metro mining appendix h2 - metro mining community and … · 2018-08-09 · bauxite hills project...

Metro MiningBauxite Hills Project

Environmental Impact Statement

Metro MiningChapter 5 - Terrestrial and Freshwater Ecology

Environmental Impact Statement

Metro MiningAppendix H2 - Metro Mining Community andSocial Responsibility Policy

i

Table of Contents

5 Terrestrial and Freshwater Ecology ............................................................................................. 5-1

5.1 Project Overview .................................................................................................................................... 5-1 5.2 Regulatory Framework ....................................................................................................................... 5-1

5.2.1 Commonwealth ................................................................................................................................ 5-2 5.2.2 State ....................................................................................................................................................... 5-2

5.3 Objectives and Performance Outcomes ....................................................................................... 5-8 5.3.1 Protection Objectives..................................................................................................................... 5-8 5.3.2 Performance Outcomes ................................................................................................................ 5-8

5.4 Assessment Method .............................................................................................................................. 5-8 5.4.1 Nomenclature.................................................................................................................................... 5-8 5.4.2 Desktop Assessment ...................................................................................................................... 5-9 5.4.3 Vegetation and Terrestrial Flora Assessment ................................................................. 5-10 5.4.4 Terrestrial Fauna Assessment ................................................................................................ 5-14 5.4.5 Freshwater Ecology Assessment ........................................................................................... 5-19

5.5 Desktop Assessment Results ......................................................................................................... 5-21 5.5.1 Project Area Context ................................................................................................................... 5-21 5.5.2 Habitat Connectivity ................................................................................................................... 5-22 5.5.3 Environmentally Sensitive Areas .......................................................................................... 5-23 5.5.4 Regional Ecosystem Mapping ................................................................................................. 5-27

5.6 Existing Environmental Values – Field Survey Results ..................................................... 5-28 5.6.1 Terrestrial Flora ............................................................................................................................ 5-28 5.6.2 Terrestrial Fauna Values ........................................................................................................... 5-36 5.6.3 Aquatic Ecological Values ......................................................................................................... 5-54

5.7 Potential Impacts ................................................................................................................................ 5-63 5.7.1 Direct Impacts – Terrestrial Ecology ................................................................................... 5-63

5.8 Cumulative Impacts ........................................................................................................................... 5-75 5.8.1 Cumulative Impact Assessment ............................................................................................. 5-77

5.9 Management and Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................... 5-80 5.9.1 Management of Direct Impacts .............................................................................................. 5-80 5.9.2 Management of Indirect Impacts .......................................................................................... 5-85 5.9.3 Matters of State Environmental Significance and Matters of National

Environmental Significance ....................................................................................................................... 5-87 5.9.4 Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 5-95

5.10 Offsets ...................................................................................................................................................... 5-96 5.10.1 Objectives ......................................................................................................................................... 5-96 5.10.2 EPBC Act Environmental Offsets Policy ............................................................................. 5-97 5.10.3 Environmental Offsets Act 2014 ............................................................................................ 5-97 5.10.4 Significant Impact Assessments ............................................................................................. 5-99 5.10.5 Offset Delivery Evaluation ...................................................................................................... 5-101 5.10.6 EPBC Act Offset Requirements ............................................................................................. 5-103 5.10.7 Queensland Offset Requirements ........................................................................................ 5-103 5.10.8 Next Steps ...................................................................................................................................... 5-106

5.11 Qualitative Risk Assessment ........................................................................................................ 5-107 5.12 Summary............................................................................................................................................... 5-109 5.13 Commitments ..................................................................................................................................... 5-111 5.14 ToR Cross-reference ........................................................................................................................ 5-112

Bauxite Hills Project Terrestrial and Freshwater Ecology

ii

List of Figures

Figure 5-1 Project area location, protected areas and Strategic Environmental Areas ................................... 5-7 Figure 5-2 Terrestrial vegetation and flora survey sites ................................................................................ 5-13 Figure 5-3 Terrestrial fauna and aquatic ecology survey sites ....................................................................... 5-18 Figure 5-4 Wetlands ....................................................................................................................................... 5-24 Figure 5-5 BPA mapping - corridors ............................................................................................................... 5-25 Figure 5-6 Environmentally Sensitive Areas mapping.................................................................................... 5-26 Figure 5-7 Revised Project area RE mapping ................................................................................................. 5-32 Figure 5-8 Groundwater dependent-ecosystems in the Project area ........................................................... 5-59 Figure 5-9 Expected vegetation clearing ......................................................................................................... 5-67 Figure 5-10 Significant development projects surrounding the Project area ................................................ 5-76 Figure 5-11 Waterway stream order and riparian buffer zones .................................................................... 5-86

List of Tables

Table 5-1 Fauna survey site locations and dominant vegetation .................................................................. 5-14 Table 5-2 Fauna trapping methods ................................................................................................................ 5-15 Table 5-3 Total survey effort (trap nights) for Bauxite Hills Project and SRBP fauna ecology surveys .......... 5-17 Table 5-4 Aquatic ecology assessment indicators ......................................................................................... 5-19 Table 5-5 Aquatic ecology site assessment descriptions ............................................................................... 5-20 Table 5-6 Current certified mapped REs of the Project area ......................................................................... 5-27 Table 5-7 Project vegetation community descriptions .................................................................................. 5-30 Table 5-8 Potential for listed flora species to occur within the study area ................................................... 5-33 Table 5-9 Likelihood of occurrence of conservation significant and migratory fauna ................................... 5-39 Table 5-10 In situ surface water sampling results (Feb 2015) ....................................................................... 5-61 Table 5-11 Projected clearing of remnant vegetation ................................................................................... 5-64 Table 5-12 Total clearing of remnant vegetation (DNRM, 2015) ................................................................... 5-65 Table 5-13 Project MSES ................................................................................................................................ 5-87 Table 5-14 MSES significant impact criteria: Beach Stone-curlew and Estuarine Crocodile.......................... 5-88 Table 5-15 Assessment against significant impact criteria: Chocolate Tea Tree Orchid................................ 5-90 Table 5-16 Assessment against significant impact criteria: Black-footed Tree-rat ........................................ 5-92 Table 5-17 Assessment against significant impact criteria: Palm Cockatoo .................................................. 5-94 Table 5-18 Impacts to MSES as a result of clearing ..................................................................................... 5-100 Table 5-19 Potential offset actions .............................................................................................................. 5-104 Table 5-20 Qualitative risk assessment - terrestrial and freshwater ecology .............................................. 5-107 Table 5-21 Commitments – terrestrial and aquatic ecology ........................................................................ 5-111 Table 5-22 ToR cross-reference – flora and fauna ....................................................................................... 5-112

5-1

5 Terrestrial and Freshwater Ecology

This chapter identifies and describes the existing terrestrial flora and fauna values within and

surrounding the Bauxite Hills Project (the Project) area. Potential impacts on terrestrial ecological

values are identified, management measures have been identified and a qualitative impact

assessment has been undertaken. The full terrestrial ecology assessment, conducted by Amec Foster

Wheeler, is provided in Appendix B1 and should be read in conjunction with this chapter.

5.1 Project Overview

Aldoga Minerals Pty Ltd (Aldoga), a 100% owned subsidiary of Metro Mining Limited (Metro

Mining), proposes to develop the Project located on a greenfield site on the western coastline of

Cape York, Queensland, approximately 35 kilometres (km) northeast of Mapoon. The Project will

include an open cut operation, haul roads, Barge Loading Facility (BLF), Roll on/Roll off (RoRo)

facility, transhipping and will produce and transport up to 5 million tonnes per annum (Mtpa) of ore

over approximately 12 years. The mine will not be operational during the wet season.

The Project is characterised by several shallow open cut pits that will be connected via internal haul

roads. The internal haul roads will be connected to a main north-south haul road that will link with

the Mine Infrastructure Area (MIA), BLF and RoRo facility located to the north of the pits on the

Skardon River. Bauxite will be screened in-pit and then hauled to the product stockpile using road

train trucks.

Bauxite from the Project is suitable as a Direct Shipping Ore (DSO) product (i.e. ore is extracted and

loaded directly to ships with no washing or tailings dams required). Bauxite will be transported by

barge via the Skardon River to the transhipment site, approximately 12 km offshore, and loaded into

ocean going vessels (OGVs) and shipped to customers. No dredging or bed-levelling for transhipping

is proposed as part of this Project.

OGVs of between 50,000 to 120,000 tonne (t) each will be loaded at the transhipment anchorage

site. Vessels will be loaded and bauxite will be transported to OGVs 24 hours per day with barges

having an initial capacity of approximately 3,000 t to meet early production volumes, increasing up

to 7,000 t as the Project reaches a maximum production volume of 5 Mtpa.

The construction of the mine is due to commence in April 2017 and is expected to take seven months

to complete. The first shipment of bauxite is planned for October 2017. The Project will be 100%

fly-in fly-out (FIFO) due to its remote location. The Project will operate over two 12 hour shifts per

day for approximately eight months of the year and is expected to employ up to 254 employees

during peak operations. In addition to the workforce, it is expected that the Project will result in the

employment of additional workers through local and regional businesses servicing the

accommodation camp and the construction and operation of the mine.

5.2 Regulatory Framework

This section provides an overview of the statutory framework relevant to the identification and

management of terrestrial ecological values within the Project area.


5-2

5.2.1 Commonwealth

Commonwealth legislation and policy relevant to the terrestrial ecology values of the Project area

include:

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act); and

EPBC Act Environmental Offsets Policy 2012 (EPBC Offsets Policy).

5.2.1.1 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

The EPBC Act regulates activities that may have an impact upon Matters of National Environmental

Significance (MNES). The Project has the potential to impact upon MNES including listed threatened

species, communities and migratory birds and, therefore has been designated as a Controlled Action

under the Act. This chapter does not assess the potential impacts on MNES as prescribed under the

EPBC Act. As per the Project Terms of Reference (ToR) impacts to MNES are described separately in

Chapter 7 within this EIS.

5.2.1.2 EPBC Act Environmental Offsets Policy 2012

The EPBC Offsets Policy outlines the position of the Commonwealth Government with respect to the

use of environmental offsets under the EPBC Act.

Offsets will only apply to projects that are determined a controlled action, and that have a

‘significant’ impact on a MNES (as defined in the Significant Impact Guidelines Version 1.1, 2013).

Offsets are required to compensate for any residual significant impact to a MNES such as vegetation

clearing. The policy sets out principles for the provision of offsets to compensate for impacts on

MNES.

The information provided in this section sets out the MNES that are known to occur, or likely to

occur, within the Project area and how impacts on MNES can be avoided or minimised, and any

proposed mitigation strategies. However, impacts to MNES are assessed under the Significant

Impact Guidelines in Chapter 7 – MNES within this EIS.

5.2.2 State

5.2.2.1 Environmental Protection Act 1994

The Environmental Protection Act 1994 (EP Act) has a broad objective of achieving sustainable

development within Queensland. The subordinate EP Regulation defines Category A and Category

B environmentally sensitive areas (ESAs). Category A ESAs include national parks, marine parks, the

Great Barrier Reef region and the wet tropics area. Category B ESAs include some classes of

protected areas, endangered regional ecosystem (RE) types, declared fish habitat areas and areas

subject to international conventions.

5.2.2.2 Environmental Protection (Water) Policy 2009

The EP Act also regulates wetlands in wetland management areas under the subordinate

environmental protection policy (EPPs) including the Environmental Protection (Water) Policy

2009 (EPP (Water)). The EPP (Water) establishes a process for identifying EVs to be protected and

states standards for water quality in support of those values.


5-3

The EPP (Water) provides a framework for:

Identifying EVs and management goals for Queensland waters;

Stating water quality guidelines and objectives (WQOs) to protect or enhance the EVs;

Providing a framework for making consistent, equitable and informed decisions about

Queensland waters; and

Monitoring and reporting on the condition of Queensland waters.

Section 7 of the EPP (Water) specifies the hierarchy of guidelines that are used, to identify water

quality objectives in aquatic habitats. The hierarchy (in the order of use) of water quality guidelines

for the Project are:

Queensland Water Quality Guidelines (QWQG) (EHP, 2009); and

Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (ANZECC) and Agriculture

and Resources Management Council of Australia and New Zealand (ARMCANZ) Australian and

New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality 2000 (herein referred to as the

ANZECC guidelines).

5.2.2.3 Nature Conservation Act 1992

The Nature Conservation Act 1992 (NC Act) provides for the protection and management of native

wildlife and habitat that support native species with particular regard to:

The clearing of plants protected under the NC Act;

A clearing permit or an exemption under the NC Act;

Activities that may cause disturbance (tamper, damage, destroy, mark, move or dig up) to

animal breeding places; and

The taking of fauna.

Subordinate legislation lists protected species and areas to which the regulatory provisions of the

NC Act apply including:

Nature Conservation (Wildlife) Regulation 2006: this Regulation lists terrestrial and aquatic

plant and animal species presumed extinct, endangered, vulnerable, rare, common,

international or prohibited. It recommends management objectives for the protection and

maintenance of these species in Queensland, as appropriate; and

Nature Conservation (Protected Plants) Conservation Plan 2000: this Plan provides protection

and management of native flora.

5.2.2.4 Vegetation Management Act 1999

The Vegetation Management Act (VM Act) establishes Queensland’s vegetation management

framework and classifies remnant vegetation in Queensland as endangered, of concern, or least

concern REs. REs are vegetation communities that are consistently associated with a combination

of geology, land-form and soil in a bioregion. Descriptions of an RE from the Regional Ecosystem

Description Database (Queensland Herbarium, 2015) and classifications assigned under the VM Act

have been used as the basis for assessment of remnant vegetation communities in the Project area.


5-4

It should be noted; however, that mining activities approved by the grant of an environmental

authority (EA) under the EP Act prior to 2014 are exempt from vegetation clearing regulations

under the VM Act and Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (SP Act).

5.2.2.5 Fisheries Act 1994

The main purpose of the Fisheries Act 1994 is to provide for the use, conservation and enhancement

of the fish resources and habitats as a way to apply and promote the principles of ecologically

sustainable development. It regulates the taking and possession of specific fish, removal of marine

vegetation, the control of development in areas of fish habitat and lists noxious fish species. An

approval is likely to be required to remove mangroves for the construction of the barge loading

facility under this Act.

5.2.2.6 Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Act 2002

The Land Protection Act provides for the declaration of Class 1, Class 2 or Class 3 pest plant and

animal species. Under Section 77 of the Land Protection Act, a landowner must take reasonable

steps to keep land under their control free of Class 1 and Class 2 pests. The definition of landowner

under the Land Protection Act includes the lessee for a mining lease granted under the Mineral

Resources Act 1989 (MR Act).

Under the Land Protection Act it is an offence to introduce, keep or supply a declared pest, feed a

declared pest animal, or take a declared pest for commercial use. It is also an offence to:

Supply anything containing reproductive material of a Class 1 or Class 2 pest prescribed under

the Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Regulation 2003; and

Transport a vehicle or thing containing soil or other organic material, which contains the

reproductive material of a declared pest plant.

Refer to Chapter 8 – Biosecurity for further information on the introduction of pests and the existing

pests.

5.2.2.7 Environmental Offset Act 2014

The Environmental Offsets Act 2014 (EO Act), Environmental Offsets Regulation 2014 and the

Queensland Government Environmental Offsets Policy provides a streamlined framework for

environmental offset requirements. Offsets are required where there is an unavoidable impact on

significant EVs. In addition, an environmental offset can only be required if impacts from a

prescribed activity constitute a significant residual impact as identified through the following

guidelines:

The State guideline that provides guidance on what constitutes a significant residual impact for

Matters of State Environmental Significance (MSES);

The Commonwealth Significant Impact Guidelines for what constitutes a significant residual

impact on MNES; and

Any relevant local government significant impact guideline for Matters of Local Environmental

Significance (MLES).

To avoid duplication with offsets required under the EPBC Act, the policy provides that the

administering agency must consider other relevant offset conditions which for the same or


5-5

substantially the same prescribed impact. If duplicating conditions are imposed it allows Metro

Mining to remove the duplication.

5.2.2.8 Cape York Regional Plan

The Cape York Regional Plan was made publically available in 2015 and aims to facilitate

appropriate economic development in the region by identifying strategic land use classifications to

manage economic and environmental state interests.

The plan identifies and interprets the state’s interests in land use planning and development, as

described in the State Planning Policy 2014, for the Cape York region. The plan achieves this through

evaluating and balancing competing state interests in a regional context. It provides more detailed

regional guidance for some state interests to ensure they are addressed in a coordinated fashion

across the region within local government planning schemes.

The plan achieves this purpose through a combination of:

Regional policies;

Regional land use categories;

Regional interest mapping; and

Supporting information about other matters relevant to land use planning in the region.

The key drivers for preparing the plan are the Queensland Government’s intentions to:

Improve and grow the region’s economic development and diversity;

Balance economic development with the protection of areas with important natural and cultural

values;

Replace the land use aspects of the Wenlock Basin, Archer Basin, Stewart Basin, and Lockhart

Basin Wild River Area declarations;

Reduce potential land use conflict and improve land use certainty for landholders and investors;

Attract and secure resource sector development and investment;

Facilitate and grow tourism pursuits across all areas of the region;

Provide investment certainty for towns, businesses and regional communities;

Identify regional infrastructure outcomes that will support economic and community growth

and avoid the introduction of additional, unnecessary regulation; and

Recognise and respect the role of local government to plan for their local area.

The regional plan allows for the allocation of land in the region into the following regional land use

categories:

Strategic Environmental Areas (SEAs); and

National Parks.


5-6

These regional land use categories establish the broad policy framework for achieving the regional

vision and provide the context for the specific regional policies outlined in the Cape York Regional

Plan.

Strategic Environmental Areas

SEAs are areas where high ecological values may occur due to the collocation of multiple biodiversity features in conjunction with the landscape’s topographical and hydrological features. In addition, SEAs can be areas that are recognised for specific Indigenous cultural heritage values of regional significance. SEAs allow for development where the proposed uses can co-exist and do not risk irreversible or widespread impacts to the continuation of the area’s integrity or cultural values. Activities that risk irreversible or widespread impacts to the ecological integrity of the attributes detailed in Schedule 1 will not be allowed.

Designated Precincts within SEAs are areas of significant biodiversity value and/or areas of high cultural heritage significance exist and should be afforded the highest level of protection in the SEA.

