environmental risk assessment matrix

RISK ASSESSMENT MATRIX

LIKELIHOOD OF OCCURRENCE

SEVERITY OF CONSEQUENCES

Catastrophic (5)

Major (4)

Moderate (3)

Minor (2)

Insignificant (1)

Almost certain (5) 10 9 8 7 6

Likely (4) 9 8 7 6 5

Possible (3) 8 7 6 5 4

Unlikely (2) 7 6 5 4 3

Rare (1) 6 5 4 3 2

Table 26: Assessment of risk scores for the amendment risk assessment

RISK SCORE RISK RATING ACTION REQUIRED

9 - 10 Extreme Immediate

7 - 8 High Action plan required, senior management attention.

5 - 6 Moderate Specific monitoring or procedures required.

2 - 4 Low Management through routine procedures



2. Results of risk assessment Table 27 outlines the results of the environmental risk assessment and ratings allocated based on the methodology applied to the proposed amendment. Assessment of the environmental risk for the proposed EA amendment on the environmental aspects resulted in the activity being given a ‘low’ risk ranking. This is conditional on the implementation of the site operational environmental management plan.



Table 27: Risk assessment for the proposed addition of minerals processing

ASPECT EVENT/

CIRCUMSTANCE POTENTIAL

RISK RATING RISK CONTROLS

RISIDUAL RISK RATING TREATMENT/

CONTINGENCIES MONITORING ACTIVITIES

(L) (C) (T) (L) (C) (T)

Air Earthworks and construction activities (rehabilitation activities on site)

Dust emissions causing environmental nuisance leading to impact on air values

3 2 5

Dust management will be undertaken to ensure that construction activities do not cause an environmental nuisance. 2 2 4

A daily assessment will be undertaken by the construction manager (or delegate) to determine the dust suppression watering regime for that day to comply with legislative air quality goals

Ongoing as per OEMP

Air Vehicle movements on the haul roads from the ROM pad and on-site stockpiles

Dust emissions causing environmental nuisance leading to impact on air values

3 2 5

Dust management will be undertaken to ensure that construction activities do not cause an environmental nuisance. 2 2 4


Ongoing as per OEMP

Air Vehicle exhaust emissions from vehicle movements and operational activities

Vehicle emissions causing environmental nuisance leading to impact on air values

3 2 5

Vehicles used on site to be fitted with emission and exhaust control technologies in accordance with manufacturer’s design specifications. 2 2 4


Ongoing as per OEMP

Noise Earthworks and construction activities (rehabilitation activities)

Noise from earthworks and construction activities impact on nearest sensitive receptors

3 2 5

Regular maintenance of mobile plant and equipment to minimise noise emissions and a restriction of construction activity to daylight hours.

2 2 4

The site’s OEMP control strategy for noise emissions means a complaint-based investigation and response system is in place to address noise related impacts

Ongoing as per OEMP

Noise Vehicle movements on the haul roads from the ROM pad and on-site stockpiles

Noise from vehicle movements on haul roads impact on nearest sensitive receptors

3 2 5

Regular maintenance of mobile plant and equipment to minimise noise emissions and a restriction of construction activity to daylight hours.

2 2 4

The site’s OEMP control strategy for noise emissions means a complaint-based investigation and response system is in place to address noise related impacts

Ongoing as per OEMP

Land Change in disturbance footprint

Change in disturbance areas increasing impact on land values

2 2 4

No active mining beyond removal of already extracted and further processed product to be undertaken.

2 2 4

The site’s OEMP control strategy for site rehabilitation is in place and requires areas that are disturbed by mining activities to be rehabilitated as soon as practicable.

Ongoing as per OEMP

Water Change in monitoring requirements

Change in monitoring locations (Table 2 of the EA)

2 2 4

Amendment proposes nil release to groundwaters.

2 2 4

The site’s OEMP control strategy for groundwater monitoring is in place to address groundwater related impacts.

Ongoing as per OEMP



ASPECT EVENT/

CIRCUMSTANCE POTENTIAL RISK RATING RISK CONTROLS

RISIDUAL RISK RATING

TREATMENT/ CONTINGENCIES

MONITORING ACTIVITIES

Water (Surface) Impact to surface waters

Unplanned or uncontrolled release has an impact on surface water quality and environmental values of Beaver and Arthur Creeks

3 3 6

Continued monitoring of upstream and downstream surface water monitoring sites. Classification activities monitored to prevent accidental/unplanned release. 2 2 4

The site’s OEMP control strategy for surface water monitoring is in place to address surface water related impacts.

Ongoing as per OEMP

Water (Groundwater)

Impacts to groundwater

Impact on groundwater quality and environmental values of site and surrounding groundwater users

2 2 4 No groundwater interaction is proposed by the amendment. 2 2 4

The site’s OEMP control strategy for groundwater monitoring to be developed and put in place to address groundwater related impacts.

Ongoing as per OEMP

Waste Generation of excessive waste

Operational activities generate excessive waste 3 3 6

Contractor to implement OEMP waste management strategies to minimise waste generation 2 2 4

The site’s OEMP control strategy and plan for waste management is in place to address waste related impacts

Ongoing as per OEMP

Waste Generation or spread of contaminated waste

Operational activities spread contaminated wastes

3 3 6

Contractor to implement OEMP waste management materials handling and transportation strategies to minimise waste generation 2 2 4

The site’s OEMP control strategy and plan for waste management is in place to address waste related impacts

Ongoing as per OEMP

(L) = likelihood, (C) = consequence, (T) = total risk rating.

References 76


References Aumann, T. & Baker-Gabb. D. (1991). RAOU Report 75. A management plan for the red goshawk. Melbourne: Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union.

BRI collection Records (Undated), Queensland Herbarium specimens

Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) (2018). Climate statistics for Mt Surprise Township (30036)

Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) (2018). Climate statistics for Marreba Airport (031066)

Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) (2018). Climate statistics for Walkamin Research Station (31168)

Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) (2018). Climate statistics for Herberton-Mowbray Rd (31195)

Churchill, S.K. (2009). Australian bats – Second Edition. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.

Commonwealth of Australia. (2011). EPBC Act policy statement 3.25 Referral guidelines for the endangered northern quoll, Dasyurus hallucatus. Retrieved from http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/f31d0eec-04d5-4743-9cc7- ad877ae0a6ef/files/northern-quoll.pdf

Debus, S. & Czechura, G. (1988). The red goshawk Erythrotriorchis radiates: A review. Australian Bird Watcher, 12, 175-199.

Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (EHP). (2009). Queensland water quality guidelines (2009).

EHP (2014). Code of Environmental Compliance for Mining Lease Projects.

EHP (2016). Model mining conditions

EHP (2017a). ESR/2015/1684 – Major and minor amendments.

EHP (2017b). ESR/2015/1836 – Application requirements for activities with waste impacts.

EHP (2017c). ESR/2015/1837 – Application requirements for activities with impacts to water.

EHP (2017d). ESR/2015/1838 – Application requirements for activities with noise impacts.

EHP (2017e). ESR/2015/1839 – Application requirements for activities with impacts to land.

EHP (2017f). ESR/2015/1840 – Application requirements for activities with impacts to air.

Department of Mines and Energy (1995). Technical Guidelines for Environmental Management of Exploration and Mining Activities

Department of Natural Resources and Mines. (2015). Regulated vegetation management map and vegetation management supporting map. The State of Queensland. Requested on 13/01/2014.

Department of the Environment (DoE). (2014). EPBC protected matters report. Australian Government. Report created 03/12/14 14:34:27.

http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/f31d0eec-04d5-4743-9cc7-

References 77


DoE. (2015). Species profile and threats database. Canberra: Department of the Environment. Retrieved from: http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/sprat.pl

Garnett, S., Szabo, J. & Dutson, G. (2011). The action plan for Australian birds 2010. CSIRO Publishing.

Greer, A.E., McDonald, K.R., & Lawrie, B. C. (1983). Three new species of Lerista (Scincidae) from northern Queensland with a diagnosis of the wilkinsi species group. Journal of Herpetology, Vol 17:247-255.

Higgins, P. J. (ed.) (1999). Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic birds. Volume 4 – Parrots to dollarbird. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Kavanagh, R.P. and Murray, M. (1996). Distribution of nocturnal forest birds and mammals in north-eastern Newcastle, New South Wales. Emu 96: 250-257.

Marchant, S., & Higgins, P. J. (eds) (1993). Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic birds. Volume 2: Raptors to lapwings. Melbourne: Oxford University Press1.

Mareeba Shire Council. (2015) Aerodromes [Online]. Retrieved from http://msc.qld.gov.au/aerodromes-operated-mareeba-shire-council/.

Margo, M. (2011). My Blog – Almaden Bush Races [Online]. Retrieved from http://www.mandymagro.com/blog/2011/03/16/Almaden-Bush-Races.aspx. Date accessed: 03/02/2015.

Menkhorst, P. & Knight, F (2010). A field guide to the mammals of Australia - Third Edition. Oxford University Press.

Northern Resource Consultants (NRC). (2015). Mt Lucy Iron Ore EA application flora and fauna technical report.

Pedley, L. (1990).’Combretaceae’. In: George, A.S. (Ed.) Flora of Australia. Vol.18. Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.

Queensland Globe (2016). Digital Cadastre Database. https://qldglobe.information.qld.gov.au/.

Queensland Police, date not specified

Wilson, S. & Swan, G. (2010). A complete guide to reptiles of Australia. New Holland.

Woinarski, J.C.Z., Oakwood, M., Winter, J., Burnett, S., Milne, D., Foster, P.,. Myles, H., & Holmes, B. (2008). Surviving the toads: patterns of persistence of the northern quoll Dasyurus hallucatus in Queensland. Report submitted to the Natural Heritage Trust Strategic Reserve Program.

http://msc.qld.gov.au/aerodromes-operated-mareeba-shire-council/

http://www.mandymagro.com/blog/2011/03/16/Almaden-Bush-Races.aspx

https://qldglobe.information.qld.gov.au/


Appendix summary

Appendix A Appendix B

Maps Mt Lucy Iron Ore EA Application – Flora and Fauna Technical Report


Appendix A

Maps

Access Road

Access Road

AdminArea

Mine Area

ROM pad andstockpile area

Sediment Dam

Sediment Dam

ML 20488

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS UserCommunity

248500

248500

249000

249000

8080

500

8080

500

Date: 15-Nov-18

Coordinate System: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 55Projection: Transverse MercatorDatum: GDA 1994

§0 75 15037.5

Metres

TABLELANDSMINING GROUP

1:3,500Scale: at A3

MT LUCYSITE

DOMAINS

Credits:Mining Lease, WatercoursesMajor Roads, Roads and Tracks© State of Queensland(Department of Natural Resourcesand Mines) 2016Streams, Geoscience Australia

LegendMt Lucy - Domains

Access RoadAdminMineROM pad andstockpile areaSediment DamMt Lucy MiningStreams

Burke Developmental Road

!A

!A

!A

!A

ML20488

SW1

SW2

Upstream

SW3


250000

250000

8080

000

8080

000

Date: 11-Jul-18


§0 270 540135

Metres

TABLELANDSMININGGROUP

Credits:Mine Lease boundary, Watercourse© State of Queensland (Department of NaturalResources and Mines) 2016.Roads© Geoscience Australia 2016.

MT LUCYFIELD MAPPED

DRAINAGE FEATURES

Legend!A

Surface WaterMonitoring SitesField MappedDrainage FeaturesMining_LeaseSecondary Road

Minor Road

Track

1:13,400Scale: at A3

Cgoda

SDc/l

TQrTQr

TQr

SDc/l

SDc/l

SDc/l

SDc/l SDc/l

SDc/cSDc/c

SDc/c

Cgol

Cgol

Cgol

Cgol

SDc/b

CPgoo

SDc/a1

SDc/cg

Cgaa


250000

250000

8080

000

8080

000

Date: 11-Jul-18


§0 400 800200

Metres


Credits:Mine Lease boundary, Watercourse© State of Queensland (Department of NaturalResources and Mines) 2016.Geology© State of Queensland (Department of NaturalResources and Mines) 2011.Roads© Geoscience Australia 2016.

MT LUCYSURFACE GEOLOGY

LegendMining_Lease

WatercourseSecondary Road

Minor Road

Track

1:20,000Scale: at A3

LATE TERTIARY - QUATERNARYTQr-QLD

LATE CARBONIFEROUS (Intrusive)Almaden Granodiorite-CgaaDavid Granite

CARBONIFEROUS (Intrusive)Lucy GraniteOotann Granite

EARLY SILURIAN? - EARLY DEVONIAN?Chillagoe Formation/cg

EARLY SILURIAN - EARLY DEVONIAN?Chillagoe Formation/a1Chillagoe Formation/bChillagoe Formation/cChillagoe Formation/l

EE

E#

E

#

E

E

#

E

#

E

E

E

E#

ML20488

27S7

55Outcrop

S15

Outcrop2

S16

S04

Outc

S03

Outcr

S10

S13

S14

S00Conf

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS UserCommunity80

8000

0

8080

000

Date: 11-Jul-18


§0 80 16040

Metres


Credits:Mine Lease boundary, Watercourse, Cadastral© State of Queensland (Department of NaturalResources and Mines) 2016.Roads© Geoscience Australia 2016.

MT LUCYSOIL UNITS

LegendE Soil observations

# Surface featuresSoil units

Dusky red podosolson graniteRock

Transition zoneYellowish redpodosols onsedimentaryMining_LeaseSecondary Road

Minor Road

Track

1:4,000Scale: at A3


Appendix B

Mt Lucy Iron Ore EA Application – Flora and Fauna Technical Report

Mt Lucy Iron Ore EA Application

Flora and Fauna Technical Report

June 2015

prepared on behalf of Tablelands Mining Group


Contact Information Details

Organisation Northern Resource Consultants Pty Limited

Contact Person Marty Costello

Phone 07 4772 6500

Email [email protected]

Mail 12 Cannan Street, South Townsville QLD, 4810

ABN 55 126 894 693

Document Control Details including responsible party and date

David Hall 15/06/2015 Finalise Client Draft Document

Marty Costello 19/06/2015 Review and authorisation for client release

Limitations of this Report Client: Tablelands Mining Group

Prepared by Northern Resource Consultants (NRC)

This disclaimer brings the limitations of the investigations to the attention of the reader.

The information in this report is for the exclusive use of Tablelands Mining Group. Tablelands Mining Group is the only intended beneficiary of our work.

We cannot be held liable for third party reliance on this document. The information within this report could be different if the information upon which it is based is determined to be inaccurate or incomplete.

The results of work carried out by others may have been used in the preparation of this report. These results have been used in good faith, and we are not responsible for their accuracy.

This report has been formulated in the context of published guidelines, field observations, discussions with site personnel, and results of laboratory analyses.

NRC’s opinions in this document are subject to modification if additional information is obtained through further investigation, observations or analysis. They relate solely and exclusively to environmental management matters, and are based on the technical and practical experience of environmental scientists.

They are not presented as legal advice, nor do they represent decisions from the regulatory agencies charged with the administration of the relevant Acts.

Any advice, opinions or recommendations contained in this document should be read and relied upon only in the context of the document as a whole and are considered current as of the date of this document.

MT LUCY IRON ORE EA APPLICATION – FLORA AND FAUNA TECHNICAL REPORT prepared by: Northern Resource Consultants Pty Ltd

Contents

Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1

1. Background ..................................................................................................................................... 1

2. Purpose ........................................................................................................................................... 1

3. Study Area ...................................................................................................................................... 1

4. Regulatory Framework .................................................................................................................... 2

4.1 Commonwealth Legislation .................................................................................................. 2 4.2 State Legislation ................................................................................................................... 2

Flora and Fauna Assessment Methodology ................................................................... 6

1. Overall Assessment Methodology .................................................................................................. 6

2. Desktop Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 6

2.1 Literature review and previous studies ................................................................................. 6 2.2 Database Searches .............................................................................................................. 7 2.3 Mapping ................................................................................................................................ 7

3. Nomenclature and Taxonomy ......................................................................................................... 7

4. Flora Survey Methodology .............................................................................................................. 8

4.1 Overall methodology ............................................................................................................. 8 4.2 Vegetation Assessment Sites ............................................................................................... 9 4.3 Vegetation Mapping ............................................................................................................ 10 4.4 Random Meander Technique ............................................................................................. 10

5. Fauna Survey Methodology .......................................................................................................... 11

5.1 Survey Timing and Environmental Conditions ................................................................... 11 5.2 General Survey Sites .......................................................................................................... 12 5.3 Survey Techniques ............................................................................................................. 14 5.4 Additional Survey Areas and Techniques ........................................................................... 15 5.5 Targeted Techniques .......................................................................................................... 16 5.6 Survey Effort ....................................................................................................................... 16

Desktop Analysis Results ............................................................................................. 18

1. Database Searches ...................................................................................................................... 18

1.1 Threatened Ecological Communities .................................................................................. 18 1.2 Threatened Flora Species .................................................................................................. 18


1.3 Threatened Fauna Species ................................................................................................ 19 1.4 Migratory Species ............................................................................................................... 19

2. Regional Ecosystem Mapping ...................................................................................................... 23

3. Geology Mapping .......................................................................................................................... 23

Flora Survey Results .................................................................................................... 25

1. Vegetation Communities ............................................................................................................... 25

1.1 EPBC Act Threatened Ecological Communities ................................................................. 25 1.2 Vegetation Management Act 1999 Regional Ecosystems ................................................. 25 1.3 Non-remnant Vegetation..................................................................................................... 26

2. Flora Species ................................................................................................................................ 26

2.1 Threatened Flora Species .................................................................................................. 26 2.2 Pest Species ....................................................................................................................... 27

Fauna Survey Results .................................................................................................. 30

1. Fauna Habitat ............................................................................................................................... 30

1.1 Vegetation ........................................................................................................................... 30 1.2 Habitat Features ................................................................................................................. 30 1.3 Watercourse and Wetland Habitat ...................................................................................... 30 1.4 Connectivity ........................................................................................................................ 31 1.5 Disturbance ......................................................................................................................... 31

2. Fauna Species .............................................................................................................................. 31

2.1 Mammals ............................................................................................................................ 31 2.2 Reptiles ............................................................................................................................... 32 2.3 Amphibians ......................................................................................................................... 32 2.4 Birds .................................................................................................................................... 32 2.5 Pest Species ....................................................................................................................... 33

Impact Assessment ...................................................................................................... 34

1. Matters of State Environmental Significance ................................................................................ 34

1.1 Connectivity ........................................................................................................................ 34 1.2 Essential Habitat ................................................................................................................. 34 1.3 Vegetation Communities..................................................................................................... 34 1.4 Watercourse Habitat and Riparian Vegetation ................................................................... 34 1.5 Wetlands ............................................................................................................................. 35

2. Pest Species ................................................................................................................................. 35

3. Conservation Significant Flora Species ........................................................................................ 35

3.1 Macropteranthes montana .................................................................................................. 35 3.2 Euphorbia carissoides ........................................................................................................ 36


3.3 Solanum angustum ............................................................................................................. 36

4. Conservation Significant Fauna Species ...................................................................................... 36

4.1 Red Goshawk ..................................................................................................................... 36 4.2 Masked Owl (Northern) ....................................................................................................... 37 4.3 Northern Quoll .................................................................................................................... 37 4.4 Koala ................................................................................................................................... 38 4.5 Greater Large-eared Horseshoe Bat .................................................................................. 39 4.6 Chillagoe Fine-lined Slider .................................................................................................. 39 4.7 Chillagoe Litter-skink .......................................................................................................... 40 4.8 Short-beaked Echidna ........................................................................................................ 40

5. Migratory Species ......................................................................................................................... 40

Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 42

1. Clearing and Vegetation Management ......................................................................................... 42

2. Soil Management .......................................................................................................................... 42

3. Weed Management ....................................................................................................................... 42

4. Dust Management ......................................................................................................................... 43

5. Fauna Management ...................................................................................................................... 43

References .................................................................................................................. 44

List of Tables

Table 1: Vegetation attributes measured in secondary survey transects ........................................... 10

Table 2: Weather conditions relevant to each fauna survey period .................................................... 11

Table 3: Habitat descriptions for systematic fauna survey sites ......................................................... 13

Table 4: Fauna survey methods employed at systematic survey sites............................................... 14

Table 5: Fauna survey effort for each technique ................................................................................ 16

Table 6: Near threatened and threatened flora species identified from database searches .............. 20

Table 6: Near threatened and threatened fauna species identified from database searches ............ 21

Table 7: EPBC Act listed migratory species from the Protected Matters Search Tool results ........... 22

Table 8: Regional ecosystem status and description for mapped remnant vegetation within study area ..................................................................................................................................................... 23

Table 9: Geology mapping units within the study area ....................................................................... 23

Table 10: Floristic composition and structure of Regional Ecosystems within the study area ........... 28


List of Appendices

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

Appendix G

Mapping

EPBC Act Protected Matters Report

Wildlife Online Database Extract

Potential Occurrence of EVNT Species

Flora Species List

Fauna Species List

Microbat Call Interpretation Reports

Introduction 1


Introduction 1. Background The Mt Lucy Project is a proposed iron ore and magnetite mining project in north Queensland located approximately five kilometres west of Almaden, along the Burke Development Road (and approximately 30km to the south-east of Chillagoe).

The project proponent is Tablelands Mining Group Pty Limited (TMG). TMG is a wholly owned subsidiary of L&P Mines Pty Limited (L&P Mines). L&P Mines hold the Mining Lease (ML20488) and Environmental Authority (EPVL03075115) that apply to the Mt Lucy Project.

The current greenfield project site comprises a 33.5ha mining lease dominated by Mt Lucy which rises approximately 90 to 100m above the surrounding landscape and takes up the eastern half of the lease area. The proposed mining operations will consist of open cut, free dig mining of Mt Lucy using a conventional dozer hydraulic excavator. Crushing and screening of the ore will occur to allow for basic transport and safety requirements. Drilling and blasting will be undertaken if required and assessed on an as needed basis.

Run Of Mine (ROM) material will be transported from the mining area (Mt Lucy) to the site infrastructure using an articulated dump truck. Product will then be loaded into road trains and transported to the Port of Mourilyan. Further details regarding the project are located in the Project Description document that forms part of this application.

2. Purpose This report details the following aspects of a flora and fauna assessment conducted by Northern Resource Consultants Pty Limited (NRC) within the Mt Lucy mining lease and surrounding areas (study area):

- Methodologies employed for assessing the terrestrial flora and fauna within the study area over two seasons (wet and dry season 2015).

- The presence and status of species and communities within the study area. - Potential ecological impacts of the project and recommendations for mitigating impacts,

with a focus on species of conservation concern, such as those listed under Queensland and Commonwealth legislation.

3. Study Area The study area for this report includes the 33.5ha mining lease, with a buffer of at least 100m around the edge of the mining lease. The buffer zone was incorporated into the study design to determine potential impacts on the surrounding landscape and the presence of conservation significant species in nearby areas. The size of the buffer zone is in accordance with the Flora Survey Guidelines – Protected Plants (EHP 2014a). The mining lease and study area are depicted in the maps provided in Appendix A.

Introduction 2


The land within the mining lease is currently used for cattle grazing, and contains an unsealed road servicing the Almaden Aerodrome to the southwest. The western part of the study area contains flat to undulating terrain and the eastern section contains the rocky slopes of Mt Lucy. The area is mostly comprised of remnant vegetation, with some disturbance from possible previous historical exploration activities evident on parts of sloped areas on Mt Lucy..

4. Regulatory Framework

4.1 Commonwealth Legislation

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) is administered by the Australian Government Department of Environment (DoE). The EPBC Act provides a legal framework to protect and manage nationally and internationally important flora, fauna, ecological communities and heritage places, which are defined in the EPBC Act as matters of national environmental significance (MNES). The MNES listed in the EPBC Act that are relevant to this report are:

- nationally threatened species and ecological communities, - migratory species.

Database searches and field assessments should be conducted as part of any flora and fauna impact assessment. The results of these assessments can be used to determine the presence or likelihood of the presence of any MNES within a proposed project area. If any species or communities listed under the EPBC Act are present or likely to be present, an assessment of significance is required. If the proposed action may have a significant impact on a MNES, it must be referred to DoE for assessment. If DoE determines that the proposed action is likely to have significant impacts, the project will be considered as a Controlled Action and will require formal assessment and approval. If the proposed action is not likely to be significant, approval is not required if the action is taken in accordance with the referral. Consequently, the action can proceed, subject to any state or local government requirements.

4.2 State Legislation

Vegetation Management Act 1999

The Vegetation Management Act 1999 (VMA) is administered by the Queensland Department of Natural Resources and Mines (DNRM) and protects Queensland’s biodiversity by conserving native vegetation and addressing land degradation issues.

Queensland’s vegetation management framework regulates the clearing of certain native vegetation. The VMA incorporates the regional ecosystem (RE) classification scheme to regulate the clearing of native vegetation. REs are remnant vegetation communities in a bioregion that are consistently associated with a particular combination of geology, landform and soil. Remnant vegetation is defined under the VMA as vegetation where the dominant canopy layer has greater than 70% of the height and greater than 50% of the cover relative to

Introduction 3


the undisturbed height and cover of that stratum and is dominated by species characteristic of the vegetation's undisturbed canopy.

The Queensland Herbarium has mapped the remnant extent of regional ecosystems for much of the state using a combination of satellite imagery, aerial photography and on-ground studies (ground-truthing). Regional ecosystem maps published by DNRM describe the extent and conservation status of remnant vegetation as REs. REs are classified in the following vegetation management class and biodiversity status categories:

- Endangered - Of Concern - Least Concern/Not of Concern.

The VMA does not apply to most environmentally relevant activities conducted on mining leases, but the classification of REs is relevant to potential offsetting requirements and determining environmentally sensitive areas (ESAs), which are discussed further in the proceeding sections.

Environmental Protection Act 1994

The Environmental Protection Act 1994 (EP Act) is intended “to protect Queensland’s environment while allowing for development that improves total quality of life, both now and in the future, in a way that maintains the ecological processes on which life depends (ecologically sustainable development)”. The EP Act regulates environmentally relevant activities (ERAs), which includes mining activities. EHP assesses applications to undertake ERAs, and issues environmental authorities (EAs) that identify environmental conditions to be met to ensure the prevention or minimisation of environmental harm caused by the authorised ERAs. An assessment of environmental impacts to identified environmental values is required as part of the EA application.

When making an application to EHP for an EA for mining activities, the applicant is required under the Environmental Protection Regulation 1998 to identify ESAs within or adjacent to the proposed mining lease. An ESA is defined as a location that:

- has environmental values that contribute to maintaining biological diversity and integrity, - has intrinsic or attributed scientific, historical or cultural heritage value, - is important to providing amenity, harmony or sense of community.

Three categories of ESA exist: - Category A: areas that have significant ecological values including national parks, marine

parks, conservation parks, the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Region.

- Category B: areas that include REs with an Endangered biodiversity status, Ramsar wetlands (as per the Ramsar Convention on wetlands of international importance, especially as waterfowl habitat), forest reserves, wilderness areas, areas seaward of the highest astronomical tide, fish habitat areas and areas containing marine plants.

- Category C: areas that include nature refuges, state forests, timber reserves, declared catchment areas, river improvement areas, and resource reserves.

Introduction 4


Nature Conservation Act 1992

The Nature Conservation Act 1992 (NC Act) is administered by EHP and provides the framework for the declaration and management of protected areas, and protection of wildlife listed under the Nature Conservation (Wildlife) Regulation 2006 (NC Regulation). The purpose of the NC Regulation is to prescribe wildlife as one of the following classes of wildlife:

- extinct in the wild - endangered - vulnerable - near threatened - least concern.

Threatened wildlife under the NC Act is wildlife that is prescribed under the Act as extinct in the wild, endangered or vulnerable. All native flora and fauna species are protected under the Act and ‘permits to take’ protected wildlife are required from EHP.

EHP provides the Wildlife Online database, which can be searched to generate a list of all species recorded within a specified area. This tool is useful for determining the presence or likelihood of occurrence of threatened species in an area.

A Protected Plants Flora Survey Trigger Map is now also available, which shows high risk areas for protected plants (those considered as EVNT species – endangered, vulnerable and near threatened) and is used to help determine flora survey and clearing permit requirements for a specified area. If the study area is located within a high risk area, a comprehensive flora survey is required to be undertaken before any clearing of protected plants can occur. This survey will need to comply with the Queensland Flora Survey Guidelines – Protected Plants (EHP 2014a).

If threatened plants are found to occur within the high risk area during the field survey and these are likely to be cleared or impacted by the proposed project, an application for a clearing permit from EHP will be required. This application will need to be accompanied by the flora survey results and potential impact management options for the protected plants that include appropriate avoidance, mitigation or offsetting measures.

In addition to this, if threatened plants are found outside a high risk area during the field survey, and these plants are likely to be cleared or impacted by the proposed project, a clearing permit will also be required. Where a flora survey identifies that there are no protected plants present or impacts can be avoided, clearing will be exempt from requiring a permit under the NC Act.

Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Act 2002

The Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Act 2002 (LP Act) provides a framework for the management of weeds, pest animals and the stock route network. It governs actions with respect to the control and management of declared plants and animals in the state and provides local governments with a legal instrument to enforce the management of high-priority weeds and pest animals.

There are three classes of declared pests under the LP Act and the species within these classes have been targeted for control because they have, or could have, serious economic, environmental or social impacts. There are legal obligations associated with the control, supply, sale, keeping and transport of declared plants in Queensland. Declaration under state

Introduction 5


legislation imposes various legal responsibilities for control by landowners on land under their management, including all landowning state agencies.

The three categories of declared plants in Queensland are: - Class 1: A pest that has the potential to become a very serious pest in Queensland in the

future. All landholders are required by law to keep their land free of Class 1 pests. - Class 2: A pest that has already spread over substantial areas of Queensland, but its

impact is so serious that control is required to avoid further spread. By law, all landholders must try to keep their land free of Class 2 pests and it is an offence to possess, sell or release these pests without a permit.

- Class 3: A pest that is commonly established in parts of Queensland but its control by landowners is not enforceable unless the pest is impacting, or has the potential to impact, on an adjacent ’environmentally significant area’ (e.g. a national park).

Queensland Environmental Offsets Framework

On 1 July 2014, a new environmental offsets framework was introduced in Queensland. The framework includes an Act, a regulation and a single policy, which replaces the five previous single-issue policies.

The Environmental Offsets Regulation 2014 provides details of the prescribed activities regulated under legislation and the prescribed environmental matters (known as Matters of State Environmental Significance or MSES) to which the framework applies. Examples of MSES include:

- endangered and vulnerable wildlife under the NC Act - wetlands and watercourses - Endangered and Of Concern REs - connectivity areas - protected wildlife habitat.

For any new development, all impacts to MSES must be avoided or minimised where possible. Where there is a significant residual impact to MSES, an environmental offset may be required in accordance with the Queensland Environmental Offsets Policy (QEOP).

Flora and Fauna Assessment Methodology 6


Flora and Fauna Assessment Methodology 1. Overall Assessment Methodology NRC employed a joint approach of desktop analysis and field surveys in this study. The study team implemented best practice recommendations from sources such as:

- Terrestrial Vertebrate Fauna Survey Guidelines for Queensland (Eyre et al. 2014) - Methodology for Survey and Mapping of Regional Ecosystems and Vegetation

Communities in Queensland (Neldner et al. 2012) - Flora Survey Guidelines – Protected Plants (EHP 2014a).

The methodology encompassed two phases - scoping and field survey.

The scoping phase encompassed: - project planning and definition of objectives - assignment of qualified ecologists - detailed desktop studies - review of previous studies - collation of existing records - literature review of species and potential threats and impacts.

The field survey phase encompassed: - systematic, targeted and incidental flora surveys - vegetation community mapping and assessments - systematic, targeted and incidental fauna surveys.

NRC is a registered scientific user with ethics approval to conduct fauna studies from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) Animal Ethics Committee (AEC). The survey work involved in this report was conducted under Scientific Purposes Permit number WISP14046014.

A reconnaissance visit was conducted throughout the mining lease. This reconnaissance visit included site familiarisation to confirm assumptions made during desktop assessment and ensure generic trapping sites covered an appropriate variety of habitat types within the study area.

2. Desktop Analysis

2.1 Literature review and previous studies

There are no known previous flora and fauna studies of the study area or immediate surrounds. Field guides and scientific publications were reviewed prior to field surveys to determine species



likely to be present within the study area and preferred habitat. Focus was given to threatened species identified as having the potential to occur within the study area. Given the lack of previous studies for the area, the desktop assessment relied primarily on database searches to determine species, communities and species habitat relevant to the study area.

2.2 Database Searches

The EPBC protected matters search tool and the Queensland Government Wildlife Online database were utilised to determine species, communities and areas of conservation significance of potential relevance to the proposed development. Both searches included a 10km buffer around a central co-ordinate within the mining lease (17.3479° S, 144.6380° E), which includes the entire mining lease as well as a considerable buffer. A search of the Herbrecs database was requested for a five-minute square incorporating the study area and broader Mt Lucy locality.

The results of the database searches and their relevance to the proposed development are discussed in the results section of this report. Threatened species and communities recorded from the desktop searches (and field surveys) were ranked in terms of their likelihood of occurring within the study area. Factors used to determine the likelihood of occurrence included species records, known distributions, climatic requirements, preferred habitat and resource requirements for different stages of their life cycle (e.g. breeding). The potential impacts to threatened species that may occur within the study area are discussed in the Impacts Assessment section of this report.

It is possible that some locally occurring near threatened or threatened species may not be recorded in the State and Commonwealth databases. The comprehensive field survey component of this assessment is therefore an important aspect of the impact assessment process, in order to determine the presence of any threatened species that have not been previously recorded in the local area.

2.3 Mapping

The following mapping sources were reviewed as part of the desktop analysis: - Regulated Vegetation Management Map (DNRM 2015) - Geoscience Australia Atherton SE 55-5 1:250000 Mapsheet (1971) - Environmentally Sensitive Areas Map (EHP 2015) - Flora Survey Trigger Map - Essential Habitat mapping as shown on a Regulated Vegetation Management Map - Referrable Wetlands - Environment and heritage layers on the State Planning Policy interactive mapping

system.

3. Nomenclature and Taxonomy With the exception of technical descriptions and tables, all flora and fauna species are referred to by their common names throughout this report, with their scientific names given in brackets after the first reference. Scientific names for flora species within this report follow Bostock and



Holland (2013). Where no common name is provided in reference texts, a search was conducted for other accepted common names, and if none were found then the species name only was used. An asterisk is used to denote species that are not native to Australia.

The use of scientific and common names for fauna species is in accordance with the following: - birds: Pizzey and Knight (2012) - amphibians: Vanderduys (2012) - reptiles: Wilson (2005) - mammals (except bats): Van Dyck and Strahan (2008) - bats: Churchill (2009).

4. Flora Survey Methodology

4.1 Overall methodology

Techniques described in the Methodology for Survey and Mapping of Regional Ecosystems and Vegetation Communities in Queensland (Neldner et al. 2012) were used to collect sufficient data during the field vegetation assessments to verify the RE codes of the remnant vegetation in the assessment area. The key features recorded in the field relevant to this report are:

- vegetation structure including height of each stratum and cover density - key species within each stratum - geology, landform and other landzone characteristics.

The species composition and structure for each community were compared to the technical descriptions provided in the Regional Ecosystem Description Database (Queensland Herbarium 2014). The landzone characteristics of each site were compared to the descriptions provided in Wilson and Taylor (2012). This information provided the basis for determining the appropriate RE code for each community. The information in these documents was also used in conjunction with site observations to determine appropriate values for the factors relating to remnant status.

Vegetation surveys were conducted over two survey periods, one during the early-mid wet season 2015 and one during the early dry season 2015. The wet season survey was conducted between 27 and 31 January 2015. The purpose of the wet season survey was to:

- Determine the appropriate RE code, extent, and remnant status of vegetation communities throughout the study area.

- Perform targeted searches for threatened flora species identified during desktop analyses, including ‘meander’ searches in accordance with the Flora Survey Guidelines – Protected Plants (EHP 2014a).

- Compile a flora species inventory for the study area.

The dry season surveys were conducted between 18 and 22 May 2015. The purpose of the dry season surveys was to conduct further targeted and meander searches for threatened flora species and to perform further vegetation community assessments to validate vegetation community mapping performed during the previous survey.



4.2 Vegetation Assessment Sites

Site Selection

Ground-truthing of the remnant and regulated regrowth vegetation mapping involved detailed assessments of vegetation characteristics at multiple transect locations within the study area. Assessment sites were selected where they would provide representative data for the vegetation type that was the subject of the assessment.

The location of the assessment sites and the survey techniques employed were selected: - validate of the state published RE and regrowth mapping - accurately determine of the extent of each vegetation type - resolve heterogeneous polygons - determine the remnant status of vegetation - target threatened flora species identified during desktop assessments and their habitat - compile a species inventory for each vegetation community and the entire study area.

A total of four secondary, three tertiary and four quaternary assessments were conducted over the two survey periods, with the sites distributed over the study area to encompass any potential changes in community composition or structure (see Vegetation Survey map in Appendix A).

Survey Techniques

Secondary and Tertiary Assessments

A 50m x 10m vegetation assessment transect was established at each of the secondary and tertiary assessment sites within the study area. Within these transects a combination of quantitative and qualitative techniques was employed. The vegetation survey techniques employed and attributes recorded during the assessments are detailed in Table 1

Quantitative measurements such as basal area (using the Bitterlich stick methodology, Grosenbaugh 1952) and canopy height and cover were used to describe the structural form of each community based on the structural formation classes. These attributes were also used to determine the remnant status of the vegetation.

Quaternary Assessment Sites

Quaternary assessment sites were conducted to validate the vegetation community mapping and to capture any variability in the structure and composition of the community. Data collected at tertiary sites include all location, environmental and structural information for the dominant and conspicuous species in each layer. In general, focus was given to the dominant species, crown cover and median height of the ecologically dominant layer, which is used to define each community and determine the appropriate RE code.



Table 1: Vegetation attributes measured in secondary survey transects

SURVEY METHOD ATTRIBUTES MEASURED

Survey Plot 50m x 10m

Key species of each stratum Median height of each stratum Weed species and cover Complete species list Central coordinate

Transect 50m

Percentage cover of each stratum

Quadrats (x5) 1m x 1m

Ground cover species and percentage of cover

Greater area encompassing the present vegetation community

Tree basal area Incidental species observed Additional relevant notes

4.3 Vegetation Mapping

Mapping of vegetation communities was performed using a combination of vegetation traverses and aerial imagery. Using the information gained at each of the vegetation assessment sites, and observations made when traversing the study area, the boundaries of vegetation communities were recorded using a handheld GPS device. Some vegetation mapping was also refined using current, high-resolution aerial images.

4.4 Random Meander Technique

Various parts of the study area were traversed using the Random Meander technique documented by Cropper (1993). This technique was applied to supplement other survey techniques and to:

- locate and record any flora species not identified in the vegetation assessment transects - target threatened flora species - validate vegetation community mapping - determine the presence and extent of pest species.

The meander technique is the preferred approach to identify and locate protected plants (EVNT species) according to the Flora Survey Guidelines – Protected Plants (EHP 2014a). Random meanders were conducted within all habitat types present for locally occurring EVNT species identified during the desktop assessment. Seven wet season and six dry season meanders were conducted within the study area (including a 100m buffer zone surrounding the mining lease), with all plant species observed either identified, or collected and preserved for later identification by suitably qualified staff or the Queensland Herbarium. This survey effort exceeds the minimum requirements prescribed in the Flora Survey Guidelines – Protected Plants (EHP



2014a), which specifies that between two and five meanders should be conducted in each area of habitat between 10ha and 100ha.

5. Fauna Survey Methodology

5.1 Survey Timing and Environmental Conditions

Two fauna surveys were conducted, incorporating multiple seasonal conditions into the survey program in accordance with the recommendations outlined in the Terrestrial Vertebrate Survey Guidelines for Queensland (Eyre et al. 2014). The first survey was conducted during the early wet season, in January (between 27 and 31 January 2015). During the early wet season, vertebrate activity is high as animals start to move with the building humidity (Eyre et al. 2014). A second survey was conducted between 18 and 22 May 2015, during the early dry season in accordance with Eyre et al. (2014).

Weather data relevant to each fauna survey period are provided in Table 2. The weather before, and during, both fauna survey periods was characterised by warm days and nights (Table 2). Overall the weather conditions for each survey period were considered favourable for detecting most vertebrate fauna groups. Rainfall data are provided from the Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) Almaden weather station (station number 31131). The nearest station with temperature and humidity data available is the Walkamin Research station (station number 31108).

Table 2: Weather conditions relevant to each fauna survey period

PERIOD DATE RAINFALL (MM) TEMPERATURE (°C)

HUMIDITY MINIMUM MAXIMUM

Wet Season Pre-survey

20/01/2015 6 20.5 34.5 51

21/01/2015 0 20.5 34.2 67

22/01/2015 1.8 24.0 32.0 -

23/01/2015 8.4 22.4 - -

24/01/2015 1 - 32.5 76

25/01/2015 10 21.2 - 72

26/01/2015 0 - 33.0 83

Wet Season During Survey

27/01/2015 55.6 20.0 31.6 69

28/01/2015 2.2 21.6 34.2 65

29/01/2015 0 19.2 35.5 71

30/01/2015 0 20.5 - -

31/01/2015 0 - 34.5 64

Dry Season 11/05/2015 0 11.5 28.0 67



PERIOD DATE RAINFALL (MM) TEMPERATURE (°C)

HUMIDITY MINIMUM MAXIMUM

Pre-survey 12/05/2015 0 13.0 27.3 65

13/05/2015 0 12.0 28.0 59

14/05/2015 0 12.5 24.0 44

15/05/2015 0 12.5 - 42

16/05/2015 0 - - 84

17/05/2015 1.4 - 25.0 73

Dry Season During Survey

18/05/2015 0 15.3 25.6 75

19/05/2015 0 17.5 26.5 73

20/05/2015 0 16.2 28.0 70

21/05/2015 0 16.0 29.0 67

22/05/2015 0 16.5 - 71

- Denotes where data was unavailable from the BoM at the time of writing

5.2 General Survey Sites

During the wet season survey period, three systematic survey sites were established where an array of fauna trapping and surveying techniques were employed. Two systematic survey areas were established on flatter terrain within the mining lease, and one was established on the hill in the eastern portion of the mining lease. The flatter areas of the site were comprised of eucalypt woodland communities on red soils. This hill area was comprised of similar vegetation, with substantial areas of granite and iron ore outcrops.

The dry season surveys followed a similar approach, with two systematic trapping sites in different sections of the flatter part of the site and one within the rocky hill habitat. Overall, the six systematic survey sites were positioned to provide an appropriate spatial distribution within the study area as well as encompassing the different habitat types. A description of the habitat present at each systematic survey site is provided in Table 3. The location of each systematic trapping site is depicted in the fauna survey map in Appendix A.