The Project area is not wholly or in part located within an SEA or Designated Precinct. The closest SEA is located approximately 30 km to the southwest of the Project at the convergence of the Wenlock and Ducie Rivers to the southeast of Mapoon (refer Figure 5-1).

National Parks

National Parks provide for the conservation and protection of the area’s natural and cultural resources and conditions within the region. National Parks can also provide opportunities for recreational, educational and commercial activities that do not undermine their nature conservation values.

Making up about 15 per cent of the Cape York region, National Parks act as a natural asset that can increase economic opportunities in the region. Areas in and around national parks can facilitate appropriate commercial opportunities such as eco-tourism, short-term accommodation, recreation trails, camping and nature-based experiences. Development in these localities will need to align with the management principles of National Parks generally and the particular values of the relevant national park area.

The Project area is not wholly or in part located within a National Park. The Jardine River National Park located 60 km to the northeast of the Project area, Batavia National Park located approximately 150 km to the south of the Project area, and Iron Range National Park located 150 km southeast of the Project area are the nearest National Parks to the Project (refer Figure 5-1).

Priority Agricultural Areas and Priority Living Areas

The additional areas of regional interest, for the purposes of the Regional Planning Interests Act 2014 (RPI Act), are identified in the Cape York region:

Priority Agricultural Areas (PAA); and

Priority Living Areas (PLA).

PAAs contain significant clusters of what are considered to be the region’s high value, intensive agricultural land uses, and are identified on a regional scale. The Project area is not wholly or in part located within a PAA, with the nearest PAA to the Project being the Lakeland Downs PAA located over 500 km to the southeast of the Project area.

A PLA is an area that includes the settlement area (urban residential, business, township and mixed-use zones and areas for future urban growth), rural residential areas associated with the settlement area and generally a two kilometre buffer area around the settlement within which only those resource activities that are acceptable to the community may locate. The Project area is not wholly or in part located within a PLA, with the nearest PLA to the Project being Mapoon located approximately 16 km to the southwest of the nearest Project area boundary.

Heathlands Resources Reserve

Jardine River National Park

DUCIERIVER

DULHUNTY RIVER

COCKATOO

CREEK

ELIOT

CR

EEK

SKARDON RIV ER

NORTH ALICE CREEK

WEN

LOCK RIVER

DOUGHBOY RIVER

JACK

SO

NRI

VER

WE

NLO

CK

RIV

ER

DUCIE

RIV

ERJ A CKS

ONRIVER

600000

600000

650000

650000

86

50

00

0

86

50

00

0

87

00

00

0

87

00

00

0

87

50

00

0

87

50

00

0

2

DISCLAIMER

CDM Smith has endeavoured to ensure accuracyand completeness of the data. CDM Smith assumes

no legal liability or responsibility for any decisions

or actions resulting from the information contained

within this map.

GCS GDA 1994 Zone 54

/0 2 41

Kilometres

Figure 5-1

Project area location, protected areas and Strategic Environmental Areas

DESIGNED

Details

MD

©COPYRIGHT CDM SMITH

This drawing is confidential and shall only be

used for the purpose of this project.

Legend

Barge Loading Area

Watercourse

Pit Extents

Haul Road

Mine Lease Boundary

Strategic Environmental Area

National Park

Resource Reserve

Forest Or Shrub

Mangrove

Rainforest

DATA SOURCE

MEC Mining 2015;QLD Government Open Data Source;

Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology.

CLIENTDate

1:284,515Scale @ A3 -22/03/16

CHECKED

DRAWN CHECKED

APPROVED DATE

-

-

MD

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Prepared for EIS

-

-

-

-

1 Details 23/02/15

15/03/16

Notes:

R

F:\1_PROJECTS\BES150115_Bauxite_Hill\GIS\DATA\MXD\FINAL\ERA\TER FW ECOL\BES150115-008-R1_LOCATION.mxd

DRG Ref: BES150115-008-R1_LOCATION

DESIGNER


5-8

5.3 Objectives and Performance Outcomes

5.3.1 Protection Objectives

As per the ToR the protection objective is to ensure that the:

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

subsoils, landforms and associated flora and fauna;

Choice of the site, at which the activity is to be carried out, minimises serious environmental

harm on areas of high conservation value and special significance and sensitive land uses at

adjacent places;

Location for the activity on a site protects all environmental values relevant to adjacent sensitive

land uses;

Design of the facility permits the operation of the site, at which the activity is to be carried out,

in accordance with best practice environmental management; and

Avoids significant residual impacts to matters of national and state environmental significance;

mitigates impacts where they cannot be avoided and offsets any residual impacts.

5.3.2 Performance Outcomes

The performance outcomes are:

The Project activities are managed so that adverse effects on terrestrial and freshwater ecology

are minimised;

The long term maintenance of the ecology of aquatic biotic communities;

Fauna species are able to utilise retained habitats adjacent to the Project area post-

development;

No unplanned or unapproved disturbance/clearing of flora and fauna; and

Compliance with the Project’s EA conditions.

5.4 Assessment Method

The description of terrestrial and freshwater ecological flora and fauna values are based on desktop

assessments and ecological studies completed in the Project area in the late dry season of 2014 and

early wet season of 2015. The following sections provide a description of the desktop and field

assessments. The technical reports informing the following information are located in Appendix B1

and B2.

5.4.1 Nomenclature

Flora nomenclature within this chapter follows taxonomy accepted by the Queensland Herbarium

and Queensland Museum. Fauna nomenclature follows the Birdlife Australia Rarities Committee

checklist (for birds) and EHP’s WildNet database taxonomy (for all other fauna), unless otherwise

noted. All flora and fauna in this chapter will be referred to initially by both their common and

scientific names and then for ease of reading only by the common name.


5-9

5.4.2 Desktop Assessment

Desktop studies were undertaken prior to field assessments. The desktop review was used to obtain

background information relating to the potential presence and distribution of species and ecological

communities (including connectivity across the regional landscape), particularly those listed under

the VM Act and NC Act. Desktop studies involved database searches and review of:

Current RE mapping and sensitive area mapping (DNRM);

Commonwealth EPBC Act Protected Matters Search Tool (Department of the Environment

(DotE)) (to confirm current legislative status of listed species);

Queensland Herbarium’s Herbrecs database;

EHP’s WildNet (Wildlife Online) database and Species Profile Search results;

Birdlife Australia New Atlas Database;

Queensland Museum Zoology database;

Mapping for the Protected Plants Trigger Survey Map;

Aquatic conservation assessments for the riverine and non-riverine wetlands of Cape York

catchments (EHP 2012a, 2012b);

Biodiversity Planning Assessment (BPA) for Cape York Peninsula (EHP 2012c);

Wetland mapping to determine the classification, extent and significance of referable wetlands

within the Project area (EHP);

Ecological reporting for the adjacent Skardon River Bauxite Project (SRBP) EIS; and

Data provided by EHP following site visits in 2015 by EHP personnel as part of the SRBP site

visit.

Database searches were undertaken over a 25 km radius using the central portion of the Project

area as a reference point. The EPBC protected matters search tool, whilst based on some species

records, primarily relies on modelling of suitable habitats (with mapped boundary constraints

accounted for) and is as such largely a predictive tool. Wildlife Online and Birdlife Australia database

records are based on records of species from a wide variety of observers and although the records

are generally accurate in terms of spatial location, not all records have been verified. Queensland

Museum database records are based on actual specimens. The EPBC Protected Matters search

results and EHP’s Wildlife Online search results for fauna and flora species are provided as an

Appendix within the Terrestrial Ecology Technical Report in Appendix B1.

5.4.2.1 Biodiversity Planning Assessment

EHP has prepared a Biodiversity Planning Assessment (BPA) for a number of Queensland bioregions

in order to provide broad scale ecological data to advise a range of planning and decision-making

processes. The BPA process employs the Biodiversity Assessment and Mapping Methodology

(BAMM) (Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2002) to determine the relative biodiversity

significance of habitats using seven diagnostic criteria: habitat for significant taxa, ecosystem value,

tract size, relative size of RE, condition, ecosystem diversity, and context and connection to

determine the relative biodiversity significance of habitats and landscapes.


5-10

This is based largely on remnant vegetation mapping data generated under the VM Act, significant

flora and fauna records, and expert panel determinations. The BAMM assigns three levels of

Biodiversity Significance:

State Significance – areas assessed as being significant for biodiversity at the Bioregional or

State scales. They also include areas assessed by other studies/processes as being significant at

national or international scales;

Regional Significance – areas assessed as being significant for biodiversity at the sub-

bioregional scale. These areas have lower significance for biodiversity than areas assessed as

being of State significance; and

Local Significance and Other Values – areas assessed as not being significant for biodiversity at

State or Regional scales. Local values are of significance at the local government scale.

The BPA also establishes a list of ‘priority’ fauna and flora species for each bioregion. Priority species

are selected by ‘expert panels’ from those species not already listed under State or Commonwealth

legislation but considered to be of conservation significance in the subject region.

5.4.2.2 Aquatic Conservation Assessment

Aquatic Conservation Assessments have been carried out in a number of areas within Queensland

including that in which the Project area occurs. Aquatic Conservation Assessments have been

developed using the Aquatic Biodiversity Mapping Method with the intent of identifying

conservation values of wetland areas. It provides a robust and objective conservation assessment

using criteria, indicators and measures that are founded upon a large body of national and

international literature.

The criteria, each of which may have variable numbers of indicators and measures, are naturalness

(aquatic), naturalness (catchment), diversity and richness, threatened species and ecosystems,

priority species and ecosystems, special features, connectivity and representativeness. The results

are used to aid decision-making processes for a range of applications such as: prioritising land

protection and rehabilitation, local and regional water resource planning, and development impact

assessments.

5.4.2.3 Stygofauna and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems Desktop Review

No stygofauna surveys have been carried out for the Project. A review of the occurrence of

stygofauna is presented based on the results of a preliminary stygofauna assessment carried out for

the SRBP.

A desktop review of Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems has been carried out by CDM Smith and

is summarised in Section 5.6. The detailed assessment is provided in the Groundwater Technical

Report located in Appendix E1.

5.4.3 Vegetation and Terrestrial Flora Assessment

A number of ecological field surveys were undertaken for the Project to ground-truth desktop

information and identify any additional flora and fauna values not identified through the desktop

study. Field surveys for the fauna studies were led by Mark Sanders (dry season) and Richard Floyd

(wet season) and flora studies were led by David Fell, on behalf of Amec Foster Wheeler.


5-11

Field surveys comprised:

Detailed late dry season flora, fauna and aquatic ecology survey between 4 to 11 November

2014 by Amec Foster Wheeler staff; and

Detailed early wet season flora, fauna and aquatic ecology survey from 31 January to 6 February

2015 by Amec Foster Wheeler staff.

Surveys were designed to encapsulate seasonal variation in species’ detectability, and survey sites

were selected in representative locations in the key vegetation communities and habitat types

present. Strong, hot, and humid east to east south east winds between 20 and 30 km/hr were

observed during the late dry season surveys, along with a moderate downpour from a localised

thunderstorm encountered during the afternoon of 6 November; however, this was not considered

a significant rainfall event. Hot and humid conditions were experienced during both survey periods,

with daily temperatures in excess of 35 °C.

Extensive and concurrent surveys for the adjacent SRBP assist with the local ecological

understanding for this area. Where considered appropriate information from these surveys has

been referred to in this chapter. Flora and fauna survey species lists are presented in Appendix B1.

5.4.3.1 Terrestrial Vegetation Assessment

Field surveys were conducted over six days in November 2014, and six days in January/February

2015. The primary objective of these surveys was to identify and describe vegetation communities

and terrestrial flora values, and ground-verify DNRM RE mapping for the Project area. Surveys were

carried out in accordance with the Queensland Herbarium’s Methodology for the Survey and Mapping

of Regional Ecosystems and Vegetation Communities in Queensland, Version 3.2 (Neldner et al., 2012).

Survey sites were selected based on certified DNRM RE mapping and available aerial imagery.

Mapping was reviewed, and locations of threatened flora sourced from targeted searches of relevant

databases. When considered in the context of the supplemental SRBP terrestrial flora surveys (that

were conducted in late April 2010, late June 2010, late April 2011 and February 2015) (RPS, 2015a),

broad coverage across the seasons and vegetation communities has been collectively achieved

within the area.

Baseline field data on vegetation structure and floristics was recorded in a format consistent with

Queensland Herbarium quaternary and secondary site level intensity (Neldner et al., 2012).

Information on landform, geology, and vegetation structure were recorded together with species

lists and abundance of vascular flora species. Incidental flora observations recorded during field

traverses complemented the formal survey sites. Flora species unable to be identified in the field

were collected and pressed on site for subsequent identification in the laboratory with assistance

from the Queensland Herbarium where adequate material could be collected.

Where discrepancies were identified in the field between existing RE mapping and field

observations, areas were traversed by foot to confirm the extent of the change. Field surveys used

standard floristic survey methods to describe vegetation type, structure and composition are

outlined below. The locations of flora assessment survey sites are shown on the existing DNRM RE

mapping in Figure 5-2.

Secondary Assessments

Secondary assessments involve sampling plots of at least 50 m by 10 m in size, within each defined

vegetation community. This methodology was; however, subject to the size of the vegetation

community, with additional sites surveyed in vegetation communities covering large areas, and a


5-12

reduction in the number of sites surveyed in small communities. A total of eight secondary sites

were carried out over the two site surveys (Figure 5-2).

Quaternary Assessments

Quaternary site assessments were used to rapidly assess REs and vegetation communities, using

linear transects. Data were collected at regular intervals along each transect and where REs and

vegetation communities change in structure and composition. Eighty-three quaternary sites were

assessed in the dry season survey period and a further twenty-nine sites were assessed during the

wet-season survey period (Figure 5-2).

Biocondition Assessments

BioCondition assessment involves a rapid assessment of vegetation condition at the property scale

for different REs. It is a site-based, quantitative procedure that provides a score from ‘functional’

through to ‘dysfunctional’ condition from a biodiversity perspective (Eyre et al., 2011), and is used

for comparative purposes when assessing potential properties for offsetting purposes. The score is

based on a comparison between measured site-specific attributes, and benchmark values for each

of those attributes, specific to a particular RE. No bioregion specific BioCondition benchmark data

was available and therefore scoring was not possible. However, the BioCondition assessment was

used to quantitatively assess key vegetative attributes. A total of eight BioCondition sites were

assessed during the ‘wet season’ survey. These BioCondition sites are not discussed further in this

document, but are provided for reference in the Terrestrial Ecology Technical Report (Appendix

B1).

Field Data Analysis

Ground-truthed data along with contemporary aerial imagery were used to determine:

Presence/absence of Threatened Ecological Communities (TECs);

Known or potential habitat for listed species (NC Act and EPBC Act);

Accuracy of RE mapping (VM Act); and

Potential presence of pest flora species (LP Act).

_̂_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂_̂

_̂_̂̂_

_̂_̂_̂̂_

_̂

_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂

_̂̂__̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂_̂_̂_̂̂_

_̂

_̂

_̂_̂

_̂

_̂_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂_̂̂_̂_

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂_̂̂_̂_

_̂_̂

_̂_̂

_̂_̂

_̂̂__̂

_̂_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂ _̂

_̂_̂

_̂̂_̂__̂̂_

_̂

_̂̂_

_̂_̂ _̂

_̂̂_ _̂ _̂

_̂

_̂

_̂_̂

_̂

_̂_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂_̂

_̂

_̂̂_

BH6 West MLA boundary(MLA 20689)

BH6 EastMLA boundary(MLA 20688)

BH1 MLA boundary(MLA 20676)

3.5.2

3.5.2

3.5.2

3.5.2

3.1.1a/3.1.3

3.2.5a/3.2.3/3.3.49b/3.2.10c

3.3.64/3.3.14a/3.3.12

3.7.3/3.3.49b

3.2.10c

3.5.10

3.3.49b/3.3.9

3.2.5a/3.3.42b/3.2.3

3.3.49b

3.2.10c

3.5.10/3.7.3

3.3.60a/3.1.6/3.5.22c

3.5.10/3.7.33.1.1a/3.1.6/3.1.3

3.3.14a/3.3.22a

3.1.1a/3.1.6/3.1.3

3.3.49b/3.3.22a/3.3.64

3.3.50

3.1.6

3.3.50

3.5.10

3.3.5a

3.3.50

3.1.6

3.1.6

3.3.50

3.1.6

3.2.7a

3.2.10c

3.1.6

3.1.6

3.1.6

3.5.7x2a/3.3.49b3.1.6/3.1.33.1.6

3.3.50/3.3.14a

3.1.1a/3.1.3

3.12.33a

3.2.5a/3.2.3/3.3.49b/3.2.10c

3.3.60a/3.1.6/3.5.22c3.1.6

3.3.14a/3.3.22a

3.1.6

3.1.6

3.1.6/3.1.33.1.6

3.1.63.1.6

3.1.1a/3.1.33.2.25/3.2.3/3.2.6a610000

610000

615000

615000

620000

620000

625000

625000

8690

000

8690

000

8695

000

8695

000

Figure 5-2

DATE

DISCLAIMERCDM Smith has endeavoured to ensure accuracy

and completeness of the data. CDM Smith assumes no legal liability or responsibility for any decisions or actions resulting from the information contained

within this map.

GCS GDA 1994 MGA Zone 54

/0 500 1,000250

Metres

Terrestrial vegetation and flora survey sites©COPYRIGHT CDM SMITH

This drawing is confidential and shall only be used for the purpose of this project.

APPROVEDDRAWN

03/05/16

CHECKED

Legend_̂ Vegetation Survey Site (Wet Season)_̂ Vegetation Survey Site (Dry Season)

WatercourseBarge Loading AreaPit ExtentsHaul RoadAccommodation CampMetro Mining Mine Lease Area

DEHP Mapped VegetationOf ConccernOf Least Concern

DATA SOURCEMEC Mining;

QLD Government Open Source Data;Australian Hydrological Geospatial Fabric

(Geofabric) PRODUCT SUITE V2.1.1 DRG Ref: BES150115-001-R1_TERR_ECOL_F_SITES

DESIGNER CLIENT

1:45,000Scale @ A3 -

-DESIGNEDCHECKED -

MDMD-

R Details Date16/07/151

Notes:

2-----

F:\1_PROJECTS\BES150115_Bauxite_Hill\GIS\DATA\MXD\FINAL\ERA\TER FW ECOL\BES150115-001-R1_TERR_ECOL_F_SITES.mxd

For Information PurposesUpdated Pit Extents-----

Barge Loading Area

Haul Road

Haul Road

Accommodation Camp

03/05/16

CampAccessRoad


5-14

5.4.4 Terrestrial Fauna Assessment

A detailed dry season fauna assessment of the mine area was carried out over six days between 4

and 11 November 2014. A wet season assessment, was carried out over five days between 31

January and 6 February 2015. A total of eight trapping sites were established over the two survey

periods.

Trapping sites were selected based on RE mapping, the Project impact footprint and the integrity of

the habitat to support local fauna species. Eight trapping sites were established including Elliott,

pitfall and funnel trap arrays. Trapping was carried out over three nights at each site during both

survey periods (a total of six nights at each site). Observational assessments (including habitat

searches), microbat recording, harp trapping and camera traps were carried out at several

additional sites within the study area. Locations of survey sites are depicted in Figure 5-3 and

descriptions of the trapping sites are provided in Table 5-1. Further details of survey methodology

techniques are provided in Table 5-2. Opportunistic observation sites are also included in Figure 5-

3.

In total 15 survey locations across the Project area have been surveyed using a combination of

survey techniques to provide adequate spatial coverage across the representative REs and the wider

Project area. This included eight trapping locations, two separate locations for harp traps and

anabat, and five observation sites which were selected outside of the dominant REs, based on

presence of preferred habitats for targeted fauna species.

Although the fauna assessment program is considered robust, Metro Mining have adopted a

conservative approach when considering conservation significant fauna species within the impact

assessment for this Project. Not all habitats within or near the Project area could be sampled at the

time of the surveys. Not finding a particular species does not mean that species does not occur at

the site. As such, a precautionary approach has been adopted to the assessment and assumed that

species with the high potential to occur in the Project area have been accepted to be present unless

evidence exists to suggest otherwise.

Further details of survey methodology techniques used to target conservation significant fauna

identified from the desktop review are provided in Threatened Species Assessment and Table 5-1.

Table 5-1 Fauna survey site locations and dominant vegetation

Site Latitude Longitude Vegetation Community

Trap sites

TR01 -11.817518 142.044447

Eucalyptus tetrodonta and Corymbia nesophila tall woodland on deeply weathered plateaus and remnants – RE 3.5.2.

TR02 -11.835055 142.052516

TR03 -11.860237 142.032273

TR04 -11.797384 142.087641

TR05 -11.803296 142.087132

TR06 -11.797275 142.100672

TR07 -11.797164 142.122321

Camp -11.850118 142.037398

Observational sites

OBS01 -11.801292 142.047161 E. tetrodonta and C. nesophila tall woodland on deeply weathered plateaus and remnants – RE 3.5.2.

OBS02 -11.757861 142.071177 Closed forest of Rhizophora stylosa ± Bruguiera gymnorhiza. Occurs as outer mangroves/Ceriops tagal ± Avicennia marina low closed forest on intertidal areas – RE 3.1.1/3.1.3.

OBS03 -11.821375 142.05872 E. tetrodonta and C. nesophila tall woodland on deeply weathered plateaus and remnants – RE 3.5.2.

OBS04 -11.795721 142.036032 Sedgeland of Eleocharis sp. with scattered freshwater couch – RE 3.3.65.


5-15

Site Latitude Longitude Vegetation Community

OBS05 -11.816402 142.063685 Sparse herbland or bare saltpans. Associated with salt plains and saline flats – RE 3.1.6.

Camera traps

CAM01 -11.817193 142.044235

E. tetrodonta and C. nesophila tall woodland on deeply weathered plateaus and remnants – RE 3.5.2.

CAM02 -11.83485 142.052533

CAM03 -11.860706 142.032188

CAM04 -11.801198 142.047125

CAM05 -11.797643 142.087025

CAM06 -11.797549 142.100758

CAM07 -11.797402 142.122428

CAM08 -11.80306 142.08738

Anabat

ANA0511 -11.817228 142.044519

E. tetrodonta and C. nesophila tall woodland on deeply weathered plateaus and remnants – RE 3.5.2.

ANA0611 -11.857445 142.036804

ANA0711 -11.803249 142.087467

ANA0811 -11.797637 142.087678

ANA0911 -11.797445 142.122329

Harp trap

HP0511 -11.860705 142.032393 Baloskion tetraphyllum subsp. meiostachyum open sedgeland in drainage swamps in dunefields – RE 3.3.64.

HP0711 -11.809744 142.131805

HPB0811 -11.810287 142.13173

HPA0611 -11.821379 142.05873 E. tetrodonta and C. nesophila tall woodland on deeply weathered plateaus and remnants – RE 3.5.2.

HPA0811 -11.802943 142.087497

HPB0611 -11.834563 142.052745

Table 5-2 Fauna trapping methods

Survey Method Description Target Listed Species as Identified in Desktop Surveys

Trap sites (all)

Elliott trapping

20 Elliott traps located 10 m apart along a single transect at each site.

Traps baited with peanut butter, oats, honey and macadamia oil mixture (Elliott A).

Trapping carried out at eight sites comprising 960 trap nights.

Chestnut Dunnart; and

Black-footed Tree-rat

Pitfall/funnel trapping array

A pitfall line at each site comprising 4 x pitfall buckets (20 cm high x 40 cm deep), 40 cm high drift fence arranged in a ‘T’, and 6 x funnel traps paired at each end of fence line.



Herpetofauna.

General methods (across Project area including trap sites)

Baited cage traps and infrared camera

Cage trap baited with chicken necks and macadamia oil poured on ground surrounding cage. Single infrared camera set facing cage trap approximately 1 m above ground.


Northern Quoll; and


Diurnal bird census

Bird surveys at each trap and observation site and opportunistically throughout study area. Surveys carried out at dawn and late afternoon – approximately 120 minutes per site. Birds identified by direct observation and/or by call.

All bird species.


5-16

Survey Method Description Target Listed Species as Identified in Desktop Surveys

Diurnal searches

Searches for small mammals, frogs and reptiles under leaf litter, debris, logs and rocks. Carried out at each trap site and throughout study area where appropriate habitat factors occurred.


Herpetofauna.

Anabat microbat call recording and harp trapping

Passive recording of microbat calls overnight using Anabat recording system. Also overnight use of paired harp traps to capture species. Survey locations dependent on appropriate habitat structure, particularly for harp traps.

Anabat surveys carried out over 24 nights (over two seasons) at 5 sites across Project area. Fifteen (over two seasons) nights of harp trapping at 6 sites.

Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat.

Spotlighting surveys Minimum ½ hour (hr) spotlighting in early evening (2 people) at each site for nocturnal mammals and herpetofauna. Also surveying tracks at night.

Northern Quoll;

Spectacled Flying-fox; and

Black-footed Tree-rat.

Incidental records Fauna observations were ongoing throughout the site and survey period.

N/A

5.4.4.1 Survey Limitations

During the late dry seasons, general access to and around the individual survey areas was good,

allowing traps and survey sites to be scattered as required through dominant vegetation types in

most areas likely to be impacted by mining operations. However, travel distances between the base

camp and MLA 20676 were in excess of one hour, and to ensure compliance with animal ethics

requirements, the survey method was modified, resulting in three trapping night’s effort at both

MLA 20676 and MLA 20688/20689. This is not considered to compromise the survey data, as

additional survey sites were established in areas with limited previous survey effort (particularly in

MLA 20676). Surveys undertaken in MLA 20688/20689 and adjacent properties for the SRBP

provides additional baseline knowledge of the terrestrial fauna of the survey areas.

During the late dry season surveys, of the two nights dedicated to spotlighting, the first night (6

November) took place during a light shower with dense cloud cover. The second night (8 November)

was conducted the night prior to a full moon with very limited cloud cover increasing visibility. The

early wet season surveys also coincided with the full moon. During the early wet season surveys,

spotlighting was not possible in BH1 due to safety reasons relating to wet weather and potential

presence of dangerous fauna (e.g. crocodiles).

5.4.4.2 SRBP Fauna Surveys

Fauna trapping surveys have also been carried out for the SRBP including:

September/October 2014 targeted surveys for threatened species including intensive camera

trapping surveys (50 cameras active for at least 10 days), bat call recording surveys and

opportunistic searches for threatened birds and Spectacled Flying-fox (Pteropus conspicillatus)

roosts (note six cameras malfunctioned and did not return data); and

February 2015 wet season general fauna trapping surveys carried out over six days.

A summary of the survey techniques and respective effort employed in each habitat during the early

wet season surveys is presented in Table 5-3. The results from these surveys have been used as


5-17

supplementary data to inform this chapter. Further detail on the survey methods and results is

provided in Appendix B1.

Table 5-3 Total survey effort (trap nights) for Bauxite Hills Project and SRBP fauna ecology surveys

Habitat No. of Trap Sites

Elliott Trap

Pitfall/ Funnel

Cage Trap

SM2/ Anabat

Harp Traps

Junction Camera

Remote Camera

E. tetradonta woodland 15 1,385 150 54 43 14 12 320

Open sedgeland in drainage swamps in dunefields

2 2 30

Casuarina woodland 30

Mine Camp 1 40 6

Moist eucalypt woodland 4 300 75 6 15 2 12 52

Fringing woodland to wetland and swamps

1 240 24 4 4 54

South of Namaleta Creek 2 40 48 2 2 2

SRBP Port area 1 1 1

Skardon River 1 3 1

Mine Camp 1 10

Total 26 2,015 303 63 66 19 30 488

5.4.4.3 Species Assessments - Likelihood of Occurrence

Four categories were used to classify the likelihood of a threatened flora and fauna species being

present within the Project area based on the desktop research and on-site observations. Categories

were defined as:

Known (confirmed during field assessments);

Likely (suitable habitat observed during field assessments and/or known distribution);

Potential (possibility of suitable habitat or limited records of the species occurring within or

around the Project area); and

Unlikely (no suitable habitat or not known to occur within the local region).

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

%

%

%

%

%

% %

,

,

,

,

,

, ,

^

^

^

^ ^

^

^

^

^

^ ^ ^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

_

_

_

_ _

_

_

_

_

_ _ _

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_


BH6 East MLA boundary(MLA 20688)


AQ01

AQ02

AQ03

98

7

65

4

3

21

25

2423

22

21

20

19

18

17

16

15

14

13

12

11

10CAMP

CAM08

OBS05

OBS04

OBS03

OBS01

CAM07CAM06CAM05

CAM04

CAM03

CAM02

CAM01

HP0711

HP0511

HPB0811

HPB0611

HPA0811

HPA0611

ANA0911ANA0811

ANA0711

ANA0611

ANA0511

TR07TR06

TR05

TR04

TR03

TR02

TR01

610000

610000

615000

615000

620000

620000

8690

000

8690

000

8695

000

8695

000

Figure 5-3

DATE



within this map.


/0 500 1,000250

Metres

Terrestrial fauna and aquatic ecology survey sites©COPYRIGHT CDM SMITH


APPROVEDDRAWN

03/05/16

CHECKED

LegendBarge Loading AreaWatercourseHaul RoadPit ExtentsAccomoodation CampMetro Mining Mine Lease Area

_̂ Fauna Survey Sites%, Fauna Trapping Site!( Opportunistic Fauna Observation Site!( Aquatic Ecology Site



(Geofabric) PRODUCT SUITE V2.1.1 DRG Ref: BES150115-002-R1_FAUNA_SURVEY_SITES

DESIGNER CLIENT

1:45,000Scale @ A3 -

-DESIGNEDCHECKED -

MDMD-


Notes:

2-----

F:\1_PROJECTS\BES150115_Bauxite_Hill\GIS\DATA\MXD\FINAL\ERA\TER FW ECOL\BES150115-002-R1_FAUNA_SURVEY_SITES.mxd


Barge Loading Area

Haul Road

Haul Road

Accommodation Camp

03/05/16

CampAccess

Road


5-19

5.4.5 Freshwater Ecology Assessment

5.4.5.1 Survey Timing

Aquatic ecology surveys were undertaken between 4 and 11 November 2014, corresponding to the

late dry season. Follow-up surveys were undertaken between 31 January and 6 February 2015,

corresponding to the early wet season. The timing of dry season surveys was considered ideal for

assessing the persistence of water in the aquatic ecosystems across the Project area and the

communities they supported. Wet season surveys were undertaken following a period of heavy

rainfall. The timing of the wet season surveys was dictated by likelihood of reduced access to the

sites and increased safety risks associated with higher likelihood of Estuarine Crocodile (Crocodylus

porosus) dispersal across the Project area later in the wet season. The decision for this timing was

made in consultation with EHP.

5.4.5.2 Site Selection

A desktop review of available relevant literature and investigation of aerial photography and

topographic maps suggested that little freshwater habitat will be present across much of the Project

area during the late dry season. In addition, the majority of aquatic habitats in close proximity to the

Project are classed as marine/estuarine and are therefore not assessed in this scope of works. Based

on this review, three sites were selected for this survey period; two within wetland systems and one

on an ephemeral stream (Figure 5-3). It should be noted; however, that the paucity of suitable

freshwater aquatic ecosystems within the Project area results in limited survey findings.

During the wet season sampling was restricted due to the potential for Estuarine Crocodile to be

present in the area (i.e. unable to enter the water physically). Even when no crocodiles or evidence

of crocodiles (e.g. slides) were observed, the fringes of the pools were generally vegetated with

Native Couch or Water Chestnut (Eleocharis dulcis), which may have obscured observations. In

addition, the pools present at sites AQ01 and AQ02 during the dry seasons had attracted feral pigs,

cattle and wetland birds, all of which are preyed upon by crocodiles. As personal health and safety

was the highest priority, the restriction on access to some wetland habitats during these surveys

was supported by Metro Mining.

5.4.5.3 Survey Techniques

Surveys were designed and implemented in general accordance with relevant guidelines, including:

EHP’s Monitoring and Sampling Manual 2009 Version 2 (EHP, 2013); and

Queensland AusRivAS sampling and processing manual (DNRM, 2001).

Key aquatic ecological indicators assessed at each survey site are provided in Table 5-4.

Table 5-4 Aquatic ecology assessment indicators

Assessment Indicators

Aquatic habitat Rapid assessment techniques were used to provide a description of habitat type and quality at

each site. Field assessment protocols were consistent with Queensland AusRivAS (2000) for this

component, as these represent a commonly used standard and will be required for the

interpretation of macroinvertebrate and fish results.

Aquatic and

riparian flora

Qualitative surveys of aquatic and riparian flora were done for each site reach. Aquatic flora

were identified in the field, and as required collected and submitted to the Queensland

Herbarium to validate identification of suspected near threatened species, under the NC Act.


5-20

Assessment Indicators

Water quality In situ physico-chemical water quality data (temperature, pH, conductivity, dissolved oxygen

and turbidity) was recorded to assist with the interpretation of ecological data.

Macroinvertebrates Field macroinvertebrate surveys were undertaken following AusRivAS protocols. Following

these conventions, a composite macroinvertebrate sample was collected at each site using a

standard 250µm mesh dipnet. Samples were “live picked” on site to strict protocols and the

animals collected preserved in 70% alcohol. Macroinvertebrates were identified to family

taxonomic level (where applicable) and enumerated. Data analysis included: abundance,

taxonomic richness, community composition, and plecopteran, ephemeropteran and

trichopteran (PET) richness (disturbance intolerant taxa).

Macrocrustaceans Macrocrustaceans were surveyed using the macroinvertebrate sampling techniques as well as

with fish sampling techniques. Visual inspections were also made for macrocrustacean remains

and burrows.

Fish Cast netting, box trapping and active dip netting were the primary fish survey techniques used

in the end-of-dry season surveys. All native fish caught were identified and measured.

Turtles and other

aquatic vertebrates

Aquatic turtle surveys were undertaken at sites with suitable habitat using baited cathedral

traps. Targeted sampling of other aquatic vertebrates was not undertaken although any

incidental sightings or signs (scats, tracks and other traces) were recorded.

The availability of standing water during the dry season limited the sampling methods able to be

employed. Three sites were chosen for aquatic ecology sampling and are described in Table 9-4. The

potential presence of crocodiles in the area, particularly in the wet season also resulted in restricting

access to sites. However, information derived from the surveys as well as that from aquatic ecology

surveys for the SRBP are considered sufficient to describe the freshwater ecology values of the

Project area.

Table 5-5 Aquatic ecology site assessment descriptions

Site Description Photograph

AQ01 A large Melaleuca swamp system (Big Footprint Swamp) that is seasonally inundated to a depth of several metres. During the dry season survey, only a single senescing pool remained. Large numbers of wild cattle and pigs were observed watering. The outer margins of the open swamp area were covered with desiccating Water Chestnut, with the area surrounding the water hole covered in Native Couch grass (Paspalum sp.). There was limited soil disturbance associated with feral pig activity. Wet season extent of pool encompassed surrounding Melaleuca forest limiting sampling techniques. No additional aquatic macrophytes recorded in wet season.

Dry season – November 2014

AQ02 A large Melaleuca swamp system that is seasonally inundated to a depth of several metres. Water Chestnut observed in dry season only. Large numbers of feral pigs observed in dry season and waterhole heavily disturbed. In the wet season only the littoral habitat was sampled due to concerns with the potential presence of crocodiles. The margins were shallow (approximately 20-40 cm deep) with extensive areas of recently inundated terrestrial grasses.

Wet season – February 2015


5-21

AQ03 Stream site with dominant vegetation was Melaleuca with grass understorey. The site was completely dry for at least 400 m both upstream and downstream in the dry season. Some soil disturbance associated with pig activity in areas that would have contained the last standing pools of water. The site was flowing strongly during the wet season survey with the dominant instream habitat consisting of runs.

Wet season – February 2015

Surveys of freshwater aquatic ecology were carried out for the SRBP between 5 and 10 March 2015

(RPS, 2015b). The surveys consisted of six sites, four of which were located on Namaleta Creek to

the south of the Project area. Two further sites were located on wetland areas including one on Big

Footprint Swamp and another on a smaller wetland area located on the southern boundary of the

Project area (BH6) called Lunette swamp (RPS, 2015b) (refer Figure 5-3). Survey techniques were

generally similar to those used for the Project aquatic surveys. Fish survey methods were enhanced

through the use of a multi-panel gill net and electrofishing. The results of these surveys have been

used to enhance the findings of the aquatic ecology assessment in this chapter.