Table 3: Habitat descriptions for systematic fauna survey sites

SITE NUMBER AND LOCATION

HABITAT DESCRIPTION PHOTOGRAPH OF HABITAT

1. Eastern section of the mining lease

Remnant RE 9.11.13

Eucalyptus culleni and Corymbia erythrophloia woodland with a very sparse shrub layer and a ground layer dominated by native grass and forb species. Low to moderate levels of microhabitat features in the form of hollow-bearing trees, loose bark and coarse woody debris and litter.

2. Western section of the mining lease

Remnant RE 9.11.13

E. culleni and C.erythrophloia woodland with a ground layer dominated by native grass and forb species. Low to moderate levels of microhabitat features in the form of hollow-bearing trees, loose bark and coarse woody debris and litter.

3. Hill and rocky outcrop area of the mining lease

Remnant RE 9.12.7

E. culleni and C. erythrophloia open-woodland with a higher shrub cover and diversity than surrounding habitat. Located on steep slopes characterised by granite outcrops and boulders with iron ore material dispersed throughout. The is an abundance of rocky habitat and boulders throughout this areas as well as some hollow bearing trees, loose bark and coarse woody debris.

4. Foot-slope of the hill area near the ecotone of vegetation communities (between the landzone 11 and landzone 12 habitat)

Remnant RE 9.11.13

E. culleni and C. erythrophloia open-woodland. This site is located at the bottom of the steep slop at the ecotone between the flatter landzone 11 habitat and the steep, rocky landzone 12 habitat. Low to moderate levels of microhabitat features in the form of rocky outcrops, hollow-bearing trees, loose bark and coarse woody debris and litter.



SITE NUMBER AND LOCATION

HABITAT DESCRIPTION PHOTOGRAPH OF HABITAT

5. Hill and rocky outcrop area of the mining lease

Remnant RE 9.12.7

E. culleni and C. erythrophloia open-woodland with a higher shrub cover and diversity than surrounding habitat. Located on steep slopes characterised by granite outcrops and boulders with iron ore material dispersed throughout. The is an abundance of rocky habitat and boulders throughout this areas as well as some hollow bearing trees, loose bark and coarse woody debris.

6. Western section of the mining lease

Remnant RE 9.11.13

E. culleni and C. erythrophloia open-woodland with a very sparse shrub layer and a ground layer dominated by native grass and forb species. Low to moderate levels of microhabitat features in the form of hollow-bearing trees, loose bark and coarse woody debris and litter.

5.3 Survey Techniques

The survey techniques employed at each systematic survey site are detailed in Table 4. Some of these techniques were also used at other locations throughout the study area, and these are discussed in the following sections.

Table 4: Fauna survey methods employed at systematic survey sites

SURVEY METHOD DESCRIPTION

Elliott traps 20 type A Elliott style traps were placed on the ground approximately 5-10m apart in a straight line for four nights at each of the trapping sites. All traps were baited with a mixture of rolled oats, peanut butter and honey.



SURVEY METHOD DESCRIPTION

Pitfall and Funnel traps

Drift fence lines incorporating pitfall and funnel traps were established for four nights at each of the systematic survey sites in the flatter parts of the site (sites 1,2, 4 and 6). At each of these sites, three pitfall traps (20 litre buckets) were buried flush with the ground surface with the drift fence intersecting the centre of each bucket. Six funnel traps were located along the drift fencing at each site. A shade cloth covering each funnel trap was deployed to protect trapped species from exposure. No drift fence or pitfall-buckets were deployed at sites 3 and 5 as the rocky habitat prohibited the use of this equipment. However, funnel traps were deployed in areas that utilised the existing habitat features to direct fauna toward the traps. The funnel trap locations for sites 3 and 5 are depicted in the fauna trapping locations map in Appendix A. All other funnel traps were associated with the pitfall arrays shown on the map.

Cage traps Three to four cage traps were placed at each site and baited with a mixture of rolled oats and a variety of different meats.

Anabat detectors An Anabat SD2 detector was deployed for at least one night near each of the main trapping sites, and was also placed opportunistically in likely flyway zones at other targeted fauna surveys sites.

Active diurnal searches

Active diurnal searches were undertaken within each of the sites. This technique involved intensive investigation of ground layer habitat features (such as under logs, rocks and leaf litter), low vegetation (under bark and tree stumps) for cryptic fauna, particularly reptiles. Searches were focussed during the parts of the day when reptile activity was likely to be at its peak.

Diurnal bird surveys

Birds were surveyed within each vegetation community for a total of at least one hour at multiple periods throughout the day, but with a particular focus during peak activity in the morning. Incidental observations made whilst conducting other survey techniques were also recorded. Birds were identified from either direct observation or by their calls.

Nocturnal surveys

High-powered spotlights were used to survey nocturnal mammals (flying, arboreal and terrestrial), birds (active nocturnal species, and roosting diurnal species), reptiles and frogs in each of the main trapping sites, as well as other locations throughout the study area.

5.4 Additional Survey Areas and Techniques

During the fauna survey period the Anabat detector, active diurnal search, diurnal bird survey and nocturnal survey techniques were all performed at additional locations outside the systematic survey sites. The locations are depicted in the Fauna Trapping Location map in Appendix A.

In addition to the techniques outlined previously, camera traps (motion-sensing infrared cameras) were utilised at multiple locations within the study area to target fauna that may be too large or ‘shy’ to be detected by other trapping techniques, or utilising areas outside of the main trapping sites. Camera traps were baited with the rolled oat mixture, fruit, nuts and a variety of meats.



Targeted nocturnal searches for arboreal mammals, quolls and nocturnal predatory birds were performed in areas considered higher quality habitat for such species. These areas included the rocky hill habitat.

Spotlighting surveys were also conducted while driving slowly over multiple parts of the study site and local area, where it was safe to do so.

Fauna species were continually observed throughout the survey period and records were frequently obtained outside of the systematic methodology of the survey. Any observations, tracks, scats or other signs of fauna were recorded with reference to the location and habitat within the study.

5.5 Targeted Techniques

Targeted techniques were used to increase the likelihood of detection for the Northern Quoll (Dasyurus hallucatus), including use of baited cage traps with a variety of meats, and placement of meat-based bait adjacent to camera traps. Call play-back techniques were used during nocturnal surveys to target the Northern Masked Owl (Tyto novaehollandiae kimberli), as this is known to be an effective method for increasing the likelihood of detecting this species. The Greater Large-eared Horseshoe Bat (Rhinolophus philippinensis) was considered to have at least some potential to occur within the study area, based on the desktop results (see below). This species has a distinct echolocation call, so would have a high probability of detection using bat detectors. Anabat detectors were deployed at the systematic sampling sites, as well as a range of additional sites within the study area to increase the likelihood of detection for this species.

5.6 Survey Effort

The survey effort employed for each of the aforementioned techniques is outlined in Table 5, showing the effort employed at each systematic survey site and the total survey effort over the period (including effort outside the systematic surveys).

Table 5: Fauna survey effort for each technique

METHOD EFFORT PER SITE – WET SEASON

EFFORT PER SITE – DRY SEASON

TOTAL SURVEY EFFORT

Pitfall trapping 12 trap nights1 (array of three pits for four nights)

12 trap nights1 48 trap nights

Funnel trapping 24 trap nights (array of six funnels for four nights)

24 trap nights

72 trap nights



METHOD EFFORT PER SITE – WET SEASON

EFFORT PER SITE – DRY SEASON

TOTAL SURVEY EFFORT

Diurnal active search

Three person hours (60 minute search x three people)

Two person hours (60 minute search x two people)

Approx. 27 person hours (Six x systematic surveys sites plus 12 x additional one person hour survey sites)

Elliott trapping 80 trap nights (array of 20 traps for four nights)

80 trap nights (array of 20 traps for four nights)

480 trap nights

Cage trapping 12 - 16 trap nights (array of three - four cages for four nights)

12 - 16 trap nights (array of three - four cages for four nights)

84 trap nights

Diurnal bird survey Three person hours (Six x 10 minute surveys x three people)

Two person hours (Six x 10 minute surveys x two people)

Approx. 27 person hours (Six x systematic surveys sites plus 12 x additional one person hour survey sites)

Camera Trapping Four trap nights (One camera x four nights)

Four trap nights (One camera x four nights)

24 trap nights (Three cameras x eight nights)

Spotlight/ nocturnal searches

Five person hours Three person hours 24 person hours

Echolocation call detection

One detector night (One detector for One night)

One detector night (One detector for one night)

Eight detector nights (One detectors for eight nights)

1Pitfall traps were established at Sites 1, 2, 4 and 6 only.

Desktop Analysis Results 18


Desktop Analysis Results 1. Database Searches The EPBC Protected Matters Report (DoE 2014) and Wildlife Online Database extract (EHP 2014b) are included in Appendix B and Appendix C of this document respectively. The Herbrecs search returned 223 flora species records within the search area, including two species currently listed as near threatened under the NC Act (Lepturus xerophilus and Panicum chillagoanum). The results of all desktop searches for determining conservation significant flora and fauna species of relevance to the proposed development are discussed in the following sections of this report.

1.1 Threatened Ecological Communities

No threatened ecological communities were identified in the EPBC Protected Matters Report as potentially occurring within the study area or within a 10km radius.

1.2 Threatened Flora Species

A total of nine near threatened or threatened flora species were returned in the database searches. The EPBC Protected Matters Report predicted four threatened plant species to potentially occur within a 10km radius of a central point within the study area (DoE 2014, see Appendix B). The Queensland Government Wildlife Online extract shows records of three near threatened or threatened plant species within a 10km radius of a central point within the study area (EHP 2014b, see Appendix C). The Herbrecs search returned records of two flora species currently listed as near threatened under the NC Act. The results of these searches have been combined in Table to show all near threatened and threatened flora species recorded from the database searches and their status under State and Commonwealth legislation.

Records of Peripleura sericea and Rhamphicarpa australiensis were listed in the Wildlife Online extract. Within the extract, both species were identified as near-threatened species (Appendix C). However, neither of these species is currently listed as near threatened or threatened under the NC Act. As of December 2014, the status of both species under the NC Act was changed to least concern. Consequently, these species have been identified as least concern in the table below, and are not discussed further in this report as species of conservation significance (Table 6).

A single record of Rhamphicarpa australiensis from the northern side of the Burke Developmental Road is responsible for the study area falling within a ‘high risk area’ on the protected plants flora survey trigger map. Given the status of this species has been changed to least concern, the study area no longer occurs in a high risk area (despite a lack of updates to the mapping). Nonetheless, as described in the Flora Survey Methodology section of this report, the survey techniques and effort relevant to a high risk area, as prescribed in the Flora Survey Guidelines – Protected Plants (EHP 2014a), were employed across both survey seasons.



Three other species identified in the desktop searches were considered to have at lease some potential to occur within the study area or the immediate surrounds. The vegetation surveys included targeted searches for these species using the techniques outlined previously in the Methodology section of this report.

1.3 Threatened Fauna Species

A total of 13 fauna near threatened and threatened fauna species were returned from the database searches within a 10km radius of a central point in the study area. These included 11 from the EPBC Protected Matters Search Tool (DoE 2014, see Appendix B), and two from the Wildlife Online search (EHP 2014b, see Appendix C). The results of these searches have been combined in Table 7, which also provides an interpretation on the likelihood that each of these species would occur within the study area. This has been determined by consulting a variety of different resources to assess a number of factors for each of these species, including species records, known distributions, climatic requirements, preferred habitat and resource requirements for different stages of their life cycle (e.g. breeding). Those species that are considered unlikely to occur within the study area have been excluded from further discussion in this report. Appendix D provides details on why those species are considered unlikely to occur within the study area.

All species that are considered to have the possibility (or are likely) to occur within the study area, based on the desktop assessment, are discussed in further detail in the Impact Assessment section of this report, including discussion of potential impacts to these species and measures to avoid or reduce those impacts.

1.4 Migratory Species

The EPBC Protected Matters Search Tool predicted ten migratory species to potentially occur within 10km of the study area, including the Rainbow Bee-eater (Merops ornatus) for which one record within a 10km radius was identified in the Wildlife Online search. The Wildlife Online search also identified two records of the Rufous Fantail (Rhipidura rufifrons), which is also listed as migratory under the EPBC Act. The results of these searches are included in Table 8 along with interpretation on the likelihood that each of these species would occur within the study area based on species records, known distributions, climatic requirements, preferred habitat and resource requirements for different stages of their life cycle (e.g. breeding). Those species that are considered unlikely to occur within the study area have been excluded from further discussion in this report. Appendix D provides details on why those species are considered unlikely to occur within the study area.



Table 6: Near threatened and threatened flora species identified from database searches

STATUS1

FAMILY SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME SOURCE2 RECORDS LIKELIHOOD OF OCCURRENCE3

NCA EPBC

LC* - Asterceae Peripleura sericea - WO 1 NA (due to status)

V V Cycadaceae Cycas platyphylla Cycad PM 0 Unlikely

V V Combretaceae Macropteranthes montana - PM 0 Possible

V V Euphorbiaceae Euphorbia carissoides - PM 0 Possible

E E Fabaceae Cajanus mareebensis - PM 0 Unlikely

V V Orchidaceae Dendrobium biggibbum Cooktown Orchid PM 0 Unlikely

LC* - Orobanchaceae Rhamphicarpa australiensis - WO 2 NA (due to status)

NT - Poaceae Lepturus xerophilus - HR 1 Unlikely

NT - Poaceae Panicum chillagoanum - HR 1 Unlikely

E - Solanaceae Solanum angustum - WO 1 Likely

1. Status: LC = Least Concern, NT = Near Threatened, V = Vulnerable, E = Endangered, M = Migratory, Ma = Marine 2. WO = Wildlife Online Database, PM = EPBC Protected Matters Report, HR = Herbrecs Database 3. NA = Not Assessed * Status changed from near threatened to least concern due to better knowledge of populations, the species being considered widespread across north Queensland and no known major threatening processes.



Table 7: Near threatened and threatened fauna species identified from database searches

STATUS1

FAMILY SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME SOURCE2 WO RECORDS LIKELIHOOD OF OCCURRENCE NCA EPBC

BIRDS

E V Accipitridae Erythrotriorchis radiatus Red Goshawk PM 0 Possible

E E Estrildidae Erythrura gouldiae Gouldian Finch PM 0 Unlikely

V E, M Rostratulidae Rostratula australis Australian Painted Snipe PM 0 Unlikely

V V Tytonidae Tyto novaehollandiae kimberli Masked Owl PM 0 Possible

FROGS

E E Hylidae Litoria rheocola Common Mistfrog PM 0 Unlikely

MAMMALS

LC E Dasyuridae Dasyurus hallucatus Northern Quoll PM 0 Possible

E E Hipposideridae Hipposideros semoni Semon’s Leaf-nosed Bat PM 0 Unlikely

SLC V Phascolarctidae Phascolarctos cinereus Koala PM 0 Possible

LC V Pteropodidae Pteropus conspicillatus Spectacled Flying-fox PM 0 Unlikely

E E Rhinolophidae Rhinolophus philippinensis Greater Large-eared Horseshoe Bat PM 0 Possible

SHARKS

- V Pristidae Pristis pristis Largetooth Sawfish PM 0 Unlikely

REPTILES

NT - Scincidae Lerista storri - WO 2 Possible

NT - Scincidae Lygisaurus rococo Chillagoe Litter-skink WO 1 Possible

1. Status: LC = Least Concern, NT = Near Threatened, V = Vulnerable, E = Endangered, M = Migratory 2. WO = Wildlife Online Database, PM = EPBC Protected Matters Report



Table 8: EPBC Act listed migratory species from the Protected Matters Search Tool results

STATUS1

FAMILY SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME SOURCE2 WO RECORDS

LIKELIHOOD OF OCCURRENCE NCA EPBC

BIRDS

SLC M Accipitridae Haliaeetus leucogaster White-bellied Sea-Eagle PM 0 Possible

SLC M Apodidae Apus pacificus Fork-tailed Swift PM 0 Possible

SLC M Ardeidae Ardea alba Great Egret PM 0 Likely

SLC M Ardeidae Ardea ibis Cattle Egret PM 0 Likely

SLC M Dicruridae Rhipidura rufifrons Rufous Fantail WO 2 Possible

SLC M Gruidae Grus antigone Sarus Crane PM 0 Unlikely

SLC M Meropidae Merops ornatus Rainbow Bee-eater PM, WO 1 Likely

SLC M Monarchidae Monarcha melanopsis Black-faced Monarch PM 0 Unlikely

SLC M Monarchidae Myiagra cyanoleuca Satin Flycatcher PM 0 Unlikely

V E, M Rostratulidae Rostratula benghalensis Painted Snipe PM 0 Unlikely

SLC M Scolopacidae Gallinago hardwickii Latham’s Snipe PM 0 Unlikely

1. Status: SLC = Special Least Concern, NT = Near Threatened, V = Vulnerable, E = Endangered, M = Migratory, Ma = Marine 2. WO = Wildlife Online Database, PM = EPBC Protected Matters Report



2. Regional Ecosystem Mapping The RE mapping for the study area shows that the entire area is comprised of remnant vegetation (DNRM 2015). Table 9 provides a summary of all the REs mapped throughout the study area.

Table 9: Regional ecosystem status and description for mapped remnant vegetation within study area

RE CODE VMA STATUS BIODIVERSITY STATUS

REGIONAL ECOSYSTEM DATABASE SHORT DESCRIPTION

9.11.13 Least Concern No Concern at Present

Eucalyptus culleni and Corymbia hylandii or C. erythrophloia open-woodland on undulating plains and rises.

9.11.32 Of concern Of Concern Eucalyptus leptophleba and/or Corymbia terminalis +/- C. dallachiana woodland on aprons surrounding limestone outcrops.


Eucalyptus cullenii +/- Corymbia leichhardtii +/- C. erythrophloia woodland on igneous rocks


Eucalyptus melanophloia and/or E. shirleyi +/- Corymbia erythrophloia low open woodland on igneous rocks

3. Geology Mapping Geology mapping for the region was obtained from the Department of Natural Resources and Mines (Map Sheet SE 55-5). Four geology units are shown within close proximity to the study area, as shown in Table 10. The relevant landzones as defined in Wilson and Taylor (2012) are also shown.

Table 10: Geology mapping units within the study area

MAP CODE LITHOLOGY ROCK TYPE LANDZONE

Cgc23

Grey to cream, fine to medium-grained, even grained to locally porphyritic, biotite and biotite-hornblende granite, granodiorite and diorite

Igneous 12

TQr Sand, silt, mud gravel: older, unconsolidated to semi-consolidated residual and colluvial deposits

Colluvium 11



MAP CODE LITHOLOGY ROCK TYPE LANDZONE

SDcl

White to bluish-grey, rarely pink, thin-bedded to massive, fossiliferous limestone and limestone breccia; extensively recrystallised adjacent to granitic intrusions to marble and skarn rocks; minor chert and ironstone

Mixed, mostly igneous for this site

12

SDcc

Grey, pale brown black or green, thin-bedded to massive radiolarian chert; finely laminated spicular chert; minor interbedded mudstone and siltstone

Mixed, mostly igneous for this site

12

Flora Survey Results 25


Flora Survey Results 1. Vegetation Communities

1.1 EPBC Act Threatened Ecological Communities

No threatened ecological communities listed under the EPBC Act were identified within the study area.

1.2 Vegetation Management Act 1999 Regional Ecosystems

Ground-truthing of the remnant vegetation within the study area revealed that there are two remnant REs present, RE 9.11.13 and RE 9.12.7a.

The canopy composition throughout the study area was generally homogeneous, and was comprised of open eucalypt woodland. Differences in the REs were mostly due to variation in geology across the mapped areas. RE 9.11.13 is present in the western part of the study area on red podosols on flat to undulating terrain. RE 9.12.7a occurs in the eastern part of the study area on rocky granite slopes and is also associated with the iron/magnetite resource located within a skarn deposit which is formed at the contact zones between intrusions of granite and carbonate sedimentary rocks.

The structural form of both communities is open woodland to woodland with a canopy dominated by Cullen’s Ironbark (Eucalyptus cullenii), Variable-barked Bloodwood (Corymbia erythrophloia), and Cooktown Ironwood (Erythrophleum chlorostachys). Rough-leaved Carbeen (Corymbia confertifolia) and Dallachy’s Gum (Corymbia dallachiana) were also occasionally present as canopy species. An open sub-canopy layer is often present and is typically dominated by species such as Cooktown Ironwood, Terminalia spp. (particularly Terminalia aridicola subsp. chillagoensis), Soapbush (Alphitonia pommaderroides), Slender-flowered Wattle (Acacia longispicata), Quinine Berry (Petalostigma pubescens), Bushman’s Pegs (Grevillea glauca) and in rocky areas Kapok Tree (Cochlospermum gregorii) and Kurrajong (Brachychiton chillagoensis).

The shrub layer varies over the study area from virtually absent to sparse, with a greater biomass generally present in rocky areas. Common shrub species include canopy and sub-canopy species, as well as Corkwood Wattle (Vachellia bidwillii), Yellowberry Bush (Denhamia cunninghamii), Coffee Bush (Breynia oblongifolia), Indigofera spp., and in rocky areas Native Gardenia (Larsenaikia ochreata), Tracey’s Puzzle (Margaritaria dubium-traceyi), Bridelia (Bridelia tomentosa), Psychotria daphnoides var. angustifolia, Broad-leaved Native Cherry (Exocarpos latifolius) and Currant Bush (Carissa ovata).

Vines such as Small-leaf Grape (Clematicissus opaca), Native Grape (Ampelocissus acetosa) and Snake Vine (Tinospora smilacina) occur frequently in the rocky areas in the eastern part of the study area.