5.5 Desktop Assessment Results

5.5.1 Project Area Context

5.5.1.1 Location and Climatic Conditions

The study area is located largely on the Weipa Plateau subregion of the Cape York Peninsula

Bioregion and occupies part of the Skardon River catchment draining westward into the Gulf of

Carpentaria. A small portion of the Project area lies within Jardine-Pascoes Sandstones subregion.

The region experiences a hot climate where the majority of rainfall occurs during a pronounced wet

season between November and April (Specht et al., 1977; Godwin, 1985). Mean annual rainfall for

the nearest Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) station at Weipa airport is 2,071.8 mm (BoM, 2014).

5.5.1.2 Land Tenure

Land tenure is largely mining/mineral leases and indigenous held freehold land. Traditional owners

are represented in communities throughout Cape York Peninsula and Queensland, with high local

representation in Mapoon, Napranum and Weipa, and at New Mapoon in the Bamaga area. Mining

and cattle grazing are the predominant post-European settlement land uses in the immediate

vicinity of the Project. The Project tenements lie within the Aboriginal Freehold Land (Lot 11 on

SP204113 and Lot 13 on SP204113) held by the Old Mapoon Aboriginal Corporation (OMAC).

5.5.1.3 Land Zones and Landforms

The distribution of land zone subdivisions within the study area, includes:

Land zone 1 - quaternary estuarine deposits and tidal beaches. Found in all areas subject to tidal influence, and particularly extensive fringing the Skardon River. This land zone is attenuated inland along tidal creeks and forms some extensive flats on areas of infrequent tidal inundation;

Land zone 3 - quaternary alluvial deposits. Alluvial landforms are restricted to swampy drainage depressions including those associated with sinkholes, and alluvial sand sheets associated with broad drainage depressions. Swamp habitats are subject to seasonal inundation and are considered palustrine wetlands; and


5-22

Land zone 5 - remnant tertiary surfaces. Tertiary surfaces cover the aluminous laterite deposits of the Weipa Plateau, and extend eastwards across the erosional surface of the Merluna Plain. Land Zone 5 covers all landforms demonstrating a deeply weathered profile including exposed clay soils on the eroded margins of the Weipa Plateau.

The Project area has a limited diversity of geological features, and as such the array of habitat types

is limited. The current mine footprints (BH1 and BH6) comprise only one RE (3.5.2), and are

elevated compared to the surrounding terrain. Areas in the north and west of BH1, and far north,

west and east of BH6, slope down towards tributaries of the Skardon River catchment.

Remnant vegetation remains extensive in the wider area with over 97% remnant vegetation cover

in the Weipa Plateau subregion, and over 98% cover in the adjacent Jardine-Pascoe subregion (EHP,

2012c).

5.5.1.4 Drainage, Waterways and Wetlands

The Project area is located in the Skardon River catchment, or drainage sub-basin, which covers

approximately 439 km2. While the Skardon River is perennial, many associated watercourses within

the Project area are ephemeral and flow only after sustained or intense rainfall. Stream flows are

highly variable, with flows typically occurring during the wetter months (November to April), with

low to no flow the rest of the year. The Skardon River catchment is part of the broader Skardon

River-Cotterell River wetland aggregation, which is listed under the Directory of Important

Wetlands of Australia (DIWA). It covers a total area of approximately 632 km2, of which

approximately 211 km2 (or ~33 %) comprise DIWA nationally important wetlands. In total 309

lacustrine/palustrine wetlands have been mapped throughout the aggregation; however, as the

majority of the aggregation occurs north of the Skardon River (and hence north of the Project area),

so do the majority of DIWA wetlands.

Wetlands associated with the Skardon River-Cotterell River aggregation do occur within the Project

area and MLAs, and overlap some of the infrastructure footprint; however, they do not overlap the

mining footprints of BH1 and BH6 (Figure 5-4). In the west of MLA 20689 (within which is the BH6

mining footprint) there are several palustrine wetlands, and coastal and sub-coastal floodplains. In

the east of MLA 20688 (within which is the BH6 mining footprint) there are estuarine wetlands. A

drainage channel of the Skardon River and estuarine wetland system occurs in the west of MLA

20676 (within which is the BH1 mining footprint), while estuarine and palustrine wetlands also

occur in the north and south of MLA 20676.

5.5.2 Habitat Connectivity

Habitat connectivity within the Project area is linked to riparian corridors associated with the

Skardon River and contiguous areas of terrestrial vegetation across the mining lease areas. The

Skardon River-Cotterell River Aggregation, to the north of the Project area, is considered a riparian

corridor of regional significance under the Cape York Biodiversity Planning Assessment (BPA) (EHP,

2012c). Contiguous tracts of remnant vegetation to the south of the Project area have links to the

Port Musgrave Aggregation. The Port Musgrave Aggregation is also listed under the DIWA,

comprises the Ducie and Wenlock Rivers and Namaleta Creek, and comprises regionally significant

riparian corridors and a state significant riparian corridor along the Wenlock River (Figure 5-5).


5-23

5.5.3 Environmentally Sensitive Areas

Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) mapping identified a Category B ESA within the Project area.

This Category B ESA comprises marine plant communities. The Project area also comprises Category

C ESA as part of a Coastal Management District (Figure 5-6).

!>

!>

!>

!>

!>

!>

!>

!>

!>

!>

!>

!>

!>

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(BH6 West

MLA boundary(MLA 20689)

BH6 East MLA boundary

(ML 20688)


AQ-BF01

AQ-LU01

AQ-NA04AQ-NA03

AQ-NA02AQ-NA01

S1S9

S6

W5

W4

W3

W2

W1

S10

SW03

SW02

SP01SW01

AQ01

AQ02

AQ03

SKARDON RIVER

NAMALETA CREE K

NAMALETA CREEK

605000

605000

610000

610000

615000

615000

620000

620000

625000

625000

630000

630000

8690

000

8690

000

8695

000

8695

000

8700

000

8700

000

DATE



within this map.


/0 1,000 2,000500

Metres

Figure 5-4Wetlands

©COPYRIGHT CDM SMITHThis drawing is confidential and shall only be used

for the purpose of this project.

APPROVEDDRAWN

03/05/16

CHECKED

Legend!(

SRBP Aquatic Survey Site

!(Bauxite Hills Aquatic Sampling Site

!>Surface Water Sampling LocationBarge Loading AreaWatercourseHaul RoadPit ExtentsAccomoodation CampMetro Mining Mine Lease AreaDirectory of Important Wetlands

Wetland ClassRiverineEsturinePalustrineLacustrineMarine



(Geofabric) PRODUCT SUITE V2.1.1 DRG Ref: BES150115-003-R1_WETLANDS

DESIGNER CLIENT

1:70,000Scale @ A3 -

-DESIGNEDCHECKED -

MDMD-


Notes:

2-----

F:\1_PROJECTS\BES150115_Bauxite_Hill\GIS\DATA\MXD\FINAL\ERA\TER FW ECOL\BES150115-003-R1_WETLANDS.mxd


Barge Loading Area

Haul Road

Haul Road

Accommodation Camp

03/05/16

CampAccess

Road

DUCIE

RIVER

DULHUNTY RIVER

SKARDONRIVER

NORTH ALICE CREEK

PARGO

NC

REEK

JAN

IECREEK

NAMAL ETA CREEK

PACK

ERS

CR

EE

KPALM CREEK

DUL

CIE CREEK

ALLIGATOR CREEK

WEN

LOCK

RIVER

NAMALE TA CREEK

PALM CREEK

DUCI

E RIVER

WEN

LOC

KR

IVER

580000

580000

585000

585000

590000

590000

595000

595000

600000

600000

605000

605000

610000

610000

615000

615000

620000

620000

625000

625000

630000

630000

635000

635000

640000

640000

645000

645000

650000

650000

655000

655000

86

60

00

0

86

60

00

0

86

65

00

0

86

65

00

0

86

70

00

0

86

70

00

0

86

75

00

0

86

75

00

0

86

80

00

0

86

80

00

0

86

85

00

0

86

85

00

0

86

90

00

0

86

90

00

0

86

95

00

0

86

95

00

0

87

00

00

0

87

00

00

0

DATE



within this map.


/0 2,500 5,0001,250

Metres

Figure 5-5

BPA mapping - corridors



APPROVED

DRAWN

31/03/16

CHECKED

Legend

Barge Loading Area

Watercourse

Haul Road

Pit Extents

Accommodation Camp

Metro Mining Mine Lease Area

State Wide Corridor Significance

State

Regional



(Geofabric) PRODUCT SUITE V2.1.1 DRG Ref: BES150115-004-R1_BPA_COR

DESIGNER CLIENT

1:195,000Scale @ A3 -

-DESIGNED

CHECKED -

MD

MD

-

R Details Date

16/07/151

Notes:

2

-

-

-

-

-

F:\1_PROJECTS\BES150115_Bauxite_Hill\GIS\DATA\MXD\FINAL\ERA\TER FW ECOL\BES150115-004-R1_BPA_COR.mxd

For Information Purposes

Updated Pit Extents

-

-

-

-

-

31/03/16

SKARDON RIVER

DUC IE RIVER

DULHUNTY

RIV

ER

600000

600000

87

00

00

0

87

00

00

0

2

DISCLAIMER




within this map.

GCS GDA 1994 Zone 54

/0 0.8 1.60.4

Kilometres

Environmentally Sensitive Areas mapping

DESIGNED

Details

MD




Legend

Barge Loading Area

Watercourse

Pit Extents

Haul Road

Mine Lease Boundary

Category A

West Cape York CommonwealthMarine Reserve - Multiple Use Zone

Category B

Marine Plants

Category C

Coastal Management Unit

Others

Directory of Important Wetlands

DATA SOURCE



CLIENTDate

1:100,000Scale @ A3 -31/03/16

CHECKED

DRAWN CHECKED

APPROVED DATE

-

-

MD

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Prepared for EIS

-

-

-

-

1 Details 23/02/15

15/03/16

Notes:

R

F:\1_PROJECTS\BES150115_Bauxite_Hill\GIS\DATA\MXD\FINAL\ERA\TER FW ECOL\BES150115-005-R1_ESA.mxd

Figure 5-6

DRG Ref: BES150115-005-R1_ESA

DESIGNER


5-27

5.5.4 Regional Ecosystem Mapping

Assessment of current DNRM RE mapping identified 16 REs occurring on four land zones within the

Project area: tidal creeks and saltpan areas (land zone 1), alluvial river and creek flats (land zone

3); remnant tertiary surfaces (land zone 5); and Cainozoic duricrusts (land zone 7) (Neldner et al.,

2014). The majority of the Project area is composed of remnant vegetation. Table 5-6 provides a

brief description of all REs considered to occur within the Project area and current DNRM mapping

is shown in Figure 5-2. A single RE is listed as Of Concern under the VM Act (RE 3.3.12). There are

no Endangered REs in the Project area and no communities listed as a TEC under the EPBC Act.

There are no TECs predicted to occur in the wider area by the Online Protected Matters Search Tool

(refer Appendix B1).

Table 5-6 Current certified mapped REs of the Project area

RE VM Act

Status

EP Act

Status

Description

3.1.1a Least Concern No Concern Closed forest of Rhizophora stylosa ± Bruguiera gymnorhiza.

Occurs as outer mangroves.

3.1.3 Least Concern No Concern Ceriops tagal ± Avicennia marina low closed forest. Extensive on

intertidal areas.

3.1.6 Least Concern No Concern Sparse herbland or bare saltpans. Associated with salt plains and

saline flats.

3.3.9 Least Concern No Concern Lophostemon suaveolens open forest. Occurs on streamlines,

swamps and alluvial terraces.

3.3.12 Of Concern Of Concern

Melaleuca quinquenervia open forest. Associated with scattered

coastal swamps.

3.3.14a Least Concern No Concern Melaleuca saligna ± M. viridiflora, Lophostemon suaveolens

woodland on drainage swamps.

3.3.22a Least Concern No Concern Corymbia clarksoniana or C. novoguineensis woodland on alluvial

plains.

3.3.49b Least Concern No Concern Melaleuca viridiflora low open woodland on low plains.

3.3.60a Least Concern No Concern Themeda arguens, Dichanthium sericeum closed tussock grassland

on marine plains.

3.3.64 Least Concern No Concern Baloskion tetraphyllum subsp. meiostachyum open sedgeland in

drainage swamps in dunefields.

3.5.2 Least Concern No Concern Eucalyptus tetrodonta, Corymbia nesophila tall woodland on

deeply weathered plateaus and remnants.

3.5.10 Least Concern No Concern Eucalyptus tetrodonta, Corymbia nesophila woodland on sandy

gently undulating rises and low hills.

3.5.11 Least Concern No Concern Eucalyptus tetrodonta, Corymbia nesophila woodland on lower

slopes of plains and rises.

3.5.14 Least Concern No Concern Melaleuca viridiflora ± Acacia spp. ± Asteromyrtus symphyocarpa

low woodland on scattered coastal sand plains.

3.5.22c Least Concern No Concern Corymbia clarksoniana and Erythrophleum chlorostachys and

Corymbia spp. and Eucalyptus spp. woodland on plains.

3.7.3 Least Concern No Concern Eucalyptus cullenii ± E. tetrodonta woodland on erosional

escarpments and plains.


5-28

5.5.4.2 Threatened Flora Species

Database searches indicate the potential presence of seven threatened flora species within the

Project area and surrounds. This includes four species listed as MNES predicted to be present by the

EPBC Protected Matters report. These species and their potential to occur are summarised and

discussed in Section 5.7.1.

5.5.4.3 Threatened Fauna Species

The results of the database searches indicate that 13 fauna species listed as Endangered, Vulnerable,

or Near Threatened (EVNT) (under the NC Act and/or EPBC Act) potentially occur within the Project

area and surrounds. A further 21 species are listed as Migratory under the EPBC Act. These species

and their potential to occur are summarised and discussed in Section 5.6.2.

5.5.4.4 Declared Weed Species

According to the EPBC protected matters search tool, Gamba Grass (Andropogon guyana) – a Weed

of National Significance, has the potential to occur in the Project area.

Database searches of the wider area encountered records of 32 introduced species within a 25 km

radius of the Project area. Of these a single species, American Rat’s Tail Grass (Sporobolus

jacquemontii) is listed as a declared Class 2 species under the State LP Act.

The results of relevant database searches are provided in Attachment 1 of Appendix B1.

5.6 Existing Environmental Values – Field Survey Results

5.6.1 Terrestrial Flora

The vegetation of the Project area is a complex mosaic of open forest, woodland, extensive

swamplands, gallery forests on perennial streams and rivers, closed forest and mangroves. The

lateritic surface of the Weipa Plateau is characterized by Eucalyptus and Corymbia woodlands with

the deep aluminous laterites of the Weipa area supporting the best development of Darwin

Stringybark (E. tetrodonta), Melville Island Bloodwood (C. nesophila) and Cooktown Ironwood

(Erythrophloeum chlorostachys) dominant tall woodland and open forest on Cape York Peninsula.

Areas of shallow silty soils with impeded drainage characteristics are scattered across the lateritic

surface, supporting low woodland communities with dominant eucalypt and Melaleuca species.

Shallow drainage depressions provide a seasonal wetland habitat and are dominated by woodlands

and open forests with characteristic Melaleuca, Lophostemon, Xanthostemon and Asteromyrtus

species. These swamp forests display a complex variety of vegetation communities on their margins,

compositionally zoned in response to local variations in the persistence of water through the dry

season.

The majority of the Project area was found to support remnant Darwin Stringybark and Melville

Island Bloodwood tall woodland (RE 3.5.2) which is consistent with current RE mapping. Darwin

Stringybark predominates forming a distinct but discontinuous canopy with Melville Island

Bloodwood present as a sub-dominant canopy species. The very sparse to sparse sub canopy and

shrub layers are dominated by Eucalyptus and Acacia spp., and Bushman's Clothes Peg (Grevillea

glauca). The ground layer is usually sparse to medium density and dominated by native grasses.


5-29

5.6.1.1 Regional Ecosystems

Thirteen REs were ground-truthed within the overall Project area boundary including several

communities not included in current DNRM mapping. Of these, two communities are listed as Of

Concern under the VM Act. There are no communities listed as a TEC (under the EPBC Act) or as

Endangered under the VM Act. The vegetation communities present are described in Table 5-7 and

include the known extent of each community within the Cape York Peninsula Bioregion. These REs

were used as the basis for the assessment of terrestrial flora values of the Project area.

Eight of the 16 EHP certified REs mapped for the Project area were recorded during the field survey.

Five REs not previously mapped for the Project area were also recorded and are included in the

ground-verified RE mapping (Figure 5-7).


5-30

Table 5-7 Project vegetation community descriptions

RE DNRM Description VM Act EP Act Project Area Description

3.1.1 Closed forest of Rhizophora stylosa ± Bruguiera gymnorhiza as outer mangroves

Least Concern

No Concern

Mangrove vegetation is restricted to the saline estuarine muds and clays fringing the estuary of the Skardon River. Incorporated in this land type are well-developed open forests of the outer tidal margins dominated by R. stylosa in association with numerous species such as B. gymnorhiza, and Avicennia marina, and woodland and shrubland formations characteristic of intertidal areas. Mangrove communities in the Weipa area represent the highest structural and floristic development of mangroves in Australia.

3.1.3 Ceriops tagal ± A. marina low closed forest on intertidal areas.

Least Concern

No Concern

Mangrove vegetation is restricted to the saline estuarine muds and clays fringing the estuary of the Skardon River. Incorporated in this land type are well-developed shrublands and low closed forests of the outer tidal margins dominated by C. tagal and with scattered A. marina.

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

Least Concern

No Concern

Saline estuarine clay pans are associated with tidal areas of the Skardon River, being generally bare due to scalding associated with hyper saline conditions. Vegetation development is restricted to sparse herblands with a few salt tolerant species. Typical species recorded by Godwin (1985) are Arthrocnemum leiostachyum, A. halocnemoides var. pergranulatum and Xerochloa imberbis. This community may also be particularly sensitive to disturbance owing to the possibility of acid sulphate soils. This community is remote from the bauxite deposits and will not be directly impacted.