The ground cover is dominated by native grasses such as Black Spear Grass (Heteropogon contortus), Firegrass (Schizachyrium fragile), Wiregrass (Aristida spp.), Kangaroo Grass (Themeda triandra), Giant Spear Grass (Heteropogon triticeus), Lindley Nineawn (Enneapogon lindleyanus), Cockatoo Grass (Alloteropsis semialata) and Northern Canegrass (Mnesithea rottboelloides). Common ground cover species also included Spermacoce brachystema, Bipinnate Beggars Ticks (*Bidens bipinnata), Woolly Glycine (Glycine tomentella), Spade Flower (Hybanthus enneaspermus), Pink Tongues (Rostellularia adscendens), Uraria lagopodioides, Love Flower (Pseuderanthemum variabile) and Emu Berry (Grewia retusifolia).

The floristic composition and structure of these communities is described in Table . The ground-truthed mapping of remnant vegetation within the study area is presented in Appendix A.

1.3 Non-remnant Vegetation

Apart from the road from the Burke Development Road to the Almaden Aerodrome that dissects the study area, there is little disturbance to the remnant vegetation in the study area. However, there is a track cleared from the aerodrome road to the top of the hill on the eastern side of the study area. There are also areas on the hill where vegetation has been cleared and there is evidence of some minor earthworks most likely a result of previous historical exploration activities. These areas are generally devoid of canopy trees and contain regrowth of surrounding canopy and shrub species. The ground layer in these areas is frequently dominated by exotic species, particularly Hyptis (Hyptis suaveolens) and Bipinnate Beggars Ticks (Bidens bipinnata), which is likely a result of the soil disturbance in these areas. Consequently, these disturbed areas on the hill have been excluded from the RE mapping and are shown as non-remnant on the Ground-truthed Regional Ecosystem Map (Appendix A).

2. Flora Species A total of 126 flora species from 49 families were recorded within the study area. The majority of flora species observed throughout the study area are common and widespread throughout the region in eucalypt woodland communities. The floristic composition is generally consistent throughout the study area, with some variation due to changes in geology and topography. There is evidence of disturbance from past exploration activities, exotic species invasion and cattle grazing throughout. A full list of flora identified during the flora surveys is included in Appendix E. The flora list in Appendix E includes details of the RE in which each species was observed.

2.1 Threatened Flora Species

No threatened or near threatened flora species (as listed under the EPBC Act or NC Act) were identified during the vegetation surveys, despite targeted surveys in potentially suitable habitat areas. The potential for impacts to threatened and near threatened flora species is discussed further in the Impact Assessment section of this report.



2.2 Pest Species

No declared pest plant species under the LP Act were observed within the study area.

As discussed previously, Hyptis and Bipinnate Beggars Ticks are abundant in the ground layer in disturbed areas on the hill. These exotic pest species have recolonised these areas after disturbance. Care should be taken to minimise the spread of exotic pest species during any further disturbance in this area.



Table 11: Floristic composition and structure of Regional Ecosystems within the study area

DESCRIPTION AND STATUS FLORISTIC COMPOSITION AND STRUCTURE REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPH

RE 9.11.13

Eucalyptus culleni open-woodland with Erythrophleum chlorostachys and Corymbia erythrophloia sub-dominat and occasionaly co-dominant in the canopy. Corymbia dallachiana and Corymbia confertifolia are occasionally sub-dominant in the canopy. Sub-canopy and shrub layers are generally comprised of canopy species as wells as species such as Petalostigma pubescens, Terminalia aridicola subsp. chillagoensis, Alphitonia pomaderroides, Denhamia cunninghamii, Grevillea glauca and Acacia longispicata. Occurs on red podosols on flat to undulating terrain in the western portion of the mining lease. VMA Status: Least Concern Biodiversity Status:

No concern at present

T1: Sparse 12 – 16m Eucaytpus. culleni (CD-D), Erythrophleum chlorostachys (CD-SD), Corymbia erythrophloia (CD-SD), Brachychiton diversifolia (A), Corymbia. dallachiana (A), Corymbia confertifolia (A), Corymbia polycarpa (A), T2: Very Sparse 4 – 6m Eucalyptus culleni (CD), Petalostigma pubescens (CD), Erythrophleum chlorostachys (CD), Terminalia aridicola subsp. chillagoensis (SD), Grevillea glauca (A-SD) and Acacia longispicata (A-SD), Corymbia erythrophloia (A) and Corymbia confertifolia (A), T3: Very Sparse 2 – 3m

Eucalyptus culleni (CD), Petalostigma pubescens (CD), Alphitonia pomaderroides (CD), Denhamia cunninghamii (SD), Melaleuca nervosa (A), Terminalia aridicola subsp. chillagoensis (A) S: Very sparse to sparse 0.5 – 2m Eucalyptus culleni (CD), Erythrophleum chlorostachys (CD), Alphitonia pomaderroides (CD), Breynia oblongifolia (A), Grewia retusifolia (A), Indigofera colutea (A), Petalostigma pubescens (A), Planchonia careya (A), Vachellia bidwillii (A) G: Heteropogon contortus, Schizachyrium fragile, Aristida calycina, Themeda triandra, Heteropogon triticeus, Enneapogon lindleyanus, Alloteropsis semialata and Mnesithea rottboelloides. Spermacoce brachystema, *Bidens bipinnata, Glycine tomentella, Hybanthus enneaspermus, Rostellularia adscendens, Uraria lagopodioides, Pseuderanthemum variabile, Grewia retusifolia, Phyllanthus virgatus, *Sida spinosa, and *Chamaecrista rotundifolia



DESCRIPTION AND STATUS FLORISTIC COMPOSITION AND STRUCTURE REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPH

RE9.12.7a

Woodland to open woodland of Eucalyptus cullenii, Corymbia erythrophloia and Erythrophleum chlorostachys. Sparse to mid-dense low-tree and/or shrub layer of species such as Erythrina vespertilio, Brachychiton chillagoensis, Canarium australianum, Terminalia aridicola subsp. chillagoensis, Cochlospermum gregorii, Erythrophleum. chlorostachys, and Exocarpus latifolius, Occurs in the eastern part of the study area on rocky granite slopes and is also associated with the iron/magnetite resource located within a skarn deposit which is formed at the contact zones between intrusions of granite and carbonate sedimentary rocks. VMA Status: Least Concern Biodiversity Status:

No Concern at Present

T1: Sparse to Mid-dense 9 – 13m Eucalyptus culleni (CD-D), Erythrophleum chlorostachys (CD-D), Corymbia erythrophloia (SD), Terminalia aridicola subsp. chillagoensis (A), Erythrina vespertilio (A) T2: Sparse 5 – 9m Canarium australianum (D), Terminalia aridicola subsp. chillagoensis (SD), Cochlospermum gregorii (SD) T3: Sparse to mid-dense 3m Alphitonia pomaderroides (CD), Cochlospermum gregorii CD), Wrightia saligna (CD), Brachychiton chillagoensis (CD), Larsenaikia ochreata (CD), (A), Canarium australianum (A), E. chlorostachys (A), S: Very Sparse 1 – 1.5m Ampelocissus acetosa (CD), Brachychiton chillagoensis (A), Larsenaikia ochreata (CD), Breynia oblongifolia (A), Carissa ovata (A), Erythrophleum chlorostachys (A), Exocarpus latifolius (A), Grewia retusifolia (A), Indigofera pratensis (A), Terminalia aridicola subsp. chillagoensis (A) G: Ampelocissus acetosa, *Bidens bipinnata, *Hyptis suaveolens, Heteropogon contortus, Themeda triandra, Heteropogon triticeus, Alloteropsis semialata, Mnesithea rottboelloides. Glycine tomentella and Clematicissus opaca

Fauna Survey Results 30


Fauna Survey Results 1. Fauna Habitat

1.1 Vegetation

The vegetation throughout the study area is primarily eucalypt woodland dominated by Cullen’s Ironbark with Cooktown Ironwood also common in the canopy layer. In general, there is no evidence of disturbance to the canopy layer throughout the remnant areas. The density of the sub-canopy and shrub layers varies over the site from virtually absent to mid-dense. The ground layer is generally dense and dominated by native grasses.

The majority of the study area consists of remnant vegetation, providing some habitat features for fauna species in the form of tree hollows, coarse woody debris, and nesting sites. The presence of highly mobile fauna species is likely to be influenced by seasonal characteristics such as rainfall, with these species (such as birds and bats) foraging when suitable trees are flowering or fruiting.

1.2 Habitat Features

Habitat features vary across the study area, and are largely influenced by geology and topography. Overall, habitat values for most faunal groups are moderate in the majority of the study area and high around the rocky slopes.

There is a low to moderate number of hollow-bearing trees within the study area, and these appear to be generally limited by the small size of mature trees. Consequently other microhabitat features such as fallen logs and branches generated by the presence of large trees are also limited. However, the quantity of these features is generally typical of open eucalypt woodland landscapes in the region.

The hill slopes in the eastern part of the study area contain numerous large boulders and rocky outcrops that provide habitat for variety of reptile and mammal species.

1.3 Watercourse and Wetland Habitat

No mapped watercourses or drainage features exist within the mining lease. Some ephemeral watercourses exist in the surrounds of the mining lease that could provide seasonal habitat for amphibians. The seasonal availability of water would also attract other species to these areas, at least temporarily. Habitat within these watercourses is limited, with little or no riparian vegetation associated with the features in close proximity to the mining lease.

There are no referable wetlands mapped in the vicinity of the study area and no significant areas of permanent water or wetland habitat.



1.4 Connectivity

Almost the entire study area and surrounding landscape is comprised of remnant vegetation, and consequently there are few, if any, factors restricting connectivity. There are existing areas of disturbance from historical access tracks. However, the scale of these disturbances compared to the vast areas of remnant vegetation is such that the existing disturbance is unlikely to have significantly impacted connectivity and landscape fragmentation in the area. The study area itself does not form a critical link between any habitat areas, and therefore the connectivity value of the study area is low.

1.5 Disturbance

As discussed previously, the main disturbance to remnant vegetation in the study area is the access road through the middle of the study area, which meets the Almaden Aerodrome (see RE mapping in Appendix A) and a track from the Aerodrome road to the top of Mt Lucy. Pest plant species are more prevalent in these disturbed areas on the hill, but exotic pest plants such as Beggars Ticks are present in the ground layer throughout the study area.

Cattle grazing occurs throughout the study area, which can have impacts on the species composition and structure of the ground and shrub layers and increase the potential for spread of exotic plant species.

2. Fauna Species An array of fauna was identified within the study area using a variety of different observation and trapping techniques. A combined list of all species identified during the two survey periods is included in Appendix F. The following sections provide a brief discussion of the species observed for each taxonomic group. Potential impacts to fauna are discussed in the latter sections of this report, with a focus on conservation significant species.

2.1 Mammals

Thirteen species of terrestrial or arboreal mammals were observed within the study area over the two survey periods, including five introduced species. Several Macropod species and Brushtail Possums were commonly observed throughout all parts of the study area. Mareeba Rock Wallabies (Petrogale mareeba) and Common Rock Rats were observed at multiple locations in the rocky habitat on the hill. This rocky habitat clearly provides suitable shelter and foraging habitat for these species.

Bats showed the greatest diversity of all mammal groups observed, with 12 species positively identified to species level and two species positively identified to genus from the call data collected. The call data indicates as many as 17 species occur within the study area. The Microbat Call Interpretation Reports from the Anabat and data collected during the two fauna survey periods is included in Appendix G.



A Short-beaked Echidna (Tachyglossus aculeatus) was observed on two occasions during the dry season survey period. On both occasions it was recorded on the eastern slope of the hill in granite boulder habitat. It is possible that the two observations represent the same individual animal. This species is classed as a ‘special least concern animal’ in the Queensland Environmental Offsets Regulation 2014 and habitat for this species is a matter of state environmental significance (MSES). Potential impacts on this species and species habitat are discussed in the Impact Assessment section of this report.

No evidence of any mammals listed as threatened of near threatened was observed within the study area during either of the fauna survey periods.

2.2 Reptiles

Twenty-four species of reptiles from seven families were observed within the study area (see Appendix F). The majority of reptile species recorded are common and widespread throughout the region and in many cases distributed over a large expanse of coastal and sub-coastal Queensland.

The rocky hill slopes in the eastern part of the study area in particular provide habitat for a diverse array of skink and gecko species. However, a significant portion of the total reptile species recorded for the study area was from within the woodland areas in the surrounding flat terrain.

No evidence of any reptiles listed as near threatened or threatened was observed within the study area.

2.3 Amphibians

The only amphibian species recorded within the study area was the introduced pest species, the Cane Toad (Rhinella marina). No native amphibian species were recorded within the study area during either of the fauna survey periods. There is a lack of suitable habitat within the study area for many amphibian species, due to a lack of aquatic habitat and breeding sites. It is likely that some amphibian species would occur within the study area from time to time, but the overall value of the study area for any such species is low.

There are no threatened amphibian species known from the local area surrounding the study area.

2.4 Birds

A total of 44 species of birds were observed within the study area over the two survey periods. This species assemblage includes a number of sedentary, nomadic, and migratory species. The majority of species observed are common in eucalypt woodland habitat throughout the region. A single Rainbow Bee-eater (Merops ornatus) was observed within the study area near the southwest boundary. The Rainbow Bee-eater is listed as migratory under the EPBC Act. This species occurs in a variety of habitats over a broad distribution comprising much of mainland



Australia. The likelihood of impacts to this species and other migratory species listed under the EPBC Act are discussed in the Impact Assessment section of this report.

2.5 Pest Species

Evidence or direct observation of five pest species was detected during the fauna surveys, all of which commonly occur in disturbed habitats throughout Queensland. The following species were observed within the study area:

- cattle (*Bos taurus) - European Rabbit (*Oryctolagus cuniculus) - dog (*Canus lupus) - feral pig (*Sus scrofa) - cat (*Felis catus) - cane toad (*Rhinella marina).

The European Rabbit, feral pig, dog and cat are all classified as class 2 declared pest animals in Queensland.

Impact Assessment 34


Impact Assessment 1. Matters of State Environmental Significance

1.1 Connectivity

There are generally no restrictions to connectivity of the habitats in the local and broader area, with large continuous areas of eucalypt woodland and limited disturbance that would affect connectivity between habitats. Existing access tracks dissect areas of remnant vegetation within the study area and nearby areas, but the given the open nature of the surrounding habitat, it is unlikely that these corridors have a significant impact on the value of connectivity.

Movement of fauna and other factors affecting biodiversity (such as genetic flow) in the area are unlikely to be any further impacted by the small loss of habitat associated with the proposed project. The site itself does not have significant connectivity value, and does not form an important link between habitat areas. It is unlikely the function of connectivity will be affected significantly at any scale.

1.2 Essential Habitat

No essential habitat is mapped within the project area or the immediate surrounds.

1.3 Vegetation Communities

All remnant vegetation communities observed within the study area have a least concern VMA status and a ‘no concern at present’ biodiversity status. These communities are common in the local area and throughout the region. Vegetation assessments included a 100m buffer surrounding the mining lease to ensure that all communities within close proximity to the proposed project were considered. No REs with a higher conservation status were present within this buffer area.

The RE code and status of the communities observed does not equate to an ESA or MSES, and therefore no environmental offsets are required under the QEOP for disturbance to these communities.

1.4 Watercourse Habitat and Riparian Vegetation

No significant watercourses or drainage features exist within the mining lease area. There are minor drainage features in the surrounding landscape, including at the northwest edge of the mining lease. None of these features retain water in such a way that they would provide significant aquatic habitat. These drainage features would likely only flow for very short periods of time immediately after rainfall events. The drainage features do not support riparian



vegetation communities and in general they do not contain any significant additional biodiversity to the surrounding landscape. The vegetation in these drainage areas is a continuation of the non-riparian eucalypt woodland communities of the surrounding area. None of the drainage features in close proximity to the mining lease are shown on a Vegetation Management Watercourse Map, and therefore they do not represent a MSES under the Queensland environmental offsets framework.

1.5 Wetlands

There are no wetland areas as shown on the Queensland referrable wetland mapping or the vegetation management wetland mapping sources. The study area does not contain any features that support wetland values and there are no such features known in the local area. It is unlikely that there would be any significant impact to any wetland values as a result of the proposed development.

2. Pest Species No declared pest plant species under the LP Act were observed within the study area. Four Class 2 declared pest animal species were observed in the study area. The construction and operation of the proposed project is not expected to significantly modify the landscape in any way that would increase the occurrence of pest animal species or the threat they represent to local biodiversity values.

3. Conservation Significant Flora Species

3.1 Macropteranthes montana

Macropteranthes montana is listed as vulnerable under the EPBC Act and the NC Act. Little information is known about this species, but records show that it has been collected from areas of shallow soil in low woodland and vine thicket (Pedley 1990) and can be locally common in some areas (BRI Collection Records). This species is known only from a small area south of Cape York Peninsula. Localities include Mount Mulligan, Chillagoe, Dimbulah, Petford, Irvinebank, Elizabeth Creek Gorge, Bulleringa National Park and southwest as far as the northern Newcastle Range (BRI Collection Records).

During the desktop assessment, this species was identified as having some potential to occur within the study area due to the presence of local records and suitable habitat. However, this species was not observed in the study area despite considerable survey effort over multiple seasons. This is a conspicuous species, and given that the study area was comprehensively surveyed, it is considered unlikely this species is present within the study area. It is therefore unlikely that there will be any significant impact to this species from the proposed development of the site.



3.2 Euphorbia carissoides

Euphorbia carissoides is listed as vulnerable under the EPBC Act and the NC Act. Euphorbia carissoides is restricted to northeast Queensland, where it has been collected from near Georgetown and east to Stannary Hills, with a disjunct occurrence near Hopevale. This species has been recorded approximately 25km from the study among rocky outcrops and hillsides in shrubland and eucalypt low open woodland (Queensland Herbarium record data).

The desktop assessment for this study identified this species could possible occur within the study area due to the presence of suitable habitat and multiple records within 25km. However, this species was not detected during the flora surveys despite comprehensive coverage of the study area involving targeted effort for this species over multiple seasons. It is therefore unlikely there will be any significant impacts to this species as a result of the proposed development.

3.3 Solanum angustum

Solanum angustum is listed as endangered under the NC Act. This species has been recorded at two locations less than five kilometres to the east of the study area. At one of those nearby locations, the species was recorded in eucalypt woodland on rocky granite hills. The desktop assessment identified this species was likely to occur due to the presence of suitable habitat and the presence of records in the vicinity of the study area. However, this species was not detected during field surveys in the study area despite targeted surveys over multiple seasons. It is therefore unlikely this species would be significantly impacted by the proposed development of the study area.

It is noteworthy an uncommon species of the same genus, Solanum multiglochidiatum, was detected during the wet season survey. This species was formerly listed as rare under the NC Act, but the current status of this species is least concern. It is now known to be relatively widespread in northern Australia and is therefore not considered a conservation significant species.

4. Conservation Significant Fauna Species

4.1 Red Goshawk

The Red Goshawk (Erythrotriorchis radiatus) is listed as endangered under the EPBC Act and the NC Act. This species is very sparsely distributed from the western Kimberly area in Western Australia to northeastern New South Wales (Marchant and Higgins 1993). It typically occurs in coastal and subcoastal areas in wooded and forested lands of tropical and warm-temperate Australia (Marchant and Higgins 1993). It nests in large trees, typically less than one kilometre from a permanent water source (Aumann and Baker-Gabb 1991).

There are no records of the Red Goshawk in the local area. The nearest record on the Atlas of Living Australia and The Atlas of Australian Birds is southwest of Petford, approximately 30km from the survey site. The home range for this species is very large, between 50 and 220km2 (Debus & Czechura 1988).



No evidence of this species was detected during the fauna surveys. Given that this species is sparsely distributed an occupies large ranges, it is possible that this species may fly over the study area, or use the area as part of a much larger home range. However, the study site does not contain any unique habitat features for the Red Goshawk. Rather, the study area is characteristic of the vast expanses of eucalypt woodland in the surrounding landscape. It is unlikely this species would be significantly impacted by the relatively minor loss of potential habitat associated with the proposed development.

4.2 Masked Owl (Northern)

The Masked Owl (Tyto novaeholllandiae kimberli) is listed as vulnerable under the EPBC Act and the NC Act. In Queensland, this subspecies occurs along the southern rim of the Gulf of Carpentaria, Cape York Peninsula and south at least as far as the Atherton Tablelands (Garnett et al. 2011, and references therein). There is some uncertainty about the southern limit of this subspecies in Queensland (DoE 2015).

This species has been recorded in a variety of habitats including riverside forests, rainforest, open forest and paperbark swamps (Garnett et al. 2011). This subspecies is known to occupy home-ranges of over 1000ha in the non-breeding season (Higgins 1999; Kavanagh & Murray 1996). Given the uncertainty regarding the southern limit of the distribution of this species, and the large home range that would encompass a variety of habitats, it is considered possible that this subspecies may occur within the study area. However, there are no records of the Masked Owl in the local area. The nearest record on the Atlas of Living Australia and The Atlas of Australian Birds is approximately 30km southwest of Port Douglas, more than 100km from the survey site. The proposed project will not cause a significant decline in the availability and quality of the habitat for this species and is therefore unlikely to lead to a decline in the size of the population or the area of occupancy of this species. It is unlikely this species will be significantly impacted by the proposed development.

4.3 Northern Quoll

The Northern Quoll (Dasyurus hallucatus) is listed as endangered under the EPBC Act. There are no records of this species within the study site or surrounding local area. This species is not known from the area, but the area is shown on the modelled distribution for this species as an area where the species may occur (Commonwealth of Australia 2011, DoE 2014). Consequently, the outcome of the desktop assessment was that this species could potentially occur within the study area.