3.3.12 Melaleuca quinquenervia open forest associated with scattered coastal swamps

Of Concern

Of Concern

Woodlands and open forests of M. quinquenervia occupy restricted areas within the large drainage swamp (Big Footprint Swamp) in MLA 20689 and on the margins of mangroves in linear patterns often no more than several metres wide. They often occur in association with M. saligna and M. leucadendra. M. quinquenervia swamps are disjunctive within the northwest peninsula area. They are impacted by wildfire events late in the dry season and by the foraging of feral pigs. A minor area of this RE is impacted by the proposed Project haul roads.

3.3.14 M. saligna ± M. viridiflora, Lophostemon suaveolens woodland on drainage swamps.

Least Concern

No Concern

This RE comprises a woodland to tall shrubland occupying alluvial clay deposits on narrow alluvial flats and at the upper limits of saline influence. Where it adjoins mangrove vegetation there is a potential for Dendrobium johannis to occur.

3.3.22 Corymbia clarksoniana or C. novoguineensis woodland on alluvial plains.

Least Concern

No Concern

This RE occurs on alluvial flats often forming part of the transition between 3.5.2 of the bauxite plateau surface and Melaleuca woodlands. C. novoguineensis is dominant and typically with a sub-canopy or shrub layer of M. viridiflora. It may also occur on the outer margins of drainage swamps.


5-31

RE DNRM Description VM Act EP Act Project Area Description

3.3.32 M. viridiflora +/- M. saligna woodland in sinkholes and drainage depressions.

Least Concern

No Concern

Occurs in alluvial drainage swamps and depressions which may be inundated for several months. Forms seasonal wetlands with inundation to depths of 1 to 2 m for several months of the year. It comprises a medium to low open shrubland and woodland complex with M. viridiflora, L. suaveolens, Asteromyrtus symphyocarpa and Calycopeplus casuarinoides, and favours poorly drained margins of sinkholes and alluvial flats. The communities provide a low potential habitat for threatened Dendrobium species. During the late dry season, these habitats are heavily impacted by feral pigs and may be subject to high intensity wildfires.

3.3.42 Low woodland of M.viridiflora +/- emergent C. clarksoniana.

Least Concern

No Concern

Occurs on alluvial flats often forming part of the transition between 3.5.2 of the bauxite plateau surface and Melaleuca woodlands. C. novoguineensis is an occasional emergent typically with a sub-canopy or shrub layer of M. viridiflora. It may also occur on the outer margins of drainage swamps.

3.3.49 M. viridiflora low open woodland on low plains.

Least Concern

No Concern

Woodlands of M. viridiflora occur on alluvial plains more extensively on MLA 20676.

3.3.51 M. acacioides +/- Hakea pedunculata tall shrubland on marine plains.

Of Concern

Of Concern

A restricted RE found on MLA 20676 where it manifests in linear communities fringing the outer margins of estuarine deposits and mangroves. Godwin (1985) recorded the vulnerable listed D. johannis in closed M. acacioides scrub in strips within seasonally flooded estuarine plains.

3.3.65 Ephemeral lakes and lagoons on alluvial plains and depressions.

Least Concern

No Concern

The lowest parts of the alluvial depressions within MLA 20689 provide surface water to the end of the dry season. Sedgelands of Eleocharis sp. And grasslands of Paspalum vaginatum are restricted habitats which are unique wetland habitats within the study area and are heavily impacted by feral pigs and by feral cattle grazing.

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

Least Concern

No Concern

Tall woodland and open forests, generally dominated by Darwin Stringybark (E. tetrodonta), Melville Island Bloodwood (C. nesophila) and Cooktown Ironwood (Erythrophleum chlorostachys) are widespread on well-drained lateritic land surfaces on the Merluna Plain and the Weipa Plateau. Threatened flora species that may be present in this community are Heterachne baileyi which has previously been collected in close proximity to the Project area.

3.5.22 C. clarksoniana, Erythrophleum chlorostachys and other eucalypt woodland on plains.

Least Concern

No Concern

Occurs on the margins of the bauxite deposits of the plateau surface. Provides potential habitat for H. baileyi, which has previously been collected in close proximity to the broader Project area.




3.5.2

3.5.2

3.5.2

3.5.2

3.5.2

3.5.2

3.5.2

3.5.2

3.5.2

3.5.10/3.7.3

3.5.10/3.7.3

3.1.1a/3.1.3

3.1.1

3.5.10

3.5.2

3.3.49b/3.3.9

3.7.3/3.3.49b

3.1.1

3.3.64/3.3.14a/3.3.12

3.3.14

3.2.5a/3.2.3/3.3.49b/3.2.10c

3.3.60a/3.1.6/3.5.22c

Water

3.1.1a/3.1.3

Water

3.1.1a/3.1.6/3.1.3

3.2.10c

3.3.50

3.3.14

3.3.49b

3.1.6

3.5.10

3.3.5a

3.1.1a/3.1.6/3.1.3

3.3.50

3.1.6

3.1.6

3.3.50

3.5.2

3.3.49b/3.3.9

3.5.2

3.5.2

Water

3.1.1a/3.1.3

3.3.14

3.3.14a/3.3.22a

3.3.14

3.2.10c

3.3.14

3.1.1

3.1.6/3.1.3

3.3.14

3.3.50/3.3.14a

3.3.49b/3.3.22a/3.3.64

non-rem

3.3.423.1.3 3.1.3

3.1.3

3.3.323.3.64

3.12.33a

3.3.42

3.1.6

3.2.5a/3.2.3/3.3.49b/3.2.10c

3.1.6

3.1.63.3.12

3.5.7x2a/3.3.49b

3.1.1

3.1.1

3.3.223.1.1

3.3.12

3.1.6

Water

3.1.6

3.1.1a/3.1.3

3.5.2

3.3.42

3.1.1

3.1.1

3.3.42

3.1.6

3.1.6

3.3.14a/3.3.22a

3.2.5a/3.3.42b/3.2.3Water

3.1.1

3.1.6

3.1.6

3.3.22

3.5.2

3.3.22

3.1.1a/3.1.3

3.3.22

3.1.6/3.1.3

3.1.6

3.5.4

3.3.14

3.3.14

3.1.6

3.1.6

3.3.513.3.22

3.1.6

3.1.6

3.3.14 3.3.51

3.1.6

3.3.12

3.3.50

3.3.32

non-rem

3.3.32

3.1.3

3.5.2

3.1.1

3.3.65

3.1.6

Water

3.3.49b3.1.63.1.6

3.5.2

3.3.14

3.5.2

3.1.6

3.3.22

3.3.12

3.1.33.1.6

3.1.1

3.1.3

3.1.6

3.3.51

3.1.6

3.1.6

3.1.1a/3.1.3

3.3.12

3.1.6

3.1.6

3.7.3/3.3.49b

3.3.65

3.1.6

3.3.51

3.1.6

3.3.51

3.3.22

3.1.6

3.1.63.1.1a/3.1.3

3.1.1

3.1.1a/3.1.3

SKARDON RIVER

610000

610000

615000

615000

620000

620000

625000

625000

8690

000

8690

000

8695

000

8695

000

Figure 5-7

DATE



within this map.


/0 690 1,380345

Metres

Revised Project area RE mapping©COPYRIGHT CDM SMITH


APPROVEDDRAWN

03/05/16

CHECKED

LegendBarge Loading AreaWatercourseHaul RoadPit ExtentsAccomoodation CampMetro Mining Mine Lease AreaExtent of Ground-truthed vegetation mapping

Mapped VegetationOf ConcernOf Least ConcernWater



(Geofabric) PRODUCT SUITE V2.1.1 DRG Ref: BES150115-009-R1_GROUND_REs_CL

DESIGNER CLIENT

1:45,000Scale @ A3 -

-DESIGNEDCHECKED -

MDMD-


Notes:

2-----

F:\1_PROJECTS\BES150115_Bauxite_Hill\GIS\DATA\MXD\FINAL\ERA\TER FW ECOL\BES150115-009-R1_GROUND_REs_CL.mxd


Barge Loading Area

Haul Road

Haul Road

Accommodation Camp

03/05/16

CampAccess

Road

3.5.2

3.5.2

3.1.1a/3.1.3

3.3.49b/3.3.9

3.1.1

3.1.63.3.12

3.3.12

3.1.6

3.1.1Water

3.5.2

3.5.2

3.1.1a/3.1.3

3.1.1 3.3.22

3.1.13.1.6

3.1.1

3.1.3 3.1.33.1.6

3.1.3

3.3.22

Water3.7.3/3.3.49b

3.1.3

3.3.22

3.1.3

3.3.22

3.5.2Water

3.1.1a/3.1.3

3.1.1a/3.1.3

3.1.1a/3.1.3

3.1.1a/3.1.3


5-33

5.6.1.3 Threatened Flora Species

Surveys identified 227 plant species within the Project area (refer Attachment 2 of Appendix B1).

No flora species listed as Endangered, Vulnerable or Near Threatened under the NC Act were

observed within the study area during field assessments. However, a number of species were

identified as having some potential to occur. Orchid species were identified during surveys outside

proposed clearing areas. The observed specimens were likely to be Dendrobium trilamellatum;

however, this species shares similar habitat and has similar habit to the vulnerable flora species D.

johannis. These orchids were found in riparian and wetland habitats outside of proposed impact

areas, their locations are illustrated within Figure 5-7. No suitable flowering material was present

at the time of survey and species level identification was not possible. Further targeted surveys will

be undertaken during optimal flowering periods between March to July (DotE, 2015). Surveys failed

to detect the presence of the Australian Arenga Palm (Arenga australiasicum) (Vulnerable NC Act)

although the species has been found to the south of the Project area during surveys for the Pisolite

Hills Project near the Wenlock River (Worley Parsons, 2011).

Habitat requirements for flora species listed under the NC Act and/or EPBC Act were considered

during the flora surveys. Species that were identified through desktop searches and their potential

to occur within the Project area based on mapped vegetation types and field surveys are listed in

Table 5-8. The assessment identified one flora species listed as vulnerable (NC Act and EPBC Act) as

likely to occur in the Project area. A further four threatened flora species have some potential to

occur in the broader Project area.

Table 5-8 Potential for listed flora species to occur within the study area

Scientific Name

Status

Preferred Habitat Potential to Occur in Project Area NC Act

EPBC Act

Cajanus mareebensis

E E Perennial herb found in grassy woodlands.

Unlikely. The species has not been recorded during surveys for the Project or SRBP. There are no records in proximity to the Project. The nearest record is located approximately 225 km southeast of the site.

At Musgrave, C. mareebensis has been photographed and collected from the verges of the Peninsula Developmental Road, where the creeper appears to favour edge situations on quartzose sandy or gravelly surfaces (Greencap, 2015). There are some areas of similar habitat in the vicinity of the existing haul road adjacent to the Project lease area.

Calophyllum bicolor

V V

Small tree occurring in vine forest generally associated with springs on edge of lateritic escarpments.

Unlikely. No suitable habitat in Project area. Atlas of living Australia shows no records in proximity to the Project. The nearest record is located approximately 60 km south of the site.

Cepobaculum carronii

LC V

Orchid species that grows in humid areas of open forest and low lying areas subject to periodic inundation. It often grows on the papery bark of Melaleuca viridiflora.

Potential. The species is only known from the eastern side of Cape York.

The Project site does contain suitable habitat of low-lying swamps of Melaleuca that are periodically inundated.


5-34

Scientific Name

Status

Preferred Habitat Potential to Occur in Project Area NC Act

EPBC Act

Dendrobium bigibbum (also listed as Vappodes lithicola and Vappodes Phalaenopsis)

V V

Orchid which occurs at altitudes between 0–400 m above sea level (Jones, 2006; Queensland Herbarium, 2008). It grows on trees and rocks with moderate light intensity in a range of habitats including coastal scrub, streambank vegetation, monsoon thickets, and gullies in open forest and woodland where fire cannot penetrate (Lavarack & Gray, 1985; Dockrill, 1992; Lavarack et al., 2000; Jones, 2006). It rapidly recolonises disturbed sites (Jones, 2006).

Potential. Species have not been recorded during surveys for the Project or SRBP. Suitable habitat occurs in the Project area in association with Melaleuca swamps and fringing habitats adjacent to the Project area.

There are records of the species near Aurukun.

Cooktown orchid is relatively well represented in coastal dune country in Cape York Peninsula, and is also found in large numbers in the dune vegetation west and outside the Project area. The species is most probably in more mesic vegetation types on land zone 2 (sand) such as beach scrubs (Greencap, 2015). These habitats do not occur in the Project area.

Chocolate Tea Tree Orchid Dendrobium johannis

V V

A common orchid species of open, humid habitats and is often found on trees growing in or close to swamps and in pockets of monsoon forest (Queensland Herbarium 1997).

Likely. During recent surveys individual orchids of similar habit to this species were identified in fringing paperbark woodlands and mangrove margins. However all specimens were infertile at the time of survey. It is likely these orchids are The Three Lamellas Dendrobium (D. trilamellatum) which has recently been split from Chocolate Tea Tree Orchid (D. johannis). To confirm the species identification flowering material in needed from March-July period (DotE, 2015).

Given the similarities in these species it is likely Chocolate Tea Tree Orchid occurs within wetland and fringing habitats within the broader Project area. All orchid species observed were located outside of proposed disturbance areas. Therefore no impacts to threatened orchid species are predicted.

Lepturus geminatus NT A grass of swamp forests.

Potential. The species has not been recorded during surveys for the Project or the SRBP. The nearest record is located approximately 60 km southwest of the site. Project site contains suitable habitat associated with swamps including Big Footprint Swamp.

Paspalum multinodum V

The species has been identified on seasonally inundated, cracking clay plains with sedges and mangrove or near-coastal affiliated plants (Greencap, 2015).

Potential. The species has not been recorded during surveys for the Project or the SRBP. It is known from two collections from the Aurukun area of Cape York. Areas of potential habitat are located outside of proposed disturbance areas for the mine. Except for some minor areas associated with MIA and haul roads.

5.6.1.4 Special Least Concern Flora Species

Special least concern restricted plants are horticultural species that are not considered sufficiently

rare to be classified as threatened species; however, may be subject to harvest and trade to an extent

that if unregulated would pose a threat to the species. As such, to ensure that populations of these

species do not become threatened, their removal is regulated under the NC Act.


5-35

Special least concern species recorded during the surveys included:

Chielanthes/Lip ferns (Cheilanthes sp.);

Bush lily (Crinum uniflorum);

Drosera lanata;

Sundew (Drosera sp.);

Bladderwort (Utricularia sp.);

Wallum Fringe (Nymphoides exiliflora);

Blue Lily (Nymphaea violacea);

Tea Tree Orchid (Dendrobium canaliculatum);

Fragrant Tea Tree Orchid (Dendrobium trilamellatum);

Bottlebrush Orchid (Dendrobium smillieae);

Dendrobium califorme;

Elegant Hyacinth-orchid (Dipodium elegantulum);

Tropical Hyacinth-orchid (Dipodium stenochilum); and

Triggerplant (Stylidium sp.).

5.6.1.5 Declared Weed Species

Surveys undertaken at the already disturbed sites of Skardon landing and the abandoned Skardon

Kaolin Project recorded robust populations of introduced flora including Mint Weed (Hyptis

suaveolens) and Stylo (Stylosanthes hamata). Surveys found no major weed issues in the

undisturbed bushland or existing access roads and tracks with a total of five introduced species

recorded. None of these are listed as Weeds of National Significance or under the LP Act. However,

there remains potential that intact habitats could be degraded by exotic species occurring in the

already impacted area of Weipa.

Gamba grass is a highly invasive tall robust tussock grass that is known to out compete native

grasses in similar woodland vegetation in the Northern Territory. It has been introduced to the Cape

York as a pasture grass and is known from a number of locations such as Kalinga Holding (Stanton

and Teece, 1996), in the far north around Bamaga, at Andoom and on Sudley Station (Fell pers. obs.

2014). The latter occurrence is particularly troublesome given its close proximity to the Project area

and the fact that it infests roadsides near the Batavia – Weipa Development Road junction. It is a

vigorous and highly robust grass species that occurs in dense tussocky stands to 3 m in height and

can dramatically increase fuel loads to produces intense, late dry season fires that seriously damage

native vegetation communities. It has the greatest potential to invade soils with higher fertility and

higher water holding capacities although it will establish in any degraded areas providing soils have

reasonable drainage. Habitats that are at the greatest risk include the stringybark woodlands of RE

3.5.2.


5-36

Other weeds known from the Weipa locality outside of the Project area with the ability to completely

dominate and severely alter the ecosystems that they invade include the following (refer Appendix

B1 for more information):

Sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia);

Panicle Joint Vetch (Aeschynomene paniculata); and

Prickly Croton (Croton hirsutus).

5.6.2 Terrestrial Fauna Values

A total of 214 species of terrestrial vertebrate are known or predicted to occur within a 25 km radius

of the study area, comprising 10 frogs, 26 reptiles, 154 birds and 34 mammal species (refer

Attachment 1 in Appendix B1 for database searches). A total of 100 terrestrial vertebrate species

were recorded during the field surveys for the Project, including 8 frog, 18 reptile, 64 bird and 10

mammal species. A full list of species recorded, including by habitat type, is provided in Attachment

2 in Appendix B1. The faunal community observed appears typical for the region.

Onsite fauna studies have also been carried out for the adjacent SRBP in June 2010, September-

October 2014 and February 2015 (RPS, 2015a). The SRBP studies encompass lands located directly

south of MLA 20689, and located between and to the north of MLA 20689 and MLA 20688. A total

of 122 species of terrestrial vertebrate were recorded from the study area, comprising 13 frogs, 20

reptiles, 66 birds and 23 mammal species. The surveys recorded Black-footed Tree-rat

(Mesembrionys gouldi rattoides) (Vulnerable – EPBC Act) (Appendix F in Appendix B1), Estuarine

Crocodile (Vulnerable – NC Act; Migratory - EPBC Act) and Echidna (Tachyglossus aculeatus)

(Special Least Concern – NC Act). Three bird species listed as Migratory under the EPBC Act were

also recorded. These results are discussed in the following sections along with the results of surveys

for the Project.

5.6.2.1 Terrestrial Fauna Assemblage

A total of 151 fauna species have been encountered in the study area in fauna surveys for this Project

and the SRBP including 15 frog, 23 reptile, 89 bird and 24 mammal species. The limited diversity of

flora species and vegetation communities, and relatively uniform landform topography and

substrate in the Project area supports a moderate diversity of fauna species.

Herpetofauna

Nine amphibian species were recorded during the surveys, four during the late dry and five during

the early wet season. Only one species, Cane Toad (Rhinella marina), was recorded during both

surveys. One species, Slender Frog (Austrochaperina gracilipes) is listed as of bioregional

significance under the BPA for the Cape York Peninsula bioregion. Fauna surveys associated with

the SRBP identified 13 species of frog including a further seven species not recorded during surveys

for this Project. All species found in both surveys are considered as Least Concern under the NC Act.

Fifteen reptile species were recorded during the surveys, 14 during late dry season surveys, and

nine (some previously recorded) during early wet season surveys. Two species, Eborac Island Gecko

(Nactus eboracensis) and Carlia sexdentata, are listed as priority species under the BPA for the Cape

York Peninsula bioregion. A further nine species of reptile were identified during fauna surveys for

the SRBP. Estuarine Crocodile was observed in the Skardon River and Namaleta Creek (south of the

Project area) during wet season surveys.


5-37

Birds

The bird fauna assemblage observed during the surveys is typical for the region. One bird species,

Palm Cockatoo (Probosciger aterrimus), listed as near threatened (under the NC Act) and Vulnerable

(under the EPBC Act) was recorded during Project fauna surveys. Palm Cockatoos were recorded

infrequently in the tall woodland dominating the site. Surveys for the SRBP also sighted Palm

Cockatoos in riparian and wetland habitat.

Nine bird species listed as migratory under the EPBC Act (also Special Least Concern under the NC

Act) have been recorded. Eastern Cattle Egret (Bubulcus ibis) and Great Egret (Ardea alba) were

recorded in low abundance on Big Footprint Swamp during fauna surveys for both Projects in the

area. The Whimbrel (Numenius phaeopus) is a migratory wader, typically associated with estuarine

mudflat and sandbank habitats. It roosts at night in mangrove vegetation and was only recorded on

the Skardon River. Two of the recorded bird species, Brown Treecreeper (Climacteris picumnus) and

Black-backed Butcherbird (Cracticus mentalis), are listed as non-EVNT priority species under the

BPA for the Cape York Peninsula bioregion.

Mammals

In general, mammals were scarce within the Project area during the Bauxite Hills surveys. The Agile

Wallaby (Macropus agilis) was the only macropod recorded in the Project area during the Project

fauna surveys. Wet season surveys for the SRBP also recorded Antilopine Wallaroo (Macropus

antilopinus) (RPS, 2015a). No other native terrestrial mammals were recorded during trapping

surveys for the Project, although rodents were commonly observed during the wet season survey.

Elliott trapping and baited infrared cameras employed for the SRBP surveys recorded further

species including the Black-footed Tree-rat (Mesmbriomys gouldi), listed as Vulnerable under the

EPBC Act, Short-beaked Echidna (Tachyglossus aculeatus) and Cape York Melomys (Melomys

capensis) which is listed as a non-EVNT priority species under the BPA for the Cape York Peninsula

bioregion.

Three introduced mammal species were recorded in the Project area during the surveys. These

included Dingo (Canus lupus dingo), feral Cat (Felis catus), and feral Pig (Sus scrofa). There is

potential these species are in some capacity impacting the densities of native fauna and flora species

present within the Project area and broader region. Pigs are likely to have impacts to native fauna

through foraging competition, the spreading of weeds and creating erosional and water quality

issues, particularly within habitats such as Big Footprint Swamp and mangrove habitats. Feral cats

cause direct predation pressure on small native fauna, and can respond in large numbers to

fluctuations in prey abundance placing pressure on native faunal assemblages.

Four arboreal mammals were recorded during the Project surveys, all during the late dry season

survey. These included, Sugar Glider (Petaurus breviceps), Black Flying-fox (Pteropus alecto), Little

Red Flying-fox (Pteropus scapulatus), and Common Brushtail Possum (Trichosurus vulpecula).

Analysis of microbat call recording results from the Project surveys could only definitively confirm

the presence of two species in the area with a further six considered likely to occur. However, results

from the SRBP identified a total of seven species including Forest Pipistrelle (Pipistrellus adamsi)

which is listed as a non-EVNT priority species under the BPA for the Cape York Peninsula bioregion.


5-38

5.6.2.2 Conservation Significant Species Observed

A total of 151 fauna species have been encountered in the study area in fauna surveys for the Project

and the SRBP. Five fauna species are listed as significant under the NC Act and/or EPBC Act, as

outlined in:

Beach Stone-curlew (Esacus magnirostris) (Vulnerable NC Act);

Palm Cockatoo (Probosciger aterrimus) (Near Threatened NC Act, Vulnerable EPBC Act);

Estuarine Crocodile (Vulnerable NC Act, Migratory EPBC Act);

Black-footed Tree-rat (Vulnerable EPBC Act); and

Echidna (Tachglossus aculeatus) (Special Least Concern NC Act).

A further nine recorded bird species are listed as Migratory under the EPBC Act:

Eastern Osprey (Pandion cristatus) (Special Least Concern NC Act, Migratory EPBC Act);

Great Egret (Ardea alba) (Special Least Concern NC Act, Migratory EPBC Act);

Eastern Cattle Egret (Bubulcus coromandus) (Special Least Concern NC Act, Migratory EPBC

Act);

Whimbrel (Numenius phaeopus) (Special Least Concern NC Act, Migratory EPBC Act);

Common Sandpiper (Actitis hypoleucos) (Special Least Concern NC Act, Migratory EPBC Act);

Gull-billed Tern (Geochelidon nilotica) (Special Least Concern NC Act, Migratory EPBC Act);

Little Tern (Sternula albifrons) (Special Least Concern NC Act, Migratory EPBC Act);

Rainbow Bee-eater (Merops ornatus) (Special Least Concern NC Act, Migratory EPBC Act); and

Rufous Fantail (Rhipidura rufifrons) (Special Least Concern NC Act, Migratory EPBC Act).

Descriptions of the above species are provided in the following sections, and locations of

observations are provided in Figure 5-7.

CDM Smith has approached the predicted occurrence of conservation significant fauna species using

a conservative approach. As such, analysis of impact has been based on the assumption that

significant fauna species which may exist in the study area are present unless evidence to the

contrary exists. An additional 15 conservation significant species listed under the NC Act and/or

EPBC Act are considered to have potential to occur within the study area (Table 5-9).

5.6.2.3 Exotic Fauna Species Observed

Six introduced terrestrial vertebrate species were recorded within the Project area and surrounds

including: Cane Toad (Rhinella marina); Asian House Gecko (Hemidactylus frenatus); Feral Cattle

(Bos sp.); Cat (Felis catus); Dingo (Canis lupus dingo) and Pig (Sus scrofa). Three of these species

(Feral Cat, Dingo and Pig) are declared Class 2 pest species under the Land Protection (Pest and Stock

Route Management) Act 2002.


5-39

Table 5-9 Likelihood of occurrence of conservation significant and migratory fauna

Species Status Habitat Preference Likelihood of Occurrence

NC Act

EPBC Act

Known

Estuarine Crocodile (Crocodylus porosus)

V M

Widespread throughout northern Australia. The Port Musgrave area, and in particular, the Wenlock River, is recognised as containing significant habitat for the Estuarine Crocodile with one of the largest breeding populations in Queensland (Greencap, 2015). Suitable habitat includes mangroves, but they also commonly occur in freshwater habitats such as rivers, lakes and swamps.

Known. Observed during surveys for the SRBP and was also confirmed in waterways, dams, wetlands and the Skardon River around the site (RPS, 2015a). Estuarine Crocodiles are likely to occur in estuarine areas associated with the Skardon River, tributaries and wetlands within and adjacent to the Project site. The Skardon River is a known breeding area for Estuarine Crocodiles (DPI, 2002).

Eastern Osprey (Pandion cristatus)

S M Generally occurs in coastal areas, but is sometimes known to travel inland along major rivers in northern Australia.

Known. Detected during surveys for the SRBP. Suitable habitat occurs throughout the Project area. Wildnet database records. Nearest ALA record located approximately 60 km of the site located to the southwest.

Great Egret (Ardea alba) S M Shallow wetland habitats, including manmade dams and ponds and moist grasslands (Marchant and Higgins, 1990).

Known. Widespread and common species. Detected on a semi-ephemeral swamp during surveys for the Project. Suitable habitat occurs throughout the Project area. Wildnet database records. Two ALA records within 10 km of the site located to the west and southwest.

Eastern Cattle Egret (Bubulcus coromandus)

S M Grasslands, wetlands, pasture and crops. Strongly associated with grazing animals (Pringle 1985; and Marchant and Higgins, 1990).

Known. Detected on a semi-ephemeral swamp during surveys for the Project and SRBP. Suitable habitat occurs throughout the Project area. No database records. Nearest ALA record located approximately 60 km of the site located to the southwest.


5-40


NC Act

EPBC Act

Beach Stone-curlew (Esacus magnirostris)

V

Usually found on open, undisturbed beaches, islands, reefs, and estuarine intertidal sand and mudflats, preferring beaches with estuaries or mangroves nearby. However, this species also frequents river mouths, offshore sandbars associated with coral atolls, reefs and rock platforms, and coastal lagoons.

Known. This species was recorded on the northern bank of the Skardon River during surveys for the SRBP. Beach stone-curlews are found exclusively along the coast, on a wide range of beaches, islands, reefs and in estuaries, and may often be seen at the edges of or near mangroves.

Suitable habitat for the species occurs to the north of the Project along the Skardon River and in vicinity of the MIA and loading facility in mangrove and tidal flat areas. However its primary habitat is associated with beaches and adjacent lagoons and river mouths therefore it is not likely to utilise habitats adjacent to the Project site.

Whimbrel (Numenius phaeopus) S M

Found on the intertidal mudflats of sheltered coasts. It is also found in harbours, lagoons estuaries and river deltas, often those with mangroves, but also open, unvegetated mudflats.

Known. Detected on the Skardon River during surveys for the Project. Suitable habitat occurs in mangrove areas adjacent to the Skardon River. Wildnet database records. One ALA record within 10 km of the site located to the west.

Common Sandpiper (Actitis hypoleucos)

S M

Utilises a wide range of coastal wetlands and some inland wetlands, with varying levels of salinity, and is mostly found around muddy margins or rocky shores and rarely on mudflats.

Known. Detected during surveys for the Project. Suitable habitat occurs throughout the Project area. Wildnet database records. Nearest ALA record located approximately 40 km of the site located to the southwest.

Gull-billed Tern (Geochelidon nilotica)

S M Widespread species that may forage over fresh or saltwater environments and open grassy habitats. May occur a long way inland.

Known. Recorded during surveys for SRBP. Location not stated, although most likely utilising Skardon River estuary.

Little Tern (Sternula albifrons) S M

Inhabit sheltered coastal environments, including lagoons, estuaries, river mouths and deltas, lakes, bays, harbours and inlets, especially those with exposed sandbanks or sand-spits, and also on exposed ocean beaches.

Known. Detected during surveys for the Project. Suitable habitat occurs throughout the Project area. Potential habitat is associated with estuaries of the Skardon River and wetlands. However their preferred habitats are associated with coastal environments such as at the mouth of the Skardon River. Two ALA records within 10 km of the site located to the west.


5-41


NC Act

EPBC Act

Palm Cockatoo (Probosciger aterrimus)

NT V Closed tropical forest and adjacent savanna and paperbark woodland on Cape York Peninsula. This species nest in large tree hollows, trunks or stumps.

Known. Detected during surveys for this Project and SRBP. The Project area provides potential foraging and breeding habitats in the woodland areas. Nests may be found in the larger hollow bearing trees. The species is also likely to utilise Melaleuca woodlands within and adjacent to the Project site associated with Big Footprint Swamp and riparian vegetation of the Skardon River. One ALA record within 10 km of the site located to the southwest.

Rainbow Bee-eater (Merops ornatus)

S M

Open or lightly timbered areas, shrublands, farmland, cleared land, mangroves and rainforest edges. Also disturbed areas that have exposed bare soil in banks for breeding (Higgins, 1999).

Known. Wide spread and common species. Detected in Project area during site surveys. Wildnet database records. ALA shows numerous records within 10 km of the site located to the north, west and east.

Rufous Fantail (Rhipidura rufifrons)

S M

Generally occur in dense vegetation, mainly in rainforests, but also in wet sclerophyll forests and other dense vegetation such as mangroves, drier sclerophyll forests, woodlands, parks and gardens (Higgins et al., 2006).

Known. This species was detected in the Big Footprint Swamp area during surveys for the SRBP. The Pisolite Hills IAS survey identified this species within mangrove habitat at the port development area. Wildnet database records. Atlas of living Australia shows two records within 10 km of the Project site located to the west.

Short-beaked Echidna (Tachyglossus aculeatus)

S

Occurs throughout Australia in almost all terrestrial habitats except for intensively managed farms. It shelters in logs, crevices, burrows and leaf litter (Menkhorst and Knight, 2004; Augee, 2008).

Known. Recorded adjacent to Project area by RPS in October 2014 during intensive infrared camera trapping targeting quolls. No database records. Widespread and common species.

Black-footed Tree-rat (North Queensland) (Mesembrionys gouldii rattoides)

LC V

Habitats for the species consist of open eucalypt woodland and forests with a proximity to watercourses and low lying vegetated areas. Denning habitat consists of tree hollows and sometimes dense foliage such as Pandanus spp. Limited information is available on this sub-species however it is known to be arboreal and forage on the ground for fruits and seeds, some invertebrates and grasses (Greencap, 2015).

Known. Recorded adjacent to Project area by RPS in October 2014 during intensive infrared camera trapping targeting quolls for the SRBP. Possible habitat, including denning habitat consisting of

E. tetrodonta woodlands and tree hollows exist within the Project area and the SRBP area. The species may also utilise adjacent Melaleuca swamps to the Project such as Big Footprint Swamp. No database records. The nearest ALA record lies approximately 60 km southeast of the Project area.


5-42


NC Act

EPBC Act

Likely (no terrestrial or freshwater aquatic species are considered likely to occur in the Project area). Refer to Chapter 7 – MNES for marine species that are likely to occur in the Project area.

Potential

Eastern Reef Egret (Egretta sacra)

S M

Found on the coast and island of most of Australia, but especially on the Queensland coast. Lives on beaches, rocky shores, tidal rivers and inlets, mangroves and exposed coral reefs.

Potential. Not detected during surveys for the Project; however suitable habitat exists within the Project area in the form of tidal rivers, inlets and mangroves. Records of the species are from the mouth of the Skardon River.

Lesser Frigatebird (Fregata ariel) S M Typically marine, but frequents coastal areas. Potential. Although unlikely within the Project area, may occur in the region. Wildnet database record and one ALA record within 10 km of the site is located to the west.

Red Goshawk (Erythrotriorchis radiatus)

E V

Endemic to northern and eastern Australia in coastal and subcoastal areas with large home ranges of up to 200 km2. Occurs in woodlands and forests and prefers mosaic habitats that hold a large population of birds and permanent water. Riparian areas are heavily favoured (Marchant and Higgins, 1993).

Potential. Eucalypt forest and woodlands adjacent to the Skardon River in the Project area afford foraging and potentially breeding habitat. This species was not detected during the surveys for the Project or SRBP. Surveys did not identify any Red Goshawk nests which are distinctive large stick nests. There is the potential for Red Goshawks to forage within the woodlands of the Project area, but their primary habitat is tall trees within 1 km of permanent water. Therefore primary habitat would be associated with the Skardon River and fringing riparian vegetation. The Project will have minimal impact on riparian vegetation and habitat for Red Goshawk. Large areas of riparian vegetation and foraging woodland for the species are being retained on site. No database records. EPBC online search only. Several ALA records in wider region but nearest record is approximately 100 km to the southeast.

Latham’s Snipe (Gallinago hardwickii)

S M Occurs on swamp and marsh margins and in wet pasture (Pringle, 1987).

Potential. Suitable habitat occurs within and to the north and west of the Project area. EPBC Online search only. No database records or records from previous studies. EPBC Online search only. The nearest ALA record is approximately 80 km to the southeast of the site.


5-43


NC Act

EPBC Act

Eastern Curlew (Numenius madagascariensis)

CE M

Most commonly associated with sheltered coasts, especially estuaries, bays, harbours, inlets and coastal lagoons, with large intertidal mudflats or sandflats, often with beds of seagrass.

Potential. Suitable habitat occurs to the north and west of the Project area associated with Skardon River and associated mudflats. However the primary habitat is more associated with the mouth of the Skardon River and coastline which is downstream of the mine area. Two ALA records within 10 km of the Project area located to the west.

Great Knot (Calidris tenuirostris) S M Typically prefers sheltered coastal habitats, with large intertidal mudflats or sandflats. This includes inlets, bays, harbours, estuaries and lagoons.

Potential. Suitable habitat occurs to the north and west of the Project area associated with Skardon River and associated mudflats. The primary habitat is more associated with the mouth of the Skardon River and coastline which is downstream of the mine area. The nearest ALA record is approximately 50 km to the southeast of the site.

Common Greenshank (Tringa nebularia)

S M

Occurs in all types of wetlands and has a wide distribution. They are common throughout summer. The species is found both on the coast and inland, in estuaries and mudflats, mangrove swamps and lagoons, and in billabongs, swamps, sewage farms and flooded crops.

Potential. Not detected during surveys for the Project; however suitable habitat exists in the Project area in mangrove swamps associated with the Skardon River and other wetlands such as Big Footprint Swamp. Atlas of living Australia shows that the species has been observed at the mouth of the Skardon River.

Lesser Crested Tern (Thalasseus bengalensis)

S M

Known to inhabit tropical and subtropical sandy and coral coasts and estuaries. Breeds in subtropical coastal parts of the world from the Red Sea across to the western Pacific Ocean and Australia.

Potential. Not detected during surveys for the Project; however suitable habitat exists in the north of the Project area, in proximity to the proposed barge loading site. Atlas of living Australia shows that the species has been observed at the mouth of the Skardon River.

Caspian Tern (Sterna caspia) S M

Widespread in coastal regions from southern Gulf of Carpentaria to the Torres Strait and along the east coast. Found in sheltered coastal areas (harbours, lagoons, inlets, bays, estuaries and river deltas), particularly those with sandy or muddy margins. Also occur on near-coastal or inland terrestrial wetlands, waterholes, reservoirs, rivers and creeks.