This species was formerly distributed across much of northern Australia, but its distribution has contracted significantly since European settlement to several disjunct populations (Oakwood 1997). Poisoning from eating the introduced Cane Toad is a major mechanism for the decline of this species (Oakwood 1997). A recent report by Woinarski et al. (2008) suggests the following factors are important for the persistence of Northern Quoll in parts of Queensland:

- steep slopes - shallow soils - abundant rocky habitat (particularly large rocks, boulders and outcrops)



- minimal disturbance from fires.

Based on these habitat attributes, the field assessments confirmed the study area comprises habitat that is suitable for the Northern Quoll. However, there are no known records of this species from the locality or from the broader area of at least a 50km radius. The nearest museum specimen records for this species are from the Hann Tableland, which is approximately 75km from the study area. Multiple survey techniques targeted species detection during the wet and dry season survey periods. Areas containing preferred habitat attributes, such as the rocky slopes in the east of the study area, were targeted in particular, using techniques such as cage trapping and motion-sensing infra-red cameras. All traps were baited with material targeted at attracting Northern Quolls, including a mix of rolled oats and sardines, and a variety of meats, particularly chicken.

No evidence of the Northern Quoll was detected during the field survey programs despite substantial targeted effort using multiple techniques. The use of ‘camera traps’ revealed the presence of Feral Cats (Felis catus) within the area of potential habitat for the Northern Quoll. Predation by the Feral Cat is listed as a key threatening process for the Northern Quoll. The presence of Feral Cats reduces the likelihood of the Northern Quoll occupying the habitat within the study area.

Given the lack of local records and the lack of any evidence observed during the two survey periods to suggest the Northern Quolls occur within the study area, it is unlikely this species would be significantly impacted by the proposed development.

4.4 Koala

The combined Queensland, New South Wales and Australian Capital Territory populations of the Koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) are listed as vulnerable under the EPBC Act. The listed population of this species extends from north-eastern Queensland through to the Victorian border. Koala habitat can be broadly defined as any forest of woodland containing species that are known food trees (DoE 2015).

The diet of the Koala is mainly restricted to foliage of Eucalyptus spp.; however, it may also consume foliage of related genera, including Corymbia spp., Angophora spp. and Lophostemon spp. The dominant canopy species throughout the study area are typically Cullen’s Ironbark (Eucalyptus culleni) and Variable-barked Bloodwood (Corymbia erythrophloia), both of which represent potentially suitable food trees for the Koala.

There are no records of the Koala near the Mt Lucy locality and very few records in the broader region. This species is distributed very sparsely in far north Queensland and the study area is near the limit of its predicted distribution.

Due to the reasonably small scale of the project, the lack of local records for this species, and the abundance of similar habitat in the locality, it is unlikely the construction and operation of the proposed project will:

- lead to a long term decrease in the size of the population of the species (if present) - reduce the area of occupancy of the population - fragment any population into multiple populations - adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of the species



- disrupt the breeding cycle of an important population - modify, destroy, remove or isolate; or decrease the availability or quality of habitat to the

extent that the species is likely to decline - result in invasive species that are harmful to Koalas becoming established in Koala

habitat - introduce disease that may cause the species to decline - interfere substantially with the recovery of the species.

It is therefore considered unlikely there will be any significant impacts to the listed population of the Koala as a result of this proposed project.

4.5 Greater Large-eared Horseshoe Bat

The Greater Large-eared Horseshoe Bat (Rhinolophus philippinensis) is listed as endangered under the EPBC Act and the NC Act. This species occurs only in northern Queensland, from the Iron Range southwards to Townsville and west to the karst regions of Chillagoe and Mitchell-Palmer. It is found in lowland rainforest, along gallery forest-lined creeks within open eucalypt forest, Melaleuca forest with rainforest understorey, open savannah woodland and tall riparian woodland of Melaleuca, Eucalyptus tereticornis and C. tessellaris (Churchill 2009).

This species was identified during the desktop assessment as having the potential to occur within the study area due to the presence of potentially suitable habitat and that it is known from the Chillagoe region. While the field surveys revealed the study area contains some potentially suitable foraging habitat, no echolocation data from this species were recorded in the study during either survey period. Given this species was not recorded during either of the field surveys, and there is an abundance of similar foraging habitat at the locality and in the broader region, it is unlikely the proposed project will have a significant impact on this species.

4.6 Chillagoe Fine-lined Slider

The Chillagoe Fine-lined Slider (Lerista storri) is listed as near-threatened under the NC Act. There are two records within 10km of the study area. There is little published information on the distribution and habitat preferences for this species. Wilson and Swan (2010) identify that it is known from woodlands on sandy soils and outcrops between Chillagoe and Mt Surprise and south to Charters Towers area. Greer et al. (1983) describe the habitat for this species as leaf-litter and loose soil in vine thickets and open forest.

It is considered possible this species would occur in the study area due to the presence of local records and habitat that falls within the broad habitat preference descriptions available. This species was not detected during the field surveys, despite targeted searches in areas of potential habitat. However, this species can be quite cryptic and difficult to detect in the field and therefore its absence in survey data does not necessarily confirm its absence from the study area. Nonetheless, the study area does not contain any unique habitat features for this species. Habitat of a similar nature is abundant in the locality and the broader region. It is unlikely that this species would be significantly impacted by any disturbance to the potential habitat within the study area.



4.7 Chillagoe Litter-skink

The Chillagoe Litter-skink (Lygisaurus rococo) is listed as near-threatened under the NC Act. There is one record within 10km of the study area. This species is known from limestone outcrops and granite boulders around Chillagoe (Wilson and Swan 2010). The desktop assessment for this study identified this species could occur in the study area due to the presence of local records and suitable habitat features. This species was specifically targeted during the field surveys and not detected. Given this species was not detected in the field survey and the study area does not contain any unique or critical habitat features for this species, it is unlikely there would be any significant impact to the Chillagoe Litter-skink as a result of the proposed development.

4.8 Short-beaked Echidna

The Short-beaked Echidna (Tachyglossus aculeatus) is listed as ‘Special Least Concern’ wildlife under the NC Act. This species was identified at two locations within the study area during the dry season field survey. Both locations were within the rocky slope habitat in the east of the study area and were in close proximity to each other. One individual was identified by direct observation and one individual was recorded on a camera trap. It is possible the two records obtained were the same individual.

This well known species occurs throughout Australia in almost all terrestrial habitats except intensively managed farmland (Menkhorst and Knight 2010). It is a mostly solitary species, occupying large home ranges and feeding on soil invertebrates.

Special least concern wildlife habitat is a matter of state environmental significance under the Queensland environmental offsets framework. Any action involving significant impacts to special least concern wildlife habitat may require the provision of an environmental offset under this framework.

While the habitat within the study area clearly contains habitat that is suitable for the Short-beaked Echidna, it represents a small area within a vast expanse of similar habitat. There are no habitat features unique to the study area on which this species would be relying, and the area does not represent a link between other habitat areas. It is unlikely that any disturbance within the study area would result in:

- a long-term decrease in the size of the local population - a reduced extent of occurrence of the species - fragmentation of the existing population - the formation of genetically distinct populations as a result of habitat isolation - disruption to ecologically significant locations for the species.

It is therefore unlikely there would be any significant impacts to the Short-beaked Echidna as a result of the proposed development.

5. Migratory Species Listed migratory bird species also considered to have potential to occur in the local area include:



- Fork-tailed Swift (Apus pacificus) - White-bellied Sea-Eagle (Haliaeetus leucogaster) - Rainbow Bee-eater (Merops ornatus) - Black-faced Monarch (Monarcha melanopsis) - Satin Flycatcher (Myiagra cyanoleuca) - Great Egret (Ardea alba) - Cattle Egret (Ardea ibis) - Sarus Crane (Grus antigone) - Rufous Fantail (Rhipidura rufifrons).

All of these listed migratory bird species are common and widespread throughout coastal and sub-coastal Queensland. These species also occur in a broad range of habitats and the study area does not exhibit any unique habitat features for any of these species. Similar habitat is abundant in the local area and throughout the region.

The highly mobile nature, large distribution and broad habitat requirements of these migratory bird species indicate the construction of the proposed project is unlikely to have a significant impact on individuals or populations of these species.

Recommendations 42


Recommendations 1. Clearing and Vegetation Management During construction activities, the following measures should be implemented to minimise disturbance impacts and the potential harm to habitat values, flora and fauna present within the area:

- The boundary of areas to be cleared should be clearly marked, to ensure the disturbance footprint is minimised.

- Clearing should occur in a sequential manner to allow any fauna present in the area to escape to areas away from construction activities.

Vegetation stockpiles will provide habitat for small ground dwelling mammals and reptiles during the construction phase. It is important to locate these stockpiles away from high traffic areas, and ensure they are not isolated from contiguous vegetation at the edge of the site. This will reduce the likelihood of fauna travelling across the site.

Cleared vegetation should be managed according to the following best practice principles: - Where possible, logs and large branches with hollows should be reserved, and stockpiled

separately (at the edge of the site) for rehabilitation purposes. - Any mulching should occur as near as possible to the time of clearing to prevent the

establishment of stockpiles as fauna habitat.

This study revealed the presence of a drainage feature near the northwest extent of the mining lease. While this feature does not support any significant riparian or aquatic values, it is recommended that vegetation clearing does not occur in close proximity (<10m) to this feature to prevent potential erosion issues.

2. Soil Management During construction, soil stockpiles should be managed to maximise suitability for future use in rehabilitation processes. Topsoil should be stockpiled separately from sub-soils, and stockpiled to a maximum height of two metres. This will improve the likelihood of retention of a seed bank within the topsoil, which will increase the effectiveness of its use for rehabilitation in the future. Stockpiles should also be managed to allow passage for fauna by leaving a sufficient gap between stockpiles.

3. Weed Management Soil disturbance is a major contributor to weed establishment and invasion. A number of pest plant species were identified in the flora surveys, however none of these species are declared pest plants. Pest plant species were found to be in greater abundance on the hill slopes where previous disturbance from exploration activities has occurred.

Recommendations 43


The following recommendations are relevant to the construction phase as well as ongoing monitoring and management post-construction:

- Wherever possible construction activities should work from areas with fewer weed species and smaller infestations towards areas where there is a greater abundance of weeds.

- Vehicles and machinery brought on site should be clean and free of weeds, dirt and other material that may contain weed seeds and cause exotic species to become established within the works areas.

- Weed spread should attempt to be minimised by implementing some control measures within the proposed works areas prior to construction.

- Regular observation of disturbance sites and stockpiles for incidence of weed species. - Where any weed establishment is identified, appropriate control measures should be

implemented to minimise the impacts of weeds on native habitat.

4. Dust Management Excavation and vehicle movements produce increased levels of dust, which can have a cumulative impact on plant function. Dust suppression techniques should be implemented where significant dust is being produced, including (but not limited to):

- application of water on trafficable surfaces - limiting activities in high wind conditions - application of water/ binding agent to construction sites during construction.

5. Fauna Management Excavated areas can pose a risk to native fauna through entrapment and exposure. Excavated areas should be checked regularly for trapped fauna, with inspection occurring at least twice daily. These areas should be checked early in the morning for fauna that has become trapped overnight, and again in the late afternoon for fauna that has become trapped over the course of the day.

Safe egress points should be included to allow fauna to escape of their own accord. Any fauna that cannot escape of its own accord should be removed in a manner that is safe for both the animal and the person handling the animal. Dangerous fauna species such as snakes should only be handled by a suitably qualified and experienced person. The use of a fauna spotter-catcher during the vegetation-clearing and construction period is recommended to minimise the chances of injury to native fauna. The fauna spotter-catcher should have a current rehabilitation permit, and should be present during clearing activities. The role of the spotter-catcher would be to advise on appropriate clearing methods to ensure animal escape paths are maintained and relocate fauna located within the disturbance area accordingly.

References 44


References Aumann, T. and Baker-Gabb. D. (1991). RAOU Report 75. A Management Plan for the Red Goshawk. RAOU. Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union, Melbourne.

Bostock, P.D. & Holland, A.E. (eds) (2013). Census of the Queensland Flora 2013. Queensland Department of Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts: Brisbane.

BRI collection Records (Undated), Queensland Herbarium specimens.

Churchill, S.K. (1998). Australian Bats. Sydney: Reed New Holland.

Churchill, S.K. (2009). Australian Bats – Second Edition. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.

Cropper, S.C. (1993). Management of Endangered Plants. CSIRO Publications, East Melbourne.

Commonwealth of Australia. (2011). EPBC Act Policy Statement 3.25 Referral Guidelines for the Endangered Northern Quoll, Dasyurus hallucatus. Available online: http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/f31d0eec-04d5-4743-9cc7-ad877ae0a6ef/files/northern-quoll.pdf

Debus, S. and Czechura, G. (1988). The Red Goshawk Erythrotriorchis radiates: a review. Australian Bird Watcher. 12: 175-199.

Department of the Environment (DoE). (2014). EPBC Protected Matters Report. Australian Government. Report created 03/12/14 14:34:27.

Department of the Environment (DoE). (2015). Species Profile and Threats Database. Department of the Environment, Canberra. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/sprat.pl

Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (EHP). (2014a). Flora Survey Guidelines – Protected Plants. Published by the State of Queensland.

Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (EHP). (2014b). Queensland Government Wildlife Online – Extract Date 03/12/2014 at 13:40:13.

Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (EHP). (2015). Environmental Sensitive Areas Map – Extract Date 18/02/2015 at 12:27:55.

Department of Natural Resources and Mines. (2015). Regulated Vegetation Management Map and Vegetation Management Supporting Map. The State of Queensland. Requests on 13/01/2014.

Eyre, T.J., Ferguson D.J., Hourigan, C.L., Smith, G.C., Mathieson, M.T., Kelly, A.L., Venz, M.F., Hogan, L.D. and Rowland, J. (2014). Terrestrial Vertebrate Fauna Survey Guidelines for Queensland. Department of Science, Information technology, Innovation and the Arts, Queensland Government, Brisbane.

References 45


Garnett, S., Szabo, J. and Dutson, G. (2011). The Action Plan for Australian Birds 2010. CSIRO Publishing.

Greer, A.E., McDonald, K.R., & Lawrie, B. C. (1983). Three new species of Lerista (Scincidae) from northern Queensland with a diagnosis of the wilkinsi species group. Journal of Herpetology, :247-255.

Grosenbaugh, L.R. (1952). ‘Plotless timber estimates – new, fast, easy’. Journal of Forestry 50: 32-37.

Hall, L. and Richards, G. (2000). Flying Foxes: Fruit and Blossom Bats of Australia. Sydney, NSW: University of NSW.

Higgins, P. J., (ed.) (1999). Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic Birds. Volume Four – Parrots to Dollarbird, Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Jones, D.L. (2006). Native orchids of Australia including the Island territories, Reed New Holland, Sydney.

Kavanagh, R.P. and Murray, M. (1996). Distribution of nocturnal forest birds and mammals in north-eastern Newcastle, New South Wales. Emu 96: 250-257.

Liem, D.S. (1974). A review of the Litoria nannotis species group and a description of a new species of Litoria from north-east Queensland. Memoirs of the Queensland Museum 17: 151-168.

Marchant, S., & P.J. Higgins (eds) (1993). Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic Birds. Volume 2: Raptors to Lapwings. Oxford University Press, Melbourne. ISBN 0-19-553069-1

Menkhorst, P. & Knight, F (2010). A Field Guide to the Mammals of Australia - Third Edition. Oxford University Press.

Neldner, V. J., Wilson, B.A., Thomson, E.J. and Dillewaard, H.A. (2012). Methodology for Survey and Mapping of Regional Ecosystem and Vegetation Communities in Queensland. Version 3.2. Updated August 2012. Queensland Herbarium. Queensland Department of Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts, Brisbane, 124pp.

Nicholls, W.H. (1969). Orchids of Australia. Nelson, Melbourne.

Oakwood, M. (1997). (Cited in Department of Environment 2015). The ecology of the northern quoll, Dasyurus hallucatus. PhD Thesis, Australian National University. Ph.D. Thesis.

Parsons, J., Cairns, A., Johnson, C., Robson, W, Shilton, L.A. and Westcott, D.A. (2006). Diet variation in Spectacled Flying Foxes (Pteropus conspicillatus) in the Wet Tropics of Australia. Australian Journal of Zoology 54: 417-426.

Pavey, C. R. and Kutt, S.A. (2008). Large-eared Horseshoe-bat, Rhinolophus philippinensis. In: Van Dyck, S., ed. Mammals od Australia. 3rd Edition. Australian Museum.

Pedley, L. (1990).’Combretaceae’. In: George, A.S. (Ed.) Flora of Australia. Vol.18. Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.

Pizzey, G. and Knight, F. (2012). Field Guide to the Birds of Australia, Harper Collins, Sydney.

References 46


Queensland Herbarium. (2014). Regional Ecosystem Description Database (REDD). Version 8.1 (April 2014). Queensland Department of Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts: Brisbane.

Richards, G.C. (1990). The Spectacled Flying-fox, Pteropus conspicillatus (Chiroptera: Pteropododae), in north Queensland, 1. Roost sites and distribution patterns. Australian Mammalogy 13: 1-22.

Sharp, D. & Simon, B.K. AusGrass – Grasses of Australia. CSIRO Publishing / Australian Biological Resources Study (ABRS).

Thomson, B., Pavey, C. and Reardon, T. (2001). Recovery Plan for cave-dwelling bats, Rhinolophus philippinensis, Hipposideros semoni and Taphozous troughtoni 2001-2005. [Online]. Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiveristy/threatened/publications/recovery/cave-dwelling-bats/index.html.

Thornburn, D.C., S. Peverell, S. Stevens, J.D. Last & A.J. Rowland (2003). Status of Freshwater and Estuarine Elasmobranches in Northern Australia. Report to Natural Heritage Trust, Canberra, Australia.

Vanderduys, E. (2012). Field Guide to the Frogs of Queensland. CSIRO Publishing, Canberra.

Van Dyck, S. and Strahan, R. (2008). The Mammals of Australia, Australian Museum, Sydney.

Williams, S. E. and Hero, J. M. (1998). Rainforest frogs of the Australian Wet Tropics: Guild classification and the ecological similarity of declining species. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 265: 597-602.

Williams, S. E. and Hero, J. M. (2001). Multiple Determinants of Australian Tropical Frog Biodiversity. Biological Conservation 98:1-10.

Wilson, S. (2005). A Field Guide to Reptiles of Queensland. CSIRO Publishing, Canberra.

Wilson, S. & Swan, G. (2010). A Complete Guide to Reptiles of Australia. New Holland

Wilson, P.R. and Taylor, P.M. (2012). Land zones of Queensland. Queensland Herbarium. Queensland Department of Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts, Brisbane 79pp.

Woinarski, J.C.Z., M. Oakwood, J. Winter, S. Burnett, D. Milne, P. Foster, H. Myles & B. Holmes (2008). Surviving the toads: patterns of persistence of the northern quoll Dasyurus hallucatus in Queensland. Report submitted to the Natural Heritage Trust Strategic Reserve Program.


Appendix summary

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Appendix E

Appendix F

Appendix G

Mapping




Flora Species List

Fauna Species List

Microbat Call Interpretation Reports


Appendix A

Mapping

9.11.13/9.11.32

9.12.27

9.11.13/9.11.32

9.11.13/9.11.32

9.12.7a/9.7.3x5

9.11.13/9.11.32

BURKE DEVELOPMENTAL ROAD

Date: 15/06/2015

Docu

ment

Path:

D:\G

IS P

rojec

ts\DI

O\MT

_LUC

Y\MA

PS\15

0213

- RE

Map.m

xd


§100 0 10050

Metres

MT LUCY IRON ORE MINE

EA AMENDMENT APPLICATION

Notes:Mine Lease boundary extracted from ml.shp, within DP_QLD_TEN_EXP_ML. State of Queensland (2014). Roads from Geodata Topo 250kSeries 3 from Geoscience Australia.

LegendRoads

HighwayTrack

N_OClearedNo ConcernOf Concern (sub-dominantcommunity)

REGIONAL ECOSYSYEMMAPPING

1:5,000Scale:

Not Assessed

Not Assessed

Not Assessed

9.12.7a

9.11.13

9.11.13 non-rem



Date: 04/06/2015

Docu

ment

Path:

D:\G

IS P

rojec

ts\DI

O\MT

_LUC

Y\MA

PS\15

0213

- GTR

E.mx

d


§80 0 8040

Metres




LegendGround TruthedRegional Ecosystem

9.11.139.12.7anon-rem

RoadsHighwayTrack

DrainageMinor Stream

GROUND-TRUTHEDREGIONAL ECOSYSTEM

MAPPING

1:4,000Scale:

&

&

&

&

&

&

&

VQ4

VQ3

VQ2

VQ1

Meande

r 12

Meand

er 13

Meander 9

Meander 11

Meander 10

Meander

8

VT3

VT2

VS4

VS3

VT1

VS2

VS1

Meander 5

Meander2

Meander 7

Meand

er3

Meander1

Meander4

Meander 6



Date: 04/06/2015

Docu

ment

Path:

D:\G

IS P

rojec

ts\DI

O\MT

_LUC

Y\MA

PS\15

0213

- Veg

Surv

ey.m

xd


§80 0 8040

Metres




Legend& Vegetation Survey Locations

Meandering TransectRoads

HighwayTrack


VEGETATION SURVEYPOINTS

1:4,000Scale:

!(

!(!(

!(!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

6

6

6

6

S

S

S

S

6

6

6

6

!(!(

!(!(!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

S6

S4

S5A8

A6

A7

A5

S3

S1

S2

A4

A3

A2

A1


Date: 04/06/2015

Docu

ment

Path:

D:\G

IS P

rojec

ts\DI

O\MT

_LUC

Y\MA

PS\15

0213

- Fau

na S

urvey

.mxd


§50 0 5025Metres




LegendS Pitfall Traps6 Bat Detectors!( Infra-Red Cameras

Cage Traps!( Funnel Traps

Elliot_Trap_LinesRoads

HighwayTrack


FAUNA TRAPPINGLOCATIONS

1:3,000Scale:


Appendix B



This report provides general guidance on matters of national environmental significance and othermatters protected by the EPBC Act in the area you have selected.