Potential. Not detected during surveys for the Project; however suitable habitat exists within proximity to the Project associated with the Skardon River and estuarine wetlands. Atlas of Living Australia shows that the species has been observed at the mouth of the Skardon River.


5-44


NC Act

EPBC Act

Masked Owl (northern) (Tyto novaehollandiae kimberlii)

V V

Occurs in sclerophyll forests and woodlands often near grassy open areas. Generally roosts in tree hollows (although sometimes caves or dwelling are used) and feeds on mammals (Debus, 2012).

Potential. The Project area does provide some suitable habitat in the woodland areas, including tree hollows for nesting. No recent records exist for this species from western Cape York. The species has not been recorded on the Weipa Plateau despite recent surveys.

The Action Plan for Australian Birds (Garnett et al., 2011) species account shows a single record occurring near Aurukun. No database records. EPBC Online search only.

Fork-tailed Swift (Apus pacificus) S M An aerial non-breeding summer visitor, may occur over any habitat type, including cleared land and infrastructure.

Potential. May be occasional aerial visitor to the study area in the summer months. No database records. EPBC Online search only. The nearest ALA record is approximately 40 km to the east of the site.

Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica) S M

Utilises open country with water or low moist green vegetation, such as pastures and farm crops, near margins of wetlands and human settlements. The species usually avoids densely populated areas

Potential. Although unlikely within the Project area, may occur in the region due to occurrence of suitable habitat. No database records or records from previous studies. The nearest ALA record is approximately 50 km to the southeast of the site.

Satin Flycatcher (Myiagra cyanoleuca)

S M Satin Flycatchers are mostly found in eucalypt forest, favouring wet forests, moist gullies and watercourses (Higgins et al., 2006).

Potential. There is a possibility that this species may occur on the fringes of the Project area and the SRBP area. However, it is unlikely that the species occurs across the majority of the Project area. During autumn/spring migrations but generally migrates along coastal areas.

Northern Quoll (Dasyurus hallucatus)

C V

Formerly occurred in a variety of habitats across northern Australia and Queensland including: eucalypt forest and woodlands, rainforests, sandy lowlands, shrublands and grasslands. Now most common in rocky eucalypt woodland and open forest within 200 km of the coast (Menkhorst and Knight, 2004).

Potential. Has not been detected in studies for this Project or the SRBP. Suitable foraging habitat for this species occurs within the region, however there is limited suitable denning habitat. There are three ALA records (1980s) located approximately 22 km south of the site near Mapoon. Populations of this species have been recently found in the Weipa area at Scherger Air Base (RPS, 2015a) and for the Amrun Project (McGoldrick, 2013).

On the basis of this rediscovery, it is possible for northern quolls to recolonise their historical range, which includes the Project area (Greencap, 2015). The Project site has an absence of complex rocky outcrops for denning habitat. The species is known to generally forage in areas proximate to these rocky areas. The Project site does contain suitable foraging habitat across the Project site in eucalypt woodlands. As the species has a large foraging range there may be some limited potential the species will utilise the Project site.


5-45


NC Act

EPBC Act

Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat (Saccolaimus nudicluniatus)

E CE

Occurs primarily in tropical eucalypt woodland and possibly rainforest in the coastal lowlands of north-eastern Queensland and the Top End of the Northern Territory. It prefers open woodlands, particularly Poplar Gum (E. platyphylla) woodland, and tall open forest. The small number of confirmed roosts located in Australia has been in tree hollows. Most roosts are located in hollows at 10-15 m in height with a roost entrance 6 to 7 m above the ground.

Potential. Detected as possibly occurring from bat call pass files recorded from the Project area, although not considered to be a positive identification. Studies for the SRBP confirm the presence of both S. flaviventris and S. mixtus in the local area. Although no E. platyphylla woodlands are present within the Project area, suitable foraging habitat occurs throughout the Project area as well as larger hollow bearing eucalypts including E. tetradonta which the species has been associated with in other areas of Australia such as the Northern Territory.

There are no confirmed records from the western Cape York. The nearest confirmed record is from Iron Range National Park ~ 130 km southeast of the Project area. Churchill (2008) does not have this species’ known range covering the western half of Cape York Peninsula; however, other field guides have mapped this area.

Chestnut Dunnart (Sminthopsis archeri)

NT Endemic to Cape York Peninsula and Papua New Guinea. Has previously been encountered in Eucalyptus tetrodonta, Corymbia nesophila vegetation.

Potential. Species is rarely encountered and has not been recorded during this or previous studies in the Project area or surrounds. Known to prefer and has previously been trapped in RE 3.5.2 (which occurs in the Project area). Research suggests that populations are naturally in low abundance (Greencap, 2015). Wildnet database records. There are two ALA records located approximately 22 km south of the site near Mapoon.

Unlikely

Bar-tailed Godwit S M

Found in coastal sandflats, mudflats, estuaries, inlets, harbours, coastal lagoons and bays. Rarely found on inland wetlands or in areas of short grass. The species prefers foraging on tidal estuaries and shallow water and roost on sandy beaches and sandbars.

Unlikely. While within the overall distribution for the species, it is unlikely that the Project area hosts the bar-tailed godwit due to lack of suitable habitat. The species has not been recorded in the area and the closest suitable habitat is at the mouth of the Skardon River and coastal areas.

Golden-shouldered Parrot (Psephotus chrysopterygius)

E E

Preference for tropical savanna woodland. During the dry season, the choice of habitat appears to be based on the grass seed availability. Nesting appears to be more successful where grass has been invaded by woodland.

Unlikely. Currently two populations on Cape York Peninsula are known associated with a pastoral lease (Artemis Station, Musgrave) and protected estate (Staaten River NP) to the south of the Project area. The nearest ALA record is approximately 100 km to the southeast of the site.


5-46


NC Act

EPBC Act

Red-rumped Swallow (Cecropis daurica)

S M Found in grassland areas where they feed on insects. Vagrant to Australia and breeds in open hills within southern Europe and Asia.

Unlikely. No suitable habitat exists within the Project area. The Darwin Stringybark woodlands are not likely to provide sufficient open habitats and grasslands for foraging. The closest record of the species is on Thursday Island – some 130 km north of the Project area.

Black-faced Monarch (Monarcha melanopsis) Spectacled Monarch (Symposiarchus trivirgatus)

S M

Both species generally occur mostly in dense vegetation, mainly in rainforests, but also in wet sclerophyll forests and other dense vegetation such as mangroves, drier sclerophyll forests, woodlands, parks and gardens (Higgins et al., 2006).

Unlikely. Lack of suitable habitat in the Project area. No database records or records from previous surveys. The nearest ALA record is approximately 50 km to the southeast of the site.

Spectacled Flying-fox (Petropus conspicillatus)

V V Restricted to tropical rainforest areas.

Unlikely. No records from surveys and no database records. EPBC Online search only. Lack of suitable habitat in the Project area and surrounds and no roost sites recorded during surveys for the Project or SRBP. The nearest ALA record is approximately 110 km to the east of the Project area.

Ghost Bat (Macroderma gigas) V

One of the largest microbat species in the world. Occur in a wide range of habitats from rainforest, monsoon and vine scrub, to open woodlands in arid areas. These habitats are used for foraging, while roost habitat is more specific. Favoured roosting sites of the ghost bat are undisturbed caves or mineshafts which have several openings (Churchill, 2008).

Unlikely. Suitable habitat for foraging occurs throughout the Project area. However, suitable roosting habitat does not occur in the Project area such as caves and deep rock fissures. This species was not detected during the surveys for the Project or SRBP.

There are no records in close proximity to the Project. The nearest ALA record is approximately 225 km southeast of the site east of Coen.

Water Mouse (Xeromys myoides)

V V

Known to utilise both intertidal and freshwater habitats. Most records have been from mangrove forests, saltmarsh, sedgelands, clay pans and freshwater Melaleuca wetlands.

Unlikely. Nearest known population occurs near Proserpine on the central Queensland Coast, although suitable mangrove and saltpan habitat occurs on the margins of the Project area. Has not been observed in previous studies in the region although species is difficult to detect. EPBC Online search only.

*Status abbreviations: NC Act - C = Least Concern, S = Special Least Concern, NT = Near Threatened, V = Vulnerable, and E = Endangered; EPBC Act - Ex = Extinct, M = Migratory, V = Vulnerable,

and E = Endangered, CE = Critically Endangered.


5-47

5.6.2.4 Conservation Significant Species Profiles – Threatened Species

Chocolate Tea Tree Orchid (Dendrobium johannis)

Status: Vulnerable – NC Act, and Vulnerable - EPBC Act

Occurrence in the study area: During dry season vegetation surveys in November 2014 a number

of suspected Dendrobium orchid species were identified on the edge of Big Footprint Swamp and on

the northern boundary of MLA 20676 (Figure 5-7) in Melaleuca and mangrove fringing

communities. All Dendrobium specimens were infertile at the time of survey therefore future

identification will need to be confirmed during flowering periods. Based on the habit and form of

the individuals encountered it is considered more likely these species were the common

Dendrobium trilamellatum.

Distribution and habitat: The species is known to occur on Cape York Peninsula from around Coen

north to the tip. It prefers open, humid habitats and is often found on trees growing in or close to

swamps and in pockets of monsoon forest (Queensland Herbarium 1997). It has been recorded

growing on Broad-leaved Tea-tree (M. viridiflora) in Melaleuca floodplain woodland and semi-

evergreen vine thicket on a stabilised sand dune.

Threats: Threats include habitat degradation and collection by orchid enthusiasts.

Palm Cockatoo (Probosciger aterrimus macgillivrayi)

Plate 5-1: Palm Cockatoo

Status: Near Threatened – NC Act, and Vulnerable - EPBC Act

Occurrence in the study area: Recorded infrequently during dry season fauna surveys (November,

2014) throughout the Project area refer Figure 5-7. Also observed during SRBP surveys in fringing

woodland immediately to the north of Namaleta Creek and in Darwin Stringybark woodland. The

species has been recorded in low numbers from one individual up to three in a flock. The Darwin

Stringybark woodlands and fringing Melaleuca forests on the Project site and surrounding area

provide foraging and nesting habitat for this species. Hollow bearing trees provide nesting sites for

this species.

Ecology and habitat: Palm cockatoos in Australia are conventionally accepted as a distinct

subspecies to those found in Papua New Guinea. The species inhabits closed forest and riparian

systems, and open woodlands adjacent to these habitats. Pairs are thought to occupy permanent


5-48

breeding territories (Murphy et al., 2003). They feed mostly on the hard seeds of fibrous and woody

fruits of woodland, littoral and closed forest species, taken from the canopy and the ground (Wood,

1988; Storch, 1996).

Distribution and breeding: This subspecies is distributed across the north of Cape York Peninsula,

Queensland, from north of Pompuraaw on the west coast to Saltwater Creek, Princess Charlotte Bay

on the east coast (Storch, 1996; Higgins, 1999). Palm cockatoos breed all year round, although a

peak of egg-laying occurring in September has been found in Iron Range National Park (Murphy et

al., 2003). Nest preparation is known to usually start between August and November, during the

peak breeding period (September). Nests are mostly in large hollow trees, primarily large eucalypts

in woodland, with an average distance of 320 m to rainforest (Murphy et al., 2003). However, there

have also been observations of nests in smaller trees, which may be related to limitations in the

availability of hollows at certain times (Murphy, 2006).

Threats: Threats include land clearing for mining projects, inappropriate fire regimes which impact

nesting habitat by destroying nest hollows or allowing rainforest to encroach on woodland habitat,

and cyclones which also destroy nest hollows (Garnett et al., 2011).

Beach Stone-curlew (Esacus magnirostris)

Status: Vulnerable – NC Act.

Occurrence in the study area: This species was recorded on the northern bank of the Skardon

River during surveys for the SRBP.

Ecology and habitat: The Beach Stone-curlew generally occurs singularly or in pairs, and

occasionally in small groups. The species inhabits sandy beaches, especially where sandflats,

mudflats or reefs are exposed at low tide, and are often around river mouths. They are mainly

nocturnal or crepuscular and adult birds appear to be sedentary. The species feeds predominately

on crabs and other marine invertebrates in the intertidal zone (Clancy, 1986; Marchant and Higgins,

1993).

Distribution and breeding: Beach Stone-curlews are exclusively coastal, found around eastern and

northern Australia from Ballina in New South Wales to Broome in Western Australia.

Pairs lay a single egg in a scrape in the sand, often in the same area year after year. Once hatched,

young are dependent on adults for approximately 7-12 months (Clancy, 1986; Marchant and

Higgins, 1993). Eggs have been found from mid-July to mid-November (Freeman, 2012).

Threats: This species can still be found in coastal locations where human activity is high. However,

the lack of young birds in such areas suggests that reproduction is being affected by human

disturbance (Freeman 2003). Breeding success may also be significantly reduced from predation by

cats, dogs and feral pigs (Garnett et al., 2011).

Black-footed Tree-rat (north Queensland) (Mesembriomys gouldii rattoides)

Status: Vulnerable – EPBC Act.

Occurrence in the study area: Recorded on a camera trap during intensive surveys for Northern

Quoll in September/October 2014 for SRBP (Appendix F in RPS, 2015a). Not recorded otherwise

despite extensive trapping across the area. The exact location of the record was not given. The

nearest record to the Project area appears to be a 2004 EHP record located approximately 30 km

east of Weipa.


5-49

Ecology and habitat: Little information is available on this nocturnal species. It is recorded mostly

from eucalypt woodlands and dens mostly in tree hollows and sometimes in dense foliage

(particularly of Pandanus species). It forages on the ground and in trees for a diet of fruit, seeds,

invertebrates, flowers and grass (Rankmore and Friend, 2006). Individuals in the western

subspecies have been recorded moving at least 500 m from den sites (Friend et al, 1992).

Distribution and breeding: Its distribution is poorly known and has been mostly recorded around

Mareeba (Burnett, 2001). It has been sparsely recorded elsewhere in Cape York. Breeding may occur

throughout the year, but was found to peak in August-September in the western subspecies (Friend

1992).

Threats: This species is threatened by habitat loss and fragmentation, inappropriate fire regimes

and feral cat predation. Lesser threats include habitat degradation due to livestock and invasive

grasses (DotE, 2015).

Estuarine Crocodile (Crocodylus porosus)

Status: Vulnerable – NC Act, Migratory – EPBC Act.

Occurrence in the study area: Observed during surveys for the SRBP and was also confirmed in

waterways, dams, wetlands and the Skardon River around the Project area (RPS, 2015a).

Ecology and habitat: Their habitat includes marine habitats such as mangroves, but they also

commonly occur in freshwater habitats such as rivers, lakes and swamps. Crocodiles have wide and

varied diets which differ between habitats. Prey size increases with the size of the crocodile, with

the diet of juveniles consisting of smaller prey such as insects, crustaceans and occasionally small

mammals such as rats. Larger crocodiles feed on fish, crabs, turtles, birds and mammals including

large prey items such as wallabies, pigs, water buffalo, cattle and horses.

Distribution and breeding: Widespread throughout northern Australia and its range includes all

of the Gulf of Carpentaria and the Queensland east coast south to the latitude of approximately

Gladstone. The Port Musgrave area, and in particular, the Wenlock River, is recognised as containing

significant habitat for the Estuarine Crocodile with one of the largest breeding populations in

Queensland (Abrahams et al., 1995; Read et al., 2004). The Skardon River is a known breeding area

for Estuarine Crocodile (DPI, 2002). Studies from the Northern Territory indicate the species breeds

in the wet season from November to May (DotE, 2015).

Threats: The Estuarine Crocodile was threatened by hunting pressure prior to its protection in the

1970s. Many populations have now recovered but the species is still threatened by drowning in

fishing nets (Ehmann 1992).

5.6.2.5 Conservation Significant Fauna Species Profiles – Other Species (Special Least Concern – NC Act; Migratory – EPBC Act)

Great Egret (Ardea alba) and Eastern Cattle Egret (Bubulcus coromandus)

Eastern Cattle Egret and Great Egret were recorded within the Project boundary in low abundance

on Big Footprint Swamp, in groups of six and two respectively. Both recorded in same area during

surveys for SRBP (RPS, 2015a).

Great Egret is a common widespread species that may be found in most shallow, coastal and inland

wetland habitats, both estuarine and freshwater and including man-made dams, ponds and moist

grasslands (Marchant and Higgins, 1990; Pizzey and Knight, 2007). This species hunts for fish, frogs

and aquatic insects by wading slowly and waiting for prey (Marchant and Higgins, 1990). Breeding


5-50

takes place mostly in summer, but also extends into autumn, with nests built in trees fringing or

flooded by water, often in colonies (Marchant and Higgins, 1990; Pizzey and Knight, 2007).

Eastern Cattle Egrets inhabit grasslands, wetlands and wooded lands, often foraging away from

water in damp grassland, pasture and crops. The species is strongly associated with grazing animals

in Australia, but also forages at garbage tips, follows machinery, and feeds independently. As with

Great Egret the species breeds in summer, tending to nest in colonies and over water (Pizzey and

Knight, 2007). Occurs in higher rainfall areas of pastoral Australia (McKilligan, 2005).

Eastern Osprey (Pandion cristatus)

Recorded during surveys in February 2015 for the SRBP (RPS, 2015).

The Eastern Osprey is found along the entire Australian coastline and may occur far inland on rivers

and lakes, particularly in wet years (Debus, 2012). This species feeds on fish, foraging in rivers,

lakes, estuaries and inshore coastal waters. Breeding pairs require nesting sites near suitable

foraging areas, and nesting sites include tall trees and artificial structures such as power poles and

towers (NPWS, 2002).

The Eastern Osprey population in Australia has decreased since European settlement but has been

recovering in recent years (Olsen, 1998). They are threatened by loss of existing and suitable

replacement breeding trees, disturbance at the nest site, reduction in quality and quantity of fish

stocks, collision with or electrocution by power lines, and the use of pesticides (NPWS, 2002).

Whimbrel (Numenius phaeopus) and Common Sandpiper (Actitis hypoleucos)

Both species detected during surveys for the Project with Whimbrel observed on the Skardon River.