Information on the coverage of this report and qualifications on data supporting this report arecontained in the caveat at the end of the report.

Information is available about Environment Assessments and the EPBC Act including significanceguidelines, forms and application process details.

Other Matters Protected by the EPBC Act

Acknowledgements

Buffer: 10.0Km

Matters of NES

Report created: 03/12/14 14:34:27

Coordinates

This map may contain data which are©Commonwealth of Australia(Geoscience Australia), ©PSMA 2010

CaveatExtra Information

DetailsSummary

http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/assessments/index.html

Summary

This part of the report summarises the matters of national environmental significance that may occurin, or may relate to, the area you nominated. Further information is available in the detail part of thereport, which can be accessed by scrolling or following the links below. If you are proposing toundertake an activity that may have a significant impact on one or more matters of nationalenvironmental significance then you should consider the Administrative Guidelines on Significance.

Matters of National Environmental Significance

Listed Threatened Ecological Communities:

Listed Migratory Species:

None

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park:Wetlands of International Importance:

Listed Threatened Species:

None

16

NoneNone

National Heritage Places:

Commonwealth Marine Areas:

World Heritage Properties:

None

None

10

This part of the report summarises other matters protected under the Act that may relate to the areayou nominated. Approval may be required for a proposed activity that significantly affects theenvironment on Commonwealth land, when the action is outside the Commonwealth land, or theenvironment anywhere when the action is taken on Commonwealth land. Approval may also berequired for the Commonwealth or Commonwealth agencies proposing to take an action that is likelyto have a significant impact on the environment anywhere.

The EPBC Act protects the environment on Commonwealth land, the environment from the actionstaken on Commonwealth land, and the environment from actions taken by Commonwealth agencies.As heritage values of a place are part of the 'environment', these aspects of the EPBC Act protect theCommonwealth Heritage values of a Commonwealth Heritage place and the heritage values of aplace on the Register of the National Estate.

This part of the report summarises other matters protected under the Act that may relate to the areayou nominated. Approval may be required for a proposed activity that significantly affects theenvironment on Commonwealth land, when the action is outside the Commonwealth land, or theenvironment anywhere when the action is taken on Commonwealth land. Approval may also berequired for the Commonwealth or Commonwealth agencies proposing to take an action that is likelyto have a significant impact on the environment anywhere.

A permit may be required for activities in or on a Commonwealth area that may affect a member of alisted threatened species or ecological community, a member of a listed migratory species, whalesand other cetaceans, or a member of a listed marine species.


NoneNoneNone

Listed Marine Species:Whales and Other Cetaceans:

12Commonwealth Heritage Places:

NoneNone

Critical Habitats:

Commonwealth Land:

Commonwealth Reserves Terrestrial:NoneCommonwealth Reserves Marine



http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/permits/index.html

Details

Listed Threatened Species [ Resource Information ]Name Status Type of PresenceBirds

Red Goshawk [942] Vulnerable Species or specieshabitat likely to occurwithin area

Erythrotriorchis radiatus

Gouldian Finch [413] Endangered Species or specieshabitat known to occurwithin area

Erythrura gouldiae

Australian Painted Snipe [77037] Endangered Species or specieshabitat may occur withinarea

Rostratula australis

Masked Owl (northern) [26048] Vulnerable Species or specieshabitat may occur withinarea

Tyto novaehollandiae kimberli

Frogs

Common Mistfrog [1802] Endangered Species or specieshabitat may occur withinarea

Litoria rheocola

Mammals

Northern Quoll [331] Endangered Species or specieshabitat may occur withinarea

Dasyurus hallucatus

Semon's Leaf-nosed Bat, Greater Wart-nosedHorseshoe-bat [180]

Endangered Species or specieshabitat may occur withinarea

Hipposideros semoni

Koala (combined populations of Queensland, NewSouth Wales and the Australian Capital Territory)[85104]

Vulnerable Species or specieshabitat may occur withinarea

Phascolarctos cinereus (combined populations of Qld, NSW and the ACT)

Spectacled Flying-fox [185] Vulnerable Species or specieshabitat may occur within

Pteropus conspicillatus

Matters of National Environmental Significance

This part of the report provides information that may also be relevant to the area you have nominated.

Extra Information

Regional Forest Agreements:11

Place on the RNE:None

NoneInvasive Species:

None

Nationally Important Wetlands:

State and Territory Reserves:None

Key Ecological Features (Marine) None

Name Status Type of Presencearea

Greater Large-eared Horseshoe Bat [66890] Endangered Species or specieshabitat known to occurwithin area

Rhinolophus philippinensis (large form)

Other

a cycad [55796] Vulnerable Species or specieshabitat likely to occurwithin area

Cycas platyphylla

Plants

[8635] Endangered Species or specieshabitat likely to occurwithin area

Cajanus mareebensis

Cooktown Orchid [10306] Vulnerable Species or specieshabitat likely to occurwithin area

Dendrobium bigibbum

[12431] Vulnerable Species or specieshabitat likely to occurwithin area

Euphorbia carissoides

[9003] Vulnerable Species or specieshabitat likely to occurwithin area

Macropteranthes montana

Sharks

Largetooth Sawfish, Freshwater Sawfish, RiverSawfish, Leichhardt's Sawfish, Northern Sawfish[60756]

Vulnerable Species or specieshabitat likely to occurwithin area

Pristis pristis

Listed Migratory Species [ Resource Information ]* Species is listed under a different scientific name on the EPBC Act - Threatened Species list.Name Threatened Type of PresenceMigratory Marine Birds

Fork-tailed Swift [678] Species or specieshabitat likely to occurwithin area

Apus pacificus

Migratory Terrestrial Species

White-bellied Sea-Eagle [943] Species or specieshabitat may occur withinarea

Haliaeetus leucogaster

Rainbow Bee-eater [670] Species or specieshabitat may occur withinarea

Merops ornatus

Black-faced Monarch [609] Species or specieshabitat likely to occurwithin area

Monarcha melanopsis

Satin Flycatcher [612] Species or specieshabitat may occur withinarea

Myiagra cyanoleuca

Migratory Wetlands Species

Great Egret, White Egret [59541] Species or specieshabitat likely to occurwithin area

Ardea alba

Cattle Egret [59542] Species or specieshabitat likely to occurwithin area

Ardea ibis

Latham's Snipe, Japanese Snipe [863] Species or specieshabitat may occur withinarea

Gallinago hardwickii

Name Threatened Type of Presence

Sarus Crane [904] Species or specieshabitat likely to occurwithin area

Grus antigone

Painted Snipe [889] Endangered* Species or specieshabitat may occur withinarea

Rostratula benghalensis (sensu lato)

Listed Marine Species [ Resource Information ]* Species is listed under a different scientific name on the EPBC Act - Threatened Species list.Name Threatened Type of PresenceBirds

Magpie Goose [978] Species or specieshabitat may occur withinarea

Anseranas semipalmata

Fork-tailed Swift [678] Species or specieshabitat likely to occurwithin area

Apus pacificus

Great Egret, White Egret [59541] Species or specieshabitat likely to occurwithin area

Ardea alba

Cattle Egret [59542] Species or specieshabitat likely to occurwithin area

Ardea ibis

Latham's Snipe, Japanese Snipe [863] Species or specieshabitat may occur withinarea

Gallinago hardwickii

White-bellied Sea-Eagle [943] Species or specieshabitat may occur withinarea

Haliaeetus leucogaster

Rainbow Bee-eater [670] Species or specieshabitat may occur withinarea

Merops ornatus

Black-faced Monarch [609] Species or specieshabitat likely to occurwithin area

Monarcha melanopsis

Satin Flycatcher [612] Species or specieshabitat may occur withinarea

Myiagra cyanoleuca

Osprey [952] Species or specieshabitat may occur withinarea

Pandion haliaetus


Name Threatened Type of Presence

Painted Snipe [889] Endangered* Species or specieshabitat may occur withinarea

Rostratula benghalensis (sensu lato)

Reptiles

Freshwater Crocodile, Johnston's Crocodile,Johnston's River Crocodile [1773]

Species or specieshabitat may occur withinarea

Crocodylus johnstoni

Extra Information

Invasive Species [ Resource Information ]Weeds reported here are the 20 species of national significance (WoNS), along with other introducedplants that are considered by the States and Territories to pose a particularly significant threat tobiodiversity. The following feral animals are reported: Goat, Red Fox, Cat, Rabbit, Pig, Water Buffaloand Cane Toad. Maps from Landscape Health Project, National Land and Water Resouces Audit,2001.Name Status Type of PresenceBirds

House Sparrow [405] Species or specieshabitat likely to occurwithin area

Passer domesticus

Frogs

Cane Toad [83218] Species or specieshabitat likely to occurwithin area

Rhinella marina

Mammals

Cat, House Cat, Domestic Cat [19] Species or specieshabitat likely to occurwithin area

Felis catus

Rabbit, European Rabbit [128] Species or specieshabitat likely to occurwithin area

Oryctolagus cuniculus

Black Rat, Ship Rat [84] Species or specieshabitat likely to occurwithin area

Rattus rattus

Pig [6] Species or specieshabitat likely to occurwithin area

Sus scrofa

Plants

Prickly Acacia [6196] Species or specieshabitat may occur withinarea

Acacia nilotica subsp. indica

Rubber Vine, Rubbervine, India Rubber Vine, IndiaRubbervine, Palay Rubbervine, Purple Allamanda[18913]

Species or specieshabitat likely to occurwithin area

Cryptostegia grandiflora

Cotton-leaved Physic-Nut, Bellyache Bush, Species or speciesJatropha gossypifolia

Name Status Type of PresenceCotton-leaf Physic Nut, Cotton-leaf Jatropha,Black Physic Nut [7507]

habitat likely to occurwithin area

Lantana, Common Lantana, Kamara Lantana,Large-leaf Lantana, Pink Flowered Lantana, RedFlowered Lantana, Red-Flowered Sage, WhiteSage, Wild Sage [10892]

Species or specieshabitat likely to occurwithin area

Lantana camara

Reptiles

Asian House Gecko [1708] Species or specieshabitat likely to occurwithin area

Hemidactylus frenatus

-17.34793 144.63795Coordinates

- non-threatened seabirds which have only been mapped for recorded breeding sites

- migratory species that are very widespread, vagrant, or only occur in small numbers

- some species and ecological communities that have only recently been listed

Not all species listed under the EPBC Act have been mapped (see below) and therefore a report is a generalguide only. Where available data supports mapping, the type of presence that can be determined from thedata is indicated in general terms. People using this information in making a referral may need to considerthe qualifications below and may need to seek and consider other information sources.

For threatened ecological communities where the distribution is well known, maps are derived fromrecovery plans, State vegetation maps, remote sensing imagery and other sources. Where threatenedecological community distributions are less well known, existing vegetation maps and point location dataare used to produce indicative distribution maps.

- seals which have only been mapped for breeding sites near the Australian continentSuch breeding sites may be important for the protection of the Commonwealth Marine environment.

For species where the distributions are well known, maps are digitised from sources such as recovery plansand detailed habitat studies. Where appropriate, core breeding, foraging and roosting areas are indicatedunder 'type of presence'. For species whose distributions are less well known, point locations are collatedfrom government wildlife authorities, museums, and non-government organisations; bioclimaticdistribution models are generated and these validated by experts. In some cases, the distribution maps arebased solely on expert knowledge.

The information presented in this report has been provided by a range of data sources as acknowledged atthe end of the report.

Caveat

- migratory and

The following species and ecological communities have not been mapped and do not appear in reportsproduced from this database:

- marine

This report is designed to assist in identifying the locations of places which may be relevant in determiningobligations under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. It holds mappedlocations of World Heritage and Register of National Estate properties, Wetlands of InternationalImportance, Commonwealth and State/Territory reserves, listed threatened, migratory and marine speciesand listed threatened ecological communities. Mapping of Commonwealth land is not complete at thisstage. Maps have been collated from a range of sources at various resolutions.

- threatened species listed as extinct or considered as vagrants

- some terrestrial species that overfly the Commonwealth marine area

The following groups have been mapped, but may not cover the complete distribution of the species:

Only selected species covered by the following provisions of the EPBC Act have been mapped:

-Department of the Environment, Climate Change, Energy and Water-Birds Australia-Australian Bird and Bat Banding Scheme

-Department of Environment and Conservation, Western Australia

Acknowledgements

-Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water, New South Wales

-Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, Tasmania

-Parks and Wildlife Service NT, NT Dept of Natural Resources, Environment and the Arts-Environmental and Resource Management, Queensland

-Department of Sustainability and Environment, Victoria

-Australian National Wildlife Collection

-Department of Environment and Natural Resources, South Australia

This database has been compiled from a range of data sources. The department acknowledges thefollowing custodians who have contributed valuable data and advice:

-Australian Museum

-National Herbarium of NSW

-State Forests of NSW-Australian Government, Department of Defence

-State Herbarium of South Australia

The Department is extremely grateful to the many organisations and individuals who providedexpert advice and information on numerous draft distributions.

-Natural history museums of Australia

-Queensland Museum

-Australian National Herbarium, Atherton and Canberra

-Royal Botanic Gardens and National Herbarium of Victoria

-Geoscience Australia

-Ocean Biogeographic Information System

-Online Zoological Collections of Australian Museums-Queensland Herbarium

-Western Australian Herbarium

-Tasmanian Herbarium

-Northern Territory Herbarium

-SA Museum

-Museum Victoria

-University of New England

-CSIRO-Other groups and individuals

© Commonwealth of Australia

+61 2 6274 1111Canberra ACT 2601 Australia

GPO Box 787Department of the Environment

Please feel free to provide feedback via the Contact Us page.

http://www.environment.act.gov.au/

http://www.birdsaustralia.com.au

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/science/abbbs

http://www.dec.wa.gov.au/

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/nationalparks/

http://www.dpiw.tas.gov.au/inter.nsf/Home/1?Open

http://www.derm.qld.gov.au/

http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/dse/index.htm

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/science/abbbs

http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/

http://australianmuseum.net.au/

http://www.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au/science/Herbarium_and_resources

http://www.forest.nsw.gov.au/

http://www.defence.gov.au/

http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/botanicgardens/

http://www.qm.qld.gov.au/

http://www.anbg.gov.au/cpbr

http://www.rbg.vic.gov.au

http://www.ga.gov.au/

http://www.iobis.org/

http://www.ozcam.org.au/

http://www.derm.qld.gov.au/wildlife-ecosystems/plants/queensland_herbarium/

http://www.dec.wa.gov.au/content/category/41/831/1821/

http://www.tmag.tas.gov.au

http://www.nt.gov.au/nreta/parks/

http://www.samuseum.sa.gov.au/

http://museumvictoria.com.au/

http://www.une.edu.au

http://www.csiro.au/

http://www.environment.gov.au/about/copyright.html

http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/contacts/index.html


Appendix C


Wildlife Online Extract

Search Criteria: Species List for a Specified PointSpecies: AllType: AllStatus: Rare and threatened speciesRecords: AllDate: AllLatitude: -17.347925Longitude: 144.6379Distance: 10Email: [email protected] submitted: Wednesday 03 Dec 2014 13:31:52Date extracted: Wednesday 03 Dec 2014 13:40:13

The number of records retrieved = 5

Disclaimer

As the DSITIA is still in a process of collating and vetting data, it is possible the information given is not complete. The information provided should only be usedfor the project for which it was requested and it should be appropriately acknowledged as being derived from Wildlife Online when it is used.

The State of Queensland does not invite reliance upon, nor accept responsibility for this information. Persons should satisfy themselves through independentmeans as to the accuracy and completeness of this information.

No statements, representations or warranties are made about the accuracy or completeness of this information. The State of Queensland disclaims allresponsibility for this information and all liability (including without limitation, liability in negligence) for all expenses, losses, damagesand costs you may incur as a result of the information being inaccurate or incomplete in any way for any reason.

Feedback about Wildlife Online should be emailed to [email protected]

Kingdom Class Family Scientific Name Common Name I Q A Records

animals reptiles Scincidae Lerista storri NT 2/1animals reptiles Scincidae Lygisaurus rococo Chillagoe litter-skink NT 1 plants higher dicots Asteraceae Peripleura sericea NT 1/1plants higher dicots Orobanchaceae Rhamphicarpa australiensis NT 2/2plants higher dicots Solanaceae Solanum angustum E 1/1

CODESI - Y indicates that the taxon is introduced to Queensland and has naturalised.Q - Indicates the Queensland conservation status of each taxon under the Nature Conservation Act 1992. The codes are Extinct in the Wild (PE), Endangered (E),

Vulnerable (V), Near Threatened (NT), Least Concern (C) or Not Protected ( ).A - Indicates the Australian conservation status of each taxon under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. The values of EPBC are

Conservation Dependent (CD), Critically Endangered (CE), Endangered (E), Extinct (EX), Extinct in the Wild (XW) and Vulnerable (V).Records – The first number indicates the total number of records of the taxon for the record option selected (i.e. All, Confirmed or Specimens).This number is output as 99999 if it equals or exceeds this value. The second number located after the / indicates the number of specimen records for the taxon.This number is output as 999 if it equals or exceeds this value.

Page 1 of 1Queensland Government Wildlife Online - Extract Date 03/12/2014 at 13:40:13


Appendix D



Table D1: Potential of Near Threatened and Threatened Flora identified in PMST and Wildlife Online database searches to occur within the study area

STATUS1 FAMILY SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME SOURCE2 WO RECORDS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE STUDY AREA

NCA EPBC

V V Cycadaceae Cycas platyphylla PM 0 Unlikely - The main population of this species is in the Petford district approximately 30km from the study area. It occurs in sparse Eucalypt woodland, on rocky slopes with granite outcrops with a grassy understorey (DoE 2015). There is potentially suitable habitat for this species in the study area, but given the lack of local records, it is considered unlikely that this species would occur within the study area.

V V Combretaceae Macropteranthes montana PM 0 Possible – This species has been recorded from a number of locations in the Chillagoe region. This species occurs in shallow soil in low woodland or vine thicket (Pedley 1990). It is considered possible that this species could occur due to the presence of suitable habitat and the presence of records in the local area.

V V Euphorbiaceae Euphorbia carissoides PM 0 Possible – This species occurs in open Eucalypt woodland on granite outcrops and stony hillsides (DoE 2015). It has been recorded approximately 25km from the study site, in association with Corymbia leichardtii, C. stockeri, and E.cullenii (Queensland Herbarium specimen label data). There is potentially suitable, but degraded habitat for this species; therefore there is moderate potential for it to occur within the study area. It is considered possible that this species would occur within the study area due to the presence of suitable habitat and the presence of records in the vicinity of the study area.

E E Fabaceae Cajanus mareebensis PM 0 Unikely – This species was originally only known from two locations in the vicinity of Mareeba, but recently it has been located at sites in the Irvinebank to Petford area, and another site approximately 40km west of Mt Garnet (DoE 2015). It has been recorded from grassy woodlands of Melaleuca-Acacia, Eucalyptus-Callitris and Eucalyptus-Corymbia on sandy soils derived from granite (DoE 2015). There is potentially suitable habitat for this species in the study area. However, given the lack of local records there it is considered unlikely this species would occur within the study area.

V V Orchidaceae Dendrobium biggibbum Cooktown Orchid PM 0 Unlikely – There nearest record of this species is approximately 30km north of Chillagoe, and approximately 60km from the study area. This species is known from Cape York Peninsula south to the Archer River (Jones 2006). It grows on trees and rocks with moderate light intensity in a range of habitats including coastal scrub, stream bank vegetation, monsoon thickets, and gullies in open forest and woodland (Nichols 1969; Jones 2006). This species is considered unlikely to occur within the study area due to a lack of local records.

NT - Poaceae Lepturus xerophilus - HR 1 Unlikely – This species has a very sporadic occurrence from the northeast Kimberley in Western Australia to the base of Cape York Peninsula in Queensland (Sharp and Simon 2014). This species has been recorded growing on limestone in partial shade (Sharp and Simon 2014). It is considered unlikely that this species would occur within the study are due to a lack of suitable habitat.

NT - Poaceae Panicum chillagoanum - HR 1 Unlikely – This species occurs in a restricted area in and around Chillagoe. It is associated with vine thicket and wooded grassland on limestone. Despite being recorded approximately 10km from the study area, it is considered unlikely that this species would occur within the study area due to a lack of suitable habitat.

E - Solanaceae Solanum angustum - WO 1 Likely – This species has been recorded at two locations less than 5km to the east of the study area. At one of those nearby locations, the species was recorded in eucalypt woodland on rocky granite hills. This species is considered likely to occur due to the presence of suitable habitat and the presence of records in the vicinity of the study area.

1. Status: LC = Least Concern, NT = Near Threatened, V = Vulnerable, E = Endangered. 2. WO = Wildlife Online Database, PM = EPBC Protected Matters Report


Table D2: Potential of Near Threatened and Threatened Fauna identified in PMST and Wildlife Online database searches to occur within the study area


NCA EPBC

BIRDS

E V Accipitridae Erythrotriorchis radiatus Red Goshawk PM 0 Possible – There are no records of Red Goshawk in the local area. The nearest record on the Atlas of Living Australia and The Atlas of Australian Birds is southwest of Petford, less than 30km from the survey site. This species prefers forest and woodland with a mosaic of vegetation types, particularly near riverine systems and permanent water, where there is an abundance of prey species (DoE 2015, and references therein). The home range in northern Australia has been reported as up to 200km2; with indications it may be even larger (Aumann & Baker-Gabb 1991). Given the lack of local records, this species is considered unlikely to occur within the study area. However, it is possible that this species may fly over the study site or even on occasion use the site as part of a much larger home range or foraging area.

E E Estrildidae Erythrura gouldiae Gouldian Finch PM 0 Unlikely – This species inhabits open woodlands with a dominant ground cover of grasses. It was formerly widespread in tropical Queensland, however recently has only been recorded in small numbers around the Atherton Tablelands and in far western Queensland (DoE 2015). There are no records of this species within 10km of the study area. There is a low potential for Gouldian Finch to occur within the study area. It is considered that this species is unlikely to occur within the study area due to the lack of recent local records.

V E, M Rostratulidae Rostratula australis Australian Painted Snipe

PM 0 Unlikely - This species has been recorded at wetland sites throughout much of Australia, but is most common in the eastern States. The Australian Painted Snipe is a distinct species, but its cryptic and crepuscular behaviour can make it difficult to detect. This species typically occurs in shallow freshwater wetlands and other permanently or temporarily inundated areas, particularly where rank tussocks of grasses, sedges, rushes or reeds are present (DoE 2015). No wetland habitat is present within the study area. It is considered that this species is unlikely to occur within the study area due to the lack of suitable habitat.

V V Tytonidae Tyto novaehollandiae kimberli

Masked Owl PM 0 Possible – There are no records of the Masked Owl in the local area. The nearest record on the Atlas of Living Australia and The Atlas of Australian Birds is approximately 30km southwest of Port Douglas, more than 100km from the survey site. In Queensland, this subspecies occurs along the southern rim of the Gulf of Carpentaria, Cape York Peninsula and south at least as far as the Atherton Tablelands (Garnett et al. 2011, and references therein). There is some uncertainty about the southern limit of this subspecies in Queensland (DoE 2015). It has been recorded in a variety of habitats including riverside forests, rainforest, open forest and paperbark swamps (Garnett et al. 2011). This subspecies is known to occupy home-ranges of over 1000ha in the non-breeding season (Higgins 1999; Kavanagh & Murray 1996). Given the large home range that would encompass a variety of habitats, it is considered possible that this subspecies may occur within the study area.

FROGS

E E Hylidae Litoria rheocola Common Mistfrog PM 0 Unlikely – There are no records of the Common Mistfrog in the local area. The nearest record on the Atlas of Living Australia is approximately 60km to the east of the survey area. Across its entire range, the Common Mistfrog is a rainforest specialist, endemic to the Wet Tropics Bioregion (Williams and Hero 1998, 2001). This frog species is restricted to fast flowing rocky creeks and streams in rainforest as wet sclerophyll forest (Liem 1974). It is considered that this species is unlikely to occur within the study area due to the lack of suitable habitat.



NCA EPBC

MAMMALS

LC E Dasyuridae Dasyurus hallucatus Northern Quoll PM 0 Possible – While the database searches did not reveal any local records, the study area does fall within the species known range. Across its entire range, the Northern Quoll utilises a wide variety of habitats, However in Queensland it is believed that the species is more likely to be present in high relief areas with shallower soils, greater boulder cover, and low fire frequency; close to permanent water (DoE 2015). Despite the lack of local records in the database searches, it is considered possible that this species would occur within the study area due the presence of some preferred habitat features.

E E Hipposideridae Hipposideros semoni Semon’s Leaf-nosed Bat

PM 0 Unlikely – There are no records of the Semon’s Leaf-nosed Bat in the local area. The nearest record on the Atlas of Living Australia is north of Cape tribulation, more than 150km from the study area. The study site falls within the species known range. This species inhabits coastal areas from Cape York to just south of Cooktown (Thomson et al. 2001). The southern limit is unclear. The Semon’s Leaf-nosed Bat is found in tropical rainforest, monsoon forest, wet sclerophyll forest and open savannah woodland. This species does not require cave roosts, but roosts in tree hollows, road culverts and shallow caves amongst granite boulders (Churchill 1998, 2009). While the study area contains potentially suitable habitat, it is considered unlikely that this species would occur given the lack of local records.

- V Phascolarctidae Phascolarctos cinereus Koala PM 0 Possible – This species range includes the eastern half of Queensland. While being widespread, suitable feed species and leaf moisture are the primary determinants of habitat suitability (DoE2015). Suitable habitat is present within the study area and the surrounding landscape. There are no records within 75 km of the study area (source: Wildlife Online, Atlas of Living Australia), and no evidence of Koala was observed during the fauna survey. However, given the presence of suitable habitat, it is considered possible that this species may occur within the study area.

- V Pteropodidae Pteropus conspicillatus Spectacled Flying-fox

PM 0 Unlikely – There are no records of the Spectacled Flying Fox in the local area. The nearest record on the Atlas of Living Australia is in the region of Mareeba, which is approximately 100km from the study area. The Spectacled Flying-fox occurs in north-eastern Queensland, north of Cardwell (Hall and Richards 2000). This species is believed to roost within 6.5km of rainforest (Richards 1990). This species is known to forage on rainforest species and eucalypts, and has been observed in rainforest, tall open forests, tropical woodland and savannah ecosystems (Parsons et al. 2006). It is considered unlikely that this species will occur in the study are do to the distance from preferred foraging habitat and a lack of local records.

E E Rhinolophidae Rhinolophus philippinensis

Greater Large-eared Horseshoe Bat

PM 0 Possible - There are no records of the Great Large-eared Horseshoe Bat in the local area (<10km). The nearest record on the Atlas of Living Australia however is in Chillagoe, approximately 25km to the northwest of the study area. The Great Large-eared Horseshoe Bat occurs in Queensland from the Iron Range south to Townsville and west to the karst regions of Chillagoe and Mitchell-Palmer. This species is typically found in lowland rainforest, gallery forest-lined creeks within open eucalypt forest, Melaleuca forest with a rainforest understorey, open savannah woodlands and tall riparian woodlands of Melaleuca, Forest Red Gum (E. tereticornis) and Moreton Bay Ash (E. tessellaris) (Churchill 2009; Pavey & Kutt 2008). It is considered possible that this species would occur within the study area due to presence of suitable habitat and that the species is known from the Chillagoe region.

SHARKS

- V Pristidae Pristis pristis Largetooth Sawfish PM 0 Unlikely - There are no records of the Largetooth Sawfish in the local area. The nearest record on the Atlas of Living Australia however is in Home Hill, south of Townsville more than 400km from the study area and in Karumba on the western side of the Cape. This species can potentially occur in all large rivers of northern Australia, in either fresh or saline waters, as far as 400km from the sea (Thorburn et al. 2007). It is considered unlikely that this species occurs within the study are due to the lack of any creek system, let alone a major river.



NCA EPBC

REPTILES

NT - Scincidae Lerista storri Chillagoe Fine-lined Slider

WO 2 Possible - There are two records within 10km of the study area. There is little published information on the distribution and habitat preferences for this species. It is known from woodlands on sandy soils and outcrops between Chillagoe and Mt Surprise and south to Charters Towers area (Wilson and Swan 2010) It is considered possible this species would occur in the study area due to the presence of local records and habitat that falls within the broad habitat preference descriptions available.

NT - Scincidae Lygisaurus rococo Chillagoe Litter-skink

WO 1 Possible - There is one record within 10km of the study area. This species known from limestone outcrops and granite boulders around Chillagoe (Wilson and Swan 2010) It is considered possible this species would occur in the study area due to the presence of local records and suitable habitat features.

1. Status: LC = Least Concern, NT = Near Threatened, V = Vulnerable, E = Endangered, M = Migratory 2. WO = Wildlife Online Database Extract, PM = EPBC Protected Matters Report


Table D3: Potential of Migratory Fauna identified in PMST and Wildlife Online database searches to occur within the study area


NCA EPBC

BIRDS

LC M Accipitridae Haliaeetus leucogaster White-bellied Sea-Eagle PM 0 Possible - This species’ range covers a vast area across Asia and Oceana, and is found within several hundred kilometers inland from the Australian coastline, right around the country. Preferred habitats of this species are characterised by the presence of large areas of open water (Marchant & Higgins 1993). There are no records of this species in the local area, but it is possible this species would to fly over the study area whilst foraging in the broader area

LC M Apodidae Apus pacificus Fork-tailed Swift PM 0 Possible – This species has been observed over a number of different habitat types including dry, open woodland and riparian woodland (Higgins 1999). The study site occurs within the species known range, and whilst there are no known local records, it is considered possible that this species could occur within the study area.

LC M Ardeidae Ardea alba Great Egret PM 0 Likely – The Great Egret occurs across Australia, with breeding colonies occurring in coastal areas. This species may occur within the study site, using watercourses (when flowing) and stock watering points as a temporary roosting and foraging sites.

LC M Ardeidae Ardea ibis Cattle Egret PM 0 Likely – This species has a broad range across Australia, inhabiting woodlands and grassland areas with tall grasses. Frequently occurs within and near agricultural areas, and shallow wetlands. Is likely to occur within the study area, as suitable habitat is present in some areas.

LC M Dicruridae Rhipidura rufifrons Rufous Fantail WO 2 Possible – This species occurs throughout much of eastern Australia it wetter forests and gullies. There are two records within 10km of the study area. The study area contains habitat of low to moderate suitability for this species. Given the local records and potential suitable habitat, it is considered possible that this species would occur within the study area.

LC M Gruidae Grus antigone Sarus Crane PM 0 Unlikely – This species has a broad range across northern Australia, inhabiting wetland areas. While there are a number of records in the region, this species is unlikely to occur within the study area due to a lack of wetland areas in the vicinity. However, this species may ‘fly-over’ the study area while moving between areas of suitable habitat.

LC M Meropidae Merops ornatus Rainbow Bee-eater PM, WO 1 Likely – This is a woodland species that occurs across Australia. Suitable habitat occurs throughout the study area.

LC M Monarchidae Monarcha melanopsis Black-faced Monarch PM 0 Unlikely – this species is most commonly found in rainforest and other wet forest habitats. There is no preferred habitat within the study area. The lack of local records and suitable habitat suggests that this species is unlikely to occur within the study area,

LC M Monarchidae Myiagra cyanoleuca Satin Flycatcher PM 0 Unlikely – This species occurs across Australia and inhabits temperate forests and subtropical and tropical moist lowland forests. There are records of this species within a 30km range of the study area. The habitat within the study area is of low suitability for this species. It is considered unlikely this species could occur in the study area

LC E, M Rostratulidae Rostratula benghalensis Painted Snipe PM 0 Unlikely – This species has a broad range across Australia, inhabiting wetland areas. There are no records in the local area. This species is considered unlikely to occur within the study area due to a lack of wetland areas in the vicinity.

LC M Scolopacidae Gallinago hardwickii Latham’s Snipe PM 0 Unlikely – This species occurs in permanent and ephemeral freshwater wetlands, with low dense vegetation. Foraging areas are characterised by areas of mud, associated with low dense vegetation. It is unlikely that this species will occur within the study site, as there are no areas of suitable habitat.

1. Status: LC = Least Concern, NT = Near Threatened, V = Vulnerable, E = Endangered, M = Migratory 2. WO = Wildlife Online Database Extract, PM = EPBC Protected Matters Report


Appendix E

Flora Species List


Table E1: Flora species recorded within the study area

FAMILY SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS1 RE 9.11.13 RE 9.12.7

VS1 VS3 VS2 I/M VS4 I/M

Acanthaceae Brunoniella australis Blue Trumpet LC X X X X X

Acanthaceae Hypoestes floribunda Native Holly LC X

Acanthaceae Pseuderanheumum variabile LC X X

Acanthaceae Rostellularia adscendens LC X X X X X

Adiantaceae Cheilanthes sieberi Mulga fern LC X X X

Amaranthaceae Achyranthes aspera Chaff Flower * X

Amaranthaceae Ptilotus polystachyus Longtails LC X X

Apocynaceae Wrightia saligna Milkwood LC X X

Apocynaceae Carissa ovata Currant Bush LC X X X

Asclepiadaceae Marsdenia viridiflora Bush Banana LC X

Asteraceae *Bidens bipinnata Beggar's Ticks * X X X X

Asteraceae *Cyanthillium cinereum Iron Weed * X X X

Asteraceae Olearia arguta var. lanata LC X

Asteraceae *Praxelis clematidae Praxelis weed * X

Bignoniaceae Dolichandrone heterophylla Lemonwood LC X

Burseraceae Canarium australiana Mango Bark LC X X X

Caesalpiniaceae Erythrophleum chlorostachys Cooktown Ironwood LC X X X X X




Caesalpiniaceae Senna gaudichaudii Gaudichaud's Senna LC X

Capparaceae Capparis canescens Wild orange LC X X

Celastraceae Denhamia cunninghamii Yellowberry Bush LC X X X

Cochlospermaceae Cochlospermum gregorii Native Kapok LC X X

Combretaceae Terminalia aridicola subsp. chillagoensis LC X X

Commelinaceae Aneilema siliculosum LC X X X

Commelinaceae Commelina diffusa Climbing Dayflower LC X

Commelinaceae Commelina ensifolia Wandering Jew LC X

Commelinaceae Murdannia graminea Slug Herb LC X X

Convolvulaceae Evolvulus alsinoides Dwarf morning glory LC X X

Cyperaceae Bulbostylis barbata LC X X

Cyperaceae Fimbristylus dichotoma LC X X X X

Cyperaceae Scleria brownii LC X X

Ebenaceae Diospyros humilis Ebony LC X

Erythroxylaceae Erythroxylum ellipticum Turpentine tree LC X

Euphorbiaceae Euphorbia bifida LC X X X X X

Euphorbiaceae Euphorbia tannensis Desert Spurge LC X X

Fabaceae Cajanus marmoratus Marbled Pigeon Pea LC X

Fabaceae Chamaecrista rotundifolia Wynn Cassia * X X X X




Fabaceae Erythrina vespertilio Bat's Wing Coral Tree LC X

Fabaceae Glycine tomentella Woolly Glycine LC X X

Fabaceae Indigofera colutea Rusty Indigo LC X X X

Fabaceae Indigofera pratensis Forest Indigo LC X X X X

Fabaceae Macroptilium lathyroides Wild Bean * X

Fabaceae Macroptilium atropurpureum Siratro * X X

Fabaceae Rhynchosia minima Rhyncho LC X X

Fabaceae Stylosanthes scabra Shrubby Stylo * X X X X

Fabaceae Tephrosia juncea LC X

Fabaceae Uraria lagopoides LC X X X X X

Fabaceae Zornia muriculata subsp. angustata LC X

Lamiaceae Clerodendrum floribundum Lolly Bush LC X X

Lamiaceae *Hyptis suavolens Hyptis * X

Lauraceae Cassytha pubescens Devil's Twine LC X

Laxmanniaceae Eustrephus latifolius Wombat Berry LC X X

Laxmanniaceae Lomandra multiflora Many-flowered Mat Rush LC X X

Lecythidaceae Planchonia careya Cockatoo Apple LC X X X

Loganiaceae Strychnos lucida Strychnine Dush LC X

Loganiaceae Strychnos psilosperma Threaded Boxwood LC X




Malvaceae Grewia retusifolia Emu Berry LC X X X X X X

Malvaceae Hibiscus meraukensis Merauke Hibiscus LC X X

Malvaceae Sida cordifolia Flannel Weed * X X X

Malvaceae Sida spinosa False Mallow * X X

Malvaceae *Triumfetta rhomboidea Triumfetta Burr * X

Menispermaceae Tinospora smilacina Snake Vine LC X

Mimosaceae Acacia longispicata Black Wattle LC X

Mimosaceae Vachellia bidwillii Corkwood Wattle LC X X X

Moraceae Ficus opposita Sandpaper Fig LC X X

Myrtaceae Corymbia confertiflora Broad-leaved Carbeen LC X X X

Myrtaceae Corymbia dallachiana Dallachy’s Gum LC X X X

Myrtaceae Corymbia erythrophloia Variable-barked Bloodwood LC X X X X

Myrtaceae Corymbia polycarpa Long-fruited Bloodwood LC X X X

Myrtaceae Eucalyptus culleni Cullen's Ironbark LC X X X X X X

Myrtaceae Melaleuca nervosa Paperbark LC X X

Orchidaceae Cymbidium canaliculatum Queensland Black Orchid LC X

Phyllanthaceae Breynia oblongifolia Coffee Bush LC X X X X

Phyllanthaceae Bridelia tomentosa LC X X

Phyllanthaceae Margaritaria dubium-traceyi Tracey’s Puzzle LC X




Phyllanthaceae Phyllanthus virgatus Seed-under-leaf LC X X X

Picrodendraceae Petalostigma bankseii Quinine Bush LC X X

Picrodendraceae Petalostigma pubescens Quinine Tree LC X X X

Pittosporaceae Bursaria spinosa Sweet Bursaria LC X

Poaceae Alloteropsis semialata Cockatoo grass LC X X X X

Poaceae Aristida calycina Dark Wiregrass LC X X

Poaceae Aristida holathera Wiregrass LC X X X

Poaceae Aristida sciuroides Wiregrass LC X X

Poaceae Chrysopogon fallax Golden Beard Grass LC X X X

Poaceae Cymbopogon bombycinus Citronella Grass LC

Poaceae Dactyloctenium radulans Native button grass LC X

Poaceae Enneapogon lindleyanus Lindley Nineawn LC X X

Poaceae Eriachne obtusa Northern Wanderrie Grass LC X X

Poaceae Heteropogon contortus Black Speargrass LC X X X X X X

Poaceae Heteropogon triticeus Giant Speargrass LC X X

Poaceae Melinis repens Red Natal Grass * X X

Poaceae Mnesithea rottboelliodes Northern Cane Grass LC X

Poaceae Paspalidium distans LC X

Poaceae Schizachyrium fragile Firegrass LC X X




Poaceae Setaria surgens Pigeon Grass LC X X

Poaceae Themeda triandra Kangaroo Grass LC X X X X

Polygalaceae Polygala macrobotrya LC X X X X

Proteaceae Grevillea glauca Bushmen's Pegs LC X

Proteaceae Grevillea parallela Silver Oak LC X X X

Proteaceae Grevillea pteridofolia Silky Grevillea LC X

Proteaceae Hakea lorea Bootlace Oak LC X

Proteaceae Hakea persihana LC X X X

Proteaceae Persoonia falcata Geebung LC X X

Rhamnaceae Alphitonia pomaderroides LC X X X X X X

Rubiaceae Gardenia vilhelmii LC X

Rubiaceae Larsenaikia ochreata Native Gardenia LC X X X X

Rubiaceae Pavetta granitica LC X

Rubiaceae Psychotria daphnoides var. angustifolia LC X

Rubiaceae Psydrax attenuata Native Australian Myrtle LC X X

Santalaceae Exocarpus latifolius Broad-leaved Native Cherry LC X X X

Santalaceae Santalum lanceolatum Sandlewood LC X

Sapindaceae Atalaya variifolia Wingleaf whitewood LC X

Sapindaceae Dodonaea dodecandra Hop Bush LC X




Sapindaceae Dodonaea physocarpa Hop Bush LC X

Sapotaceae Sersalisia sericea Wild Prune LC X

Solanaceae Solanum multiglochidiatum LC X X

Solanaceae Solanum seaforthianum Brazilian Nightshade * X

Sterculiaceae Brachychiton australis Broad-leaved Bottle Tree LC X

Sterculiaceae Brachychiton chillagoensis Kurrajong LC X X X X

Sterculiaceae Brachychiton diversifolia Northern Kurrajong LC X X X X

Taccaceae Tacca leontopetaloides Arrowroot LC X

Thymelaeaceae Wikstroemia indica Tie Bush LC X

Ulmaceae Trema tomentosa Poison peach LC X X

Violaceae Hybanthus anneaspermus Blue Spade Flower LC X X X X X

Vitaceae Ampelocissus acetosa Native Grape LC X X X

Vitaceae Cayratia trifolia Native grape LC X X

Vitaceae Clematicissus opaca Small-leaf Grape LC X X X

1. Status: LC = Least Concern, NT = Near Threatened, V = Vulnerable, E = Endangered, * = Species not native to Australia


Appendix F

Fauna Species List


Table F1: Fauna species recorded within the study area

STATUS1 FAMILY COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 INCIDENTAL

NCA EPBC

BIRDS

LC Columbidae Common Bronzewing Phaps chalcoptera X X

LC Columbidae Crested Pigeon Ocyphaps lophotes X X

LC Podargidae Tawny Frogmouth Podargus strigoides X X

LC Accipitridae Black Kite Milvus migrans X X

LC Accipitridae Whistling Kite Haliastur sphenurus X

LC Accipitridae Wedge-tailed Eagle Aquila audax X

LC Burhinidae Bush Stone-curlew Burhinus grallarius X

LC Cacatuidae Red-tailed Black Cockatoo Calyptorhynchus banksii X X X

LC Cacatuidae Galah Eolophus roseicapilla X X

LC Cacatuidae Sulphur-crested Cockatoo Cacatua galerita X

LC Psittaculidae Rainbow Lorikeet Trichoglossus haematodus X X X X

LC Psittaculidae Red-winged Parrot Aprosmictus erythropterus X X

LC Psittaculidae Pale-headed Rosella Platycercus adscitus X X X X

LC Cuculidae Pheasant Coucal Centropus phasianinus X

LC Cuculidae Eastern Koel Eudynamys orientalis X

LC Cuculiformes Channel-billed Cuckoo Scythrops novaehollandiae X



NCA EPBC

LC Strigidae Southern Boobook Ninox novaeseelandiae X

LC Halcyonidae Laughing Kookaburra Dacelo novaeguineae X X X X

LC Halcyonidae Blue-winged Kookaburra Dacelo leachii X

LC M Meropidae Rainbow Bee-eater Merops ornatus X

LC Ptilonorhynchidae Great Bowerbird Ptilonorhynchus nuchalis X X

LC Acanthizidae Weebill Smicrornis brevirostris X

LC Acanthizidae White-throated Gerygone Gerygone albogularis X X X

LC Pardalotidae Striated Pardalote Pardalotus striatus X X X X

LC Meliphagidae Yellow Honeyeater Lichenostomus flavus X X

LC Meliphagidae Noisy Miner Manorina melanocephala X X X X

LC Meliphagidae Yellow-throated Miner Manorina flavigula X

LC Meliphagidae Blue-faced Honeyeater Entomyzon cyanotis X

LC Meliphagidae White-throated Honeyeater Melithreptus albogularis X

LC Meliphagidae Noisy Friarbird Philemon corniculatus X X

LC Meliphagidae Little Friarbird Philemon citreogularis X X X

LC Pomatostomidae Grey-crowned Babbler Pomatostomus temporalis X

LC Campephagidae Black-faced Cuckoo-shrike Coracina novaehollandiae X

LC Campephagidae White-bellied Cuckoo-shrike Coracina papuensis X X

LC Campephagidae Cicadabird Coracina tenuirostris X



NCA EPBC

LC Oriolidae Australasian Figbird Sphecotheres vieilloti X

LC Oralidae Olive-backed Oriole Oriolus sagittatus X X X

LC Artamidae Pied Butcherbird Cracticus nigrogularis X X X X X

LC Artamidae Australian Magpie Cracticus tibicen X X X

LC Artamidae Pied Currawong Strepera graculina X

LC Rhipiduridae Grey Fantail Rhipidura albiscapa X X

LC Corvidae Torresian Crow Corvus orru X X X X X

LC Monarchidae Magpie-lark Grallina cyanoleuca X

LC Corcoracidae Apostlebird Struthidea cinerea X X

REPTILES

LC Colubridae Brown Tree Snake Boiga irregularis X X

LC Elapidae Carpentaria Snake Cryptophis boschmai X X

LC Elapidae Pale-headed Snake Hoplocephalus bitorquatus X

LC Typhlopidae Faint-striped Blind Snake Ramphotyphlops broomi X

LC Agamidae Tommy Roundhead Diporiphora australis X

LC Gekkonidae Zig-zag Velvet Gecko Amalosia rhombifer X X X X X

LC Gekkonidae Ring-tailed Gecko Cyrtodactylus mcdonaldi X X X

LC Gekkonidae Fat-tail Gecko Diplodactylus conspicilattus X

LC Gekkonidae Dubious Dtella Gehyra dubia X X X X X X



NCA EPBC

LC Gekkonidae Bynoe’s Gecko Heteronotia binoei X X X X X X X

LC Gekkonidae Box-patterned Gecko Lucasium steindachneri X X X

LC Gekkonidae Chevert's gecko Nactus cheverti X X X

LC Gekkonidae Northern Velvet Gecko Oedura castelnaui X X X

LC Gekkonidae Northern Spotted Velvet Gecko Oedura coggeri X

LC Scincidae Lined Rainbow Skink Carlia jarnoldae X X X

LC Scincidae Shaded-litter Rainbow Skink Carlia munda X X X X

LC Scincidae Lively Rainbow skink Carlia vivax X X

LC Scincidae Robust Rainbow Skink Carlia schmeltzii X X X

LC Scincidae Straight-browed Ctenotus Ctenotus spaldingi X X

LC Scincidae Outcrop rock-skink Liburnascincus mundivensis X X

LC Scincidae Iridescent Litter-skink Lygisaurus folorium X

LC Scincidae Common Dwarf Skink Menitia greyii X

LC Scincidae Northern Blue-tongue Tiliqua sciniodes intermedia X X

LC Varanidae Black-headed Monitor Varanus tristus X

AMPHIBIANS

* Bufonidae Cane Toad Rhinella marina X X

MAMMALS

* Bovidae Cattle Bos taurus X X



NCA EPBC

* Canidae Dingo Canis lupus X

* Leporidae European Rabbit Oryctolagus cuniculus X X

* Suidae Pig Sus scrofa X

* Felidae Cat Felis catus X

SLC Tachyglossidae Short-beaked Echidna Tachyglossus aculeatus X

LC Macropodidae Mareeba Rock Wallaby Petrogale Mareeba X

LC Macropodidae Agile Wallaby Macropus agilis jardinii X

LC Macropodidae Common Wallaroo Macropus robustus X X

LC Macropodidae Antilopine Wallaroo Macropus antilopinus X X

LC Muridae Common rock rat Zyzomys argurus X X

LC Phalangeridae Brushtail Possum Trichosurus vulpecular X X X X X X X

LC Potoroidae Rufous Bettong Aepyprymnus rufescens X X X

LC Emballonuridae Yellow-bellied Sheathtail Bat Saccolaimus flaviventris X X X X X

LC Emballonuridae Troughton’s Sheathtail Bat Taphozous troughtoni X P P

LC Molossidae Northern Freetail Bat Chaerephon jobensis X X X X X

LC Molossidae Beccari’s Freetail Bat Mormopterus beccarii P X

LC Molossidae Northern Freetail Bat Mormopterus lumsdenae P X

LC Rhinolophidae Eastern Horseshoe Bat Rhinolophus megaphyllus X X

LC Vespertilionidae Gould’s Watlled Bat Chalinolobus gouldii X X X



NCA EPBC

LC Vespertilionidae Hoary Wattled Bat Chalinolobus nigrogriseus X X X X X X

LC Vespertilionidae Little Bent-wing Bat Miniopterus australis X X X X

LC Vespertilionidae Northern Bent-wing Bat Miniopterus orianae oceanensis X X X X X X

LC Vespertilionidae Long-eared Bats Nyctophilus sp. X X X

LC Vespertilionidae Inland Broad-nosed Bat Scotorepens balstoni X X X

LC Vespertilionidae Northern Broad-nosed Bat Scotorepens sanborni/greyii X X X X X X

LC Vespertilionidae Vespadelus sp. X

LC Vespertilionidae Eastern Cave Bat Vespadelus troughtoni X X

1. Status: LC = Least Concern, SLC= Special Least Concern, NT = Near Threatened, V = Vulnerable, E = Endangered, M = Migratory, * = Species not native to Australia, P = Possible call data (calls similar to this species recorded, but nor reliable identified)

References 72


Appendix G Microbat Call Interpretation Reports

Microbat Call Identification Report

Prepared for (“Client”): Northern Resource Consultants

Survey location/project name: Chillagoe

Survey dates: 27-31 January 2015

Client project reference:

Job no.: NRC-1501

Report date: 6 February 2015

DISCLAIMER:

© Copyright – Balance! Environmental, ABN 75 795 804 356. This document and its content arecopyright and may not be copied, reproduced or distributed (in whole or part) without the prior writtenpermission of Balance! Environmental other than by the Client for the purposes authorised byBalance! Environmental (“Intended Purpose”). To the extent that the Intended Purpose requires thedisclosure of this document and/or its content to a third party, the Client must procure suchagreements, acknowledgements and undertakings as may be necessary to ensure that the third partydoes not copy, reproduce, or distribute this document and its content other than for the IntendedPurpose. This disclaimer does not limit any rights Balance! Environmental may have under theCopyright Act 1968 (Cth).

The Client acknowledges that the Final Report is intended for the sole use of the Client, and only to be

used for the Intended Purpose. Any representation or recommendation contained in the Final Report

is made only to the Client. Balance! Environmental will not be liable for any loss or damage

whatsoever arising from the use and/or reliance on the Final Report by any third party.

NRC-1501_Chillagoe-Jan2014_batcall analysis.docx6/02/2015 Page 2 of 6

Survey summary and data received for analysis

Bat calls were recorded over four consecutive nights using an Anabat detector (Titley Scientific,

Brisbane). Data were downloaded from the detector on behalf of the client by FaunaLink Ecological

and some 508 zero-crossing (ZC) bat-call sequence files were sent to Balance! Environmental for

analysis.

Call identification process

Call identification was achieved using AnalookW (Corben 2014). All ZC sequence files were viewed

and those containing bat calls of sufficient quality for identification were extracted for closer

examination. Calls were excluded from the identification process if they contained fewer than four

clearly-defined pulses and/or only contained weak and fragmented pulses.

Species identification was achieved manually by comparing the selected call sonograms with those of

reference calls from central and north-eastern Queensland and/or with reference to published call

descriptions (e.g. Reinhold et al. 2001; Milne 2002; Pennay et al. 2004).

Species' identification was also guided by considering probability of occurrence based on general

distribution information (Churchill 2008; van Dyck et al 2013) and/or database records obtained from

Wildlife Online (http://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/wildlife/wildlife-online/index.html).

Reporting standard

The format and content of this report follows Australasian Bat Society standards for the interpretation

and reporting of bat call data (Reardon 2003), available on-line at http://www.ausbats.org.au/.

Species nomenclature follows van Dyck et al (2013).

Results

Approximately half (251) of the ZC sequence files contained bat calls suitable for identification,

although many of these were not reliably identifiable to single species due to similarities between a

number of species that potentially occur in the study area. Despite this, there were enough good

quality calls to obtain positive identification for most species present.

Eleven species were positively identified; and a further two call types were only identifiable to genus

level (Table 1). Several calls with steep linear pulses were attributable to Nyctophilus, with N. bifax

the most likely species to be present. The second unresolved call type consisted of curvilinear pulses

with hooked bodies typical of the genus Vespadelus and most likely produced by V. troughtoni.

Mormopterus beccarii and Taphozous troughtoni share similar call types and can be difficult to

differentiate. A number of calls recorded on the first two nights could have been from either species;

however, several from 27/1/15 were reliably attributed to M. beccarii and a few from 28/1/15 were

positively identified to T. troughtoni.


Table 1. Microbat species recorded during the Chillagoe survey, 27-31 January 2015.

♦ = species positively identified from call data

□ = calls similar to the species were present, but not reliably identified

Date: 27/01/2015 28/01/2015 29/01/2015 30/01/2015

No. sequence files: 335 87 32 54

No. calls identified: 113 72 26 40

Rhinolophus megaphyllus ♦

Chalinolobus gouldii ♦ ♦

Chalinolobus nigrogriseus ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

Nyctophilus species ♦ ♦

Scotorepens balstoni ♦ ♦ ♦

Scotorepens sanborni ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

Vespadelus species ♦ ♦

Miniopterus australis ♦

Miniopterus orianae oceanensis ♦ ♦ ♦

Chaerephon jobensis ♦ ♦ ♦

Mormopterus beccarii ♦ □

Saccolaimus flaviventris ♦ ♦ ♦

Taphozous troughtoni □ ♦

References

Churchill, S. (2008). Australian Bats. Jacana Books, Allen & Unwin; Sydney.

Corben, C. (2013). AnalookW for bat call analysis using ZCA. Version 4.1j, 29 September 2014.

Milne, D.J. (2002). Key to the Bat Calls of the Top End of the Northern Territory. Technical Report

No. 71, Parks and Wildlife Commission of the Northern Territory, Darwin.

Pennay, M., Law, B. and Reinhold, L. (2004). Bat Calls of New South Wales. Department of

Environment and Conservation, Hurstville.

Reardon, T. (2003). Standards in bat detector based surveys. Australasian Bat Society Newsletter

20, 41-43.

Reinhold, L., Law, B., Ford, G. and Pennay, M. (2001). Key to the bat calls of south-east Queensland

and north-east New South Wales. Department of Natural Resources and Mines, Brisbane.

van Dyck, S., Gynther, I. and Baker, A. (eds.) (2013). Field Companion to the Mammals of Australia.

New Holland; Sydney.


Glossary

Technical terms used in this report are described in the following table.

Approach phase The part of a bat call emitted as the bat starts to home in on a detectedprey item; a transitional series of pulses between the search phase andfeeding buzz, that become progressively steeper and shorter induration.

Call Refers to a single bat call, made up of a series of individual soundpulses in one or more phases (search, approach, feeding buzz).

CF (=Constant Frequency) A type of pulse in which the dominant component consists of a more-or-less ‘pure tone’ of sound at a Constant Frequency; with shapeappearing flat on the sonogram. Often also contains a brief FMcomponent at the beginning and/or end of the CF component (viz. FM-CF-FM).

Characteristic frequency (Fc) The frequency of the flattest part of a pulse; usually the lowestfrequency reached in the qCF component of a pulse. This is often theprimary diagnostic feature for species identification.

Duration The time period from the beginning of a pulse to the end of the pulse.

Feeding buzz The terminal part of a call, following the approach phase, emitted as

the bat catches a prey item; a distinctive, rapid series of very steep,very short-duration pulses.

FM (=Frequency Modulated) A type of pulse in which there is substantial change in frequency frombeginning to end; shape ranges from almost vertical and linear through

varying degrees of curvature.

FC range Refers to the range of frequencies occupied by the characteristicfrequency section of pulses within a call or set of calls.

Frequency sweep or “band-width” The range of frequencies through which a pulse sweeps from

beginning to end; Maximum frequency (Fmax) – minimum frequency(Fmin).

Knee The transitional part of a pulse between the initial (usually steeper)frequency sweep and the characteristic frequency section (usuallyflatter); time to knee (Tk) and frequency of knee (Fk) can be diagnosticfor some species.

Pulse An individual pulse of sound within a bat call; the shape, duration andcharacteristic frequency of a pulse are the key diagnostic features usedto differentiate species.

Pulse body The part of the pulse between the knee and tail and containing thecharacteristic frequency section.

Pulse shape The general appearance of a pulse on the sonogram, described usingrelative terms related to features such as slope and degree ofcurvature. See also CF, qCF and FM.

qCF (=quasi Constant Frequency) A type of pulse in which there is very little change in frequency frombeginning to end; shape appears to be almost flat. Some pulses alsocontain an FM component at the beginning and/or end of the qCFcomponent (viz. FM-qCF).

Search phase The part of a bat call generally required for reliable species diagnosis.A consistent series of pulses emitted by a bat that is searching for preyor and/or navigating through its habitat. Search phase pulses generallyhave longer duration, flatter slope and more consistent shape thanapproach phase and feeding buzz pulses.

Sequence Literally, a sequence of pulses that may be from one or more bats; butgenerally refers to a call or part (e.g. phase) of a call.

Tail The final component of a pulse, following the characteristic frequencysection; may consist of a short or long sweep of frequencies eitherupward or downward from the Fc; or may be absent.


Appendix 1 Representative ZC sonograms from the Chillagoe survey, January 2015.(Scale: 10msec per tick; time between pulses removed)

Rhinolophus megaphyllus Chalinolobus gouldii Chalinolobus nigrogriseus

Nyctophilus sp. Scotorepens balstoni Scotorepens sanborni

Vespadelus pumilus / V. troughtoni Miniopterus australis Miniopterus orianae oceanensis


Chaerephon jobensis Mormopterus beccarii

Saccolaimus flaviventris Taphozous troughtoni

Microbat Call Interpretation Report

Prepared for (“Client”): Northern Resource Consultants

Survey location/project name: Chillagoe

Survey dates: 18-21 May 2015

Client project reference:Job no.: NRC-1504

Report date: 15 June 2015

DISCLAIMER:

© Copyright – Balance! Environmental, ABN 75 795 804 356. This document and its content arecopyright and may not be copied, reproduced or distributed (in whole or part) without the prior writtenpermission of Balance! Environmental other than by the Client for the purposes authorised byBalance! Environmental (“Intended Purpose”). To the extent that the Intended Purpose requires thedisclosure of this document and/or its content to a third party, the Client must procure suchagreements, acknowledgements and undertakings as may be necessary to ensure that the third partydoes not copy, reproduce, or distribute this document and its content other than for the IntendedPurpose. This disclaimer does not limit any rights Balance! Environmental may have under theCopyright Act 1968 (Cth).

The Client acknowledges that the Final Report is intended for the sole use of the Client, and only to beused for the Intended Purpose. Any representation or recommendation contained in the Final Reportis made only to the Client. Balance! Environmental will not be liable for any loss or damagewhatsoever arising from the use and/or reliance on the Final Report by any third party.

NRC-1504_Chillagoe_bat call analysis.docx15/06/2015 Page 2 of 5

Methods

Data receipt and processing

Bat calls were recorded over four nights using an Anabat detector (Titley Scientific, Brisbane). Data

were downloaded from the detector and converted to Anabat sequence files (zero-crossing analysis

format) by the client. Balance! Environmental received a total of 1219 sequence files for analysis.

Call identification

All Anabat sequence files were viewed using AnalookW (Corben 2015) and a subset of representative

calls for each survey night was selected for identification. Species were identified manually by

comparing the representative call spectrograms with those of reference calls from northern and central

Queensland and/or with published call descriptions (e.g. Reinhold et al. 2001; Milne 2002).

Species' identities were refined by considering probability of occurrence based on general distribution

information (e.g. Churchill 2008; van Dyck & Strahan 2008) and/or records obtained from Wildlife

Online (http://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/wildlife/wildlife-online) and/or the Atlas of Living Australia

(www.ala.org.au).

Reporting standard

The format and content of this report follows Australasian Bat Society standards for the interpretation

and reporting of bat call data (Reardon 2003), available on-line at http://www.ausbats.org.au/.

Species nomenclature follows Reardon et al. (2015).

Results & Discussion

Recording quality was good overall, with most files containing long-duration calls with clearly defined

pulses. The majority of calls observed were from just a few species, so only a relatively small

proportion (152/1219) of the files were required to provide species identification.

Thirteen distinct call types were recognised, with eleven of those positively identified to individual

species (see Table 1). The other two call types each potentially represented two or more species,

including:

Scotorepens greyii and/or Scotorepens sanborni

o Calls are indistinguishable and both species possibly occur in the study area

Nyctophilus species

o Calls from bats in this genus are distinctive but it is not possible to separate the

species using call characteristics

o three species potentially occur in the study area – N. bifax, N. geoffroyi and N. gouldi

A single brief and weak call was possibly attributable to either Mormopterus lumsdenae or Taphozous

troughtoni on the night of 19th

May; however, a number of calls were positively identified to each

species for the 21st

May.


Table 1. Microbat species recorded during the Chillagoe survey, 18-21 May 2015.

♦ = at least one call was attributed unequivocally to the species for the date/site □ = calls similar to those of the species were recorded, but could not be reliably identified - = species not recorded

Date: 18-May 19-May 20-May 21-May

Number of sequence files: 103 176 463 477

Number of calls identified: 25 44 25 58

Rhinolophus megaphyllus - - ♦ -

Chalinolobus gouldii - ♦ ♦ -

Chalinolobus nigrogriseus ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

Nyctophilus species - ♦ - ♦

Scotorepens balstoni - - - ♦

Scotorepens greyii / S. sanborni ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

Vespadelus troughtoni - - ♦ ♦

Miniopterus australis ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

Miniopterus orianae oceanensis ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

Chaerephon jobensis - - ♦ ♦

Mormopterus lumsdenae - □ - ♦

Saccolaimus flaviventris - ♦ ♦ ♦

Taphozous troughtoni - □ - ♦

References

Churchill, S. (2008). Australian Bats. Jacana Books, Allen & Unwin; Sydney.

Corben, C. (2015). AnalookW for bat call analysis using ZCA, Version 4.1t. Downloaded from:

http://www.titley-scientific.com

Milne, D.J. (2002). Key to the Bat Calls of the Top End of the Northern Territory. Technical Report

No. 71; Parks and Wildlife Commission of the Northern Territory.

Pennay, M., Law, B. and Reinhold, L. (2004). Bat Calls of New South Wales. Department of

Environment and Conservation, Hurstville.

Reardon, T.B., Armstrong, K.N. and Jackson, S.M. (2015). A current taxonomic list of Australian

Chiroptera. Australasian Bat Society. Version 2015-05-15. Downloaded from:

http://ausbats.org.au/taxonomic-list/4589345107

Reardon, T. (2003). Standards in bat detector based surveys. Australasian Bat Society Newsletter

20, 41-43.

Reinhold, L., Law, B., Ford, G. and Pennay, M. (2001). Key to the bat calls of south-east Queensland

and north-east New South Wales. Department of Natural Resources and Mines, Brisbane.

van Dyck, S. and Strahan, R. (ed.) (2008). The Mammals of Australia (Third Edition). New Holland;

Sydney.


Appendix 1 Representative call sequences recorded during the Chillagoe survey, May 2015.(Scale: 10msec per tick; time between pulses removed)

Rhinolophus megaphyllus Chalinolobus gouldii Chalinolobus nigrogriseus

Nyctophilus species Scotorepens balstoni Scotorepens greyii/S. sanborni

Vespadelus troughtoni Miniopterus australis Miniopterus orianae oceanensis


Chaerephon jobensis Mormopterus lumsdenae

Saccolaimus flaviventris Taphozous troughtoni

Mt Lucy Iron Ore Project - Environment · Mt Lucy Iron Ore Project Supporting documentation for an...

Documents

Transcript of Mt Lucy Iron Ore Project - Environment · Mt Lucy Iron Ore Project Supporting documentation for an...