Both species are summer migrants following breeding in the northern hemisphere. Whimbrel is

largely a coastal species preferring estuarine areas and may occur around the entire Australian

coastline. It is often found on the intertidal mudflats of sheltered coasts as well as harbours, lagoons,

estuaries and river deltas, often those with mangroves, but also open, unvegetated mudflats. It also

used saltflats with saltmarsh, or saline grasslands with standing water left after high spring-tides,

and in similar habitats in sewage farms and saltfields (Higgins & Davies, 1996). The Whimbrel is one

of a small group of shorebird species that regularly roost in mangroves and other structures flooded

at high tide. They often roost in the branches of mangroves around mudflats and in estuaries and

occasionally in tall coastal trees. The greatest threat to the species is habitat loss (DotE, 2015).

Common Sandpiper utilises a wide range of coastal wetlands and some inland wetlands, with

varying levels of salinity, and is mostly found around muddy margins or rocky shores and rarely on

mudflats. The Common Sandpiper has been recorded in estuaries and deltas of streams, as well as

on banks farther upstream; around lakes, pools, billabongs, reservoirs, dams and claypans, and

occasionally piers and jetties. The species is often associated with mangroves, and sometimes found

in areas of mud littered with rocks or snags (Geering et al. 2007; Higgins & Davies, 1996). Both

species are threatened by habitat loss such as coastal land and wetland reclamation (DotE, 2015).

Little Tern (Sternula albifrons) and Gull-billed Tern (Geochelidon nilotica)

Little Tern was detected during surveys for the Project. Gull-billed Tern was recorded during

surveys in February 2015 for the SRBP (RPS, 2015a).

Within Australia, the Little Tern occurs along the coastal regions of eastern Australia, south to

Tasmania, and across northern Australia, west to northern parts of Western Australia (Higgins and

Davies, 1996). It is gregarious and usually occurs in small flocks, although it often roosts in large


5-51

flocks. The species is found along a variety of coastal areas, including lagoons, estuaries, river

mouths, lakes, bays, harbours and inlets, especially those with exposed sandbanks.

Nests are generally located in elevated areas five metres from the high water mark and consist of a

scrape in the substrate. In south-eastern and eastern Australia this species has suffered serious

declines as a result of beachgoers, dogs and vehicles intruding on beach nest sites (Pizzey and

Knight, 2003). Little Terns are also threatened by nest predation by rats, gulls, ravens, foxes and

feral pigs, and by degradation of estuaries, pesticide residues in fish, and oil-fouling of both birds

and beaches (Garnett et al., 2011).

Gull-billed Tern was added to the list of Migratory species under the EPBC Act in 2015. This is a

relatively common and widespread species that is largely coastal in distribution but may also occur

a well inland over larger freshwater bodies. It occurs on a variety of freshwater and saline wetlands

including estuaries, mudflats and beaches. It is a colonial nesting species with nesting consisting of

a lined scrape on offshore islands and sometimes elevated spits in lakes.

Rainbow Bee-eater (Merops ornatus)

Recorded near Big Footprint Swamp adjacent to the Project area boundary during surveys for the

SRBP (RPS, 2015).

The Rainbow Bee-eater is widely distributed throughout Australia and eastern Indonesia. The

species occurs mainly in open forests and woodlands, shrublands, and in various cleared or semi-

cleared habitats, including farmland and areas of human habitation (Higgins, 1999). It usually

occurs in open, cleared or lightly-timbered areas that are often, but not always, located in close

proximity to permanent water.

In Australia, the breeding season extends from August to January (Boland, 2004; Higgins, 1999). The

nest is located in an enlarged chamber at the end of a long burrow or tunnel that is excavated, by

both sexes (DotE, 2015), in flat or sloping ground, in the banks of rivers, creeks or dams, in roadside

cuttings, in the walls of gravel pits or quarries, in mounds of gravel, or in cliff-faces (Higgins, 1999).

The species is distributed over much of mainland Australia and several near-shore islands.

Rufous Fantail (Rhipidura rufifrons)

Recorded near Big Footprint Swamp adjacent to the Project area boundary during surveys for the

SRBP (RPS, 2015a).

Rufous Fantails occur in moist habitats, including closed forests, coastal scrubs, mangroves and

along watercourses and gullies, and urban/rural areas during mid-year migration (Pizzey and

Knight, 2007; Higgins et al., 2006). They predominantly feed on small insects within the understorey

(Higgins et al., 2006). The species occurs across Northern Australia from the Kimberley to Cape York

and down the entire eastern coast (Pizzey and Knight, 2007). The eastern races migrate to the north

in early autumn and return in early spring to breed (Pizzey and Knight, 2007; Higgins et al., 2006).

Short-beaked Echidna (Tachyglossus aculeatus) – Special Least Concern only

Recorded adjacent to the south of the Project area on a remote camera during surveys for the SRBP

(RPS, 2015a).

The Short-beaked Echidna is, with the Platypus and the Long-beaked Echidna (Zaglossus bruijni) of

New Guinea, the only three extant species of monotreme, a group of mammals believed to have

diverged early in the evolution of mammals, possibly about 200 million years ago (Augee, 2008).

The Short-beaked Echidna is specialised for feeding on ants, termites and beetle larvae. It occurs in


5-52

almost all terrestrial habitats except for intensively managed farms. The species is active both by

day and night and shelters in logs, crevices, burrows and leaf litter (Menkhorst and Knight, 2004;

Augee, 2008). This species occurs throughout Australia and can be expected in all well forested

areas. Mating takes place in July and August with juveniles seen from September (Augee, 2008).

Short-beaked Echidnas are killed by dingoes/dogs and motor vehicles.

5.6.2.6 Habitat Values for Terrestrial Fauna

Habitat type is a significant factor in the composition of the fauna species assemblage of a given area.

Two habitat components are especially important: physical structure and resource availability.

Structure refers to the abundance and complexity of the vegetation, debris and substrate. Habitats

with thick ground cover, abundant shrubs and many large trees are complex in vertical structure

and provide abundant sheltering sites in dense leaf litter, dense foliage, under loose bark and in tree

hollows. Horizontal habitat complexity refers to characteristics such as the presence of ground plant

species, open areas, fallen timber and rock crevices that provide sheltering opportunity for

terrestrial species. Habitats with higher vertical and horizontal complexity (generally with a diverse

plant species assemblage) tend to be more structurally complex due to the different growth forms

of different species. In addition, the availability and variety of resources (food, water and mates)

affect the number and type of vertebrate species inhabiting an area. Habitats with abundant and

variable resources tend to support more species, while the presence of preferred dietary items will

facilitate the presence of particular taxa. However, habitat usage will be variable with certain species

utilising habitats dependent upon seasonal conditions or in response to a specific event such as

recent rainfall or mass flowering events.

Plate 5-2: Darwin Stringybark-Melville Island Bloodwood woodland

The majority of fauna trapping sites were located in the dominant habitat within the Project area of

Darwin Stringybark and Melville Island Bloodwood tall woodland. Fauna habitat features within the

canopy and sub-canopy of this habitat included numerous trees with hollows, loose and

decorticating (i.e. falling off) bark, sparsely scattered food trees (flowering and fruiting), perching

opportunities and large cracks. The shrub layer was sparse providing limited coverage and habitat

value. During the late dry season surveys, ground layer habitat appeared to have been reduced by

fires and contained sparsely scattered logs, including some with hollows, moderate leaf litter


5-53

coverage, and termite mounds scattered sparsely at approximately 4 per hectare. During the early

wet season surveys, the ground layer contained moderate to dense coverage of vegetation.

Several drainage lines, waterways and wetlands occur within and in close proximity to the Project

area. These include Big Footprint Swamp, which is a large alluvial swamp system comprising a broad

drainage depression located outside the western margin of MLA 20689, to the west of the proposed

mining footprint. This is a palustrine (forested) wetland which is inundated to 1 to 3 m depth during

the wet season, before drying out as the dry season progresses. The lowest depression of the

wetland comprises a significant area of grassland and sedgeland of Freshwater Couch (Paspalum

vaginatum) and Water Chestnut surrounded by woodland and open forests dominated by Melaleuca

species and Swamp Box. The grassland/sedgeland provides seasonal habitat to a range of water

birds. Flocks of Magpie Geese (Anseranas semipalmata) are known to feed on Water Chestnut bulbs

throughout the dry season, and species such as Brolga (Grus rubicunda) and Black-necked Stork

(Epphippiorhynchus asiaticus) are also likely to frequent this wetland. As with the majority of

wetlands in the broader Project area, the swamp provides suitable habitat for Estuarine Crocodile.

The outer margins of the wetland system are less regularly inundated and support excellent

examples of open swamp forest habitat. Groundcover vegetation was sparse with occasional clumps

of sedges with dry season cover of a range of annual and perennial grasses and herbs. Leaf litter

formed the dominant ground cover. Structural woody ground habitat was present throughout,

although more common in denser patches of Swamp Box. Hollows were sparse to occasional within

larger trees and decorticating bark was a feature of the dominant Melaleuca and Swamp Box. These

species also provide abundant nectar resources during flowering for bird and bat species. Water

remained within the lowest part of the wetland (observed during the November 2014 site survey)

towards the end of the dry season period. Wetlands around the fringes of MLA 20676 were observed

to have similar habitat characteristics.

Plate 5-3: Outer margin of Big Footprint Swamp (February 2015)

Although wetlands provided important late season resources for native fauna, many in the broader

Project area have been impacted by foraging of feral pigs and grazing of small herds of feral cattle.

Observations made at Big Footprint Swamp indicated that the margins were impacted by recent late

season fires. Large hollow bearing swamp box and paperbarks were particularly affected by fire

incursion, therefore reducing hollow availability of old growth trees.


5-54

Wetlands within the Project area and proximity, particularly those that remain inundated

throughout the year, provide potential breeding habitat for wetland bird species. Tree hollows also

represent important breeding habitat for a range of arboreal species including birds, possums and

bat species. Hollows were common within the dominant Darwin Stringybark woodland and areas

fringing wetlands and floodplains.

5.6.2.7 Migratory Bird Habitat

For waterbirds, the most important habitat area in proximity to the Project area is Big Footprint

Swamp where Great Egret and Cattle Egret were recorded in low numbers. The swamp may also

provide local breeding habitat for these species. Mangroves in the surrounding area may also

provide roosting habitat for Migratory shorebird species such as Whimbrel as well as foraging

habitat for Rufous Fantail.

As defined under the Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1 (DotE, 2013), an area may be classified as an

‘important habitat’ for a migratory species if the area contains:

Habitat used by a migratory species occasionally or periodically within a region that supports

an ecologically significant proportion of the population of the species;

Habitat that is of critical importance to the species at particular life-cycle stages;

Habitat utilised by a migratory species that is at the limit of the species range; and/or

Habitat where the species is declining.

It is considered very unlikely the area can be considered as ‘important habitat’ because:

All species were observed in low numbers and there is no evidence suggesting the region

supports an ecologically significant proportion of the populations of any of these species;

Given the widespread distribution of all of the species observed and the lack of observed

breeding/nesting within the Project area, there is no evidence to suggest the habitat is of critical

importance at particular life-stages for these species; and

The Project area is not at the limit of any of the species range or is it known to be habitat where

any of the species is declining.

In addition, the Project area is very unlikely to serve as a significant ‘staging’ site (resting place and

feeding ground) for migratory shorebirds travelling via the East Asian Australasian Flyway.

5.6.3 Aquatic Ecological Values

5.6.3.1 Desktop Results

The diversity of aquatic flora and fauna within the Project area is heavily influenced by the regions

climatic conditions. Extended dry periods followed by monsoonal rains and flash flooding limits the

availability of aquatic habitat, therefore restricting species diversity and abundance. A description

of local climate including rainfall patterns is described in Chapter 3 – Climate. While from a regional

perspective, the permanent water bodies of the Skardon River catchment, and the Skardon River-

Cotterell River Aggregation, offer significant diverse habitat, the Project area is largely devoid of

permanent standing water.


5-55

The Project area is located in the Skardon River catchment, or drainage sub-basin, which covers

approximately 439 km2. The Skardon River watercourses within the Project area are ephemeral and

flow only after sustained or intense rainfall. Stream flows are highly variable, with flows typically

occurring during the wetter months (November to April), with low to no flow the rest of the year.

Wetlands associated with the Skardon River-Cotterell River aggregation occur within the Project

area and MLAs, but not within the footprints of BH1 and BH6 (Figure 5-4). Within MLA 20689

(which includes the western portion of BH6 mining footprint), there are several palustrine wetlands

(largely in the southern half of the MLA) coastal and sub-coastal floodplains.

Big Footprint Swamp is a large wetland area located adjacent to, but outside of, the western

boundary of the MLA (Figure 5-4). The swamp is dependent on rainfall, runoff and groundwater

recharge. In the dry season it is limited to a remnant, shallow pool and in some years it may dry up

completely. Big Footprint Swamp is recognised as a wetland of High Ecological Significance (HES).

Wetlands considered to be HES are also considered to be MSES (refer Section 5.8).

Along the eastern boundary of MLA 20688 (which includes the eastern portion of the BH6 mining

footprint) there are estuarine wetlands (mangroves and saltpans) associated with an un-named

drainage channel of the Skardon River. Similar estuarine communities occurs along much of the

boundary of MLA 20676 (which comprises the BH1 mining footprint) (Figure 5-4). These

communities are also mapped as HES wetlands.

The vegetation of the Project area is a complex mosaic of open forest, woodland, and extensive

swamplands, gallery forests on perennial streams and rivers, closed forest and mangroves. The

lateritic surface (i.e., Laterites are soil types rich in iron and aluminium, formed in hot and wet

tropical areas) of the Weipa Plateau is characterized by eucalypt woodlands. Areas of shallow silty

soils with impeded drainage characteristics are scattered across the lateritic surface, supporting low

woodland communities with dominant Eucalyptus, Corymbia and Melaleuca species. Shallow

drainage depressions provide a seasonal wetland habitat and are dominated by woodlands and

open forests with characteristic Melaleuca, Lophostemon, Xanthostemon and Asteromyrtus. These

swamp forests display a complex variety of vegetation communities on their margins,

compositionally zoned in response to local variations in the persistence of water through the dry

season.

The coastal environment of the Mapoon Plain adjoins the study area to the east. The plain features

an extensive system of coastal sand dunes, and a complex of grasslands and herblands, Casuarina

dominated woodlands, vine thickets, Melaleuca forests and Corymbia woodlands. Poorly drained

swales provide seasonal wetland habitats dominated by Melaleuca species, and mangrove

communities occur along estuarine areas associated with the Skardon River and Namaleta Creeks.

The vegetation communities associated with the wetlands in the area (freshwater and estuarine)

are described in Table 5-7 and depicted in Figure 5-7.

Nationally Significant Wetlands - Skardon River-Cotterell River Aggregation

The Skardon River catchment is part of the broader Skardon River-Cotterell River wetland

aggregation, which is listed under the DIWA. The Skardon River–Cotterell River Aggregation

consists of the estuaries and wetlands of five small rivers within the Skardon River catchment. The

aggregation covers a total area of approximately 632 km2, of which approximately 211 km2 (or ~33

% of the total area) comprise DIWA wetlands. These include approximately 115 km2 of estuarine,

95 km2 of palustrine, and 2 km2 of riverine wetlands. In total 309 lacustrine/palustrine wetlands

have been mapped throughout the aggregation; however, the majority of the aggregation occurs

north of the Skardon River (and hence north of the Project).


5-56

The mining lease areas of the Project adjoin the Skardon River. The inclusion of this aggregation as

a nationally important wetland is based on it being:

A good example of a wetland type occurring within a biogeographic region in Australia;

A wetland which plays an important ecological or hydrological role in the natural functioning of

a major wetland system/complex;

A wetland that is important as a habitat for animal taxa at a vulnerable stage in their life cycles,

or provides a refuge when adverse conditions such as drought prevail; and

A wetland that supports a diversity of native flora and fauna or communities which are

considered endangered or vulnerable at a national level.

The Port Musgrave Aggregation includes Namaleta Creek and is located to the south of the Project

area and is also listed in the DIWA. The Port Musgrave Aggregation consists of the enclosed bay,

estuaries and wetlands of the Wenlock and Ducie Rivers, and contains one of the largest known

breeding populations of Estuarine Crocodiles in Queensland.

Aquatic Conservation Assessment

The Aquatic Conservation Assessment (EHP, 2014b) for the riverine and non-riverine wetlands of

the Cape York catchments identified 26 freshwater fish and two freshwater crustaceans as priority

species. The majority of these species are not found in close proximity to the Project area, or would

be unlikely to persist in the aquatic habitat available therein. There may; however, be suitable

habitat within the Project area for Redclaw Crayfish (Cherax quadricarinatus), which is listed as a

priority species in Cape York catchments due declining abundance related to fishing pressure.

Threatened Aquatic Fauna and Flora

Several threatened aquatic fauna species listed as potentially present in the Project area through

database searches (such as sawfish species) are not solely reliant on freshwater and are considered

in Chapter 6 – Marine Ecology. Estuarine Crocodiles have been recorded in the Skardon River and it

is a known breeding area (DPI, 2002).

The only true freshwater species listed as a Back on Track species for the Cape York NRM region is

the Waterhole Yabbie (Cherax cartalacoolah). The Waterhole Yabbie has been recorded on the east

coast of Cape York; however, is unlikely to be present within the Project area due to lack of suitable

year-long habitat.

One flora species, Lycopodiella limosa, listed as Near Threatened under the NC Act, has previously

been recorded 50 km to the east of the Project (Worley Parsons, 2011b). Habitat for Lycopodiella

limosa includes wetlands and swamps on soft organic mud /organic sands substrate. The species

was considered to have a moderate likelihood of occurrence as there is suitable habitat for this

species within wetland areas adjacent to the Project.

Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

A desktop analysis of groundwater dependent ecosystems (GDEs) in Project area surrounds has

been carried out by CDM Smith. The results of this assessment are summarised in the following

section. The full Groundwater Technical Report is located in Appendix E1.


5-57

The assessment is based on publically available information including:

Australian groundwater dependent-ecosystem (GDE) toolbox (recently published by the

National Water Commission) (SKM, 2011); and

The National Atlas of GDEs.

The National Atlas of GDEs (GDE Atlas, www.bom.gov.au/water/groundwater/gde/) presents the

current knowledge of ecosystems that may depend on groundwater across Australia. A search of the

Atlas has revealed a number of areas where ecosystems potentially have some reliance on

groundwater. These areas are shown in and include the following ecosystem types:

Coastal/sub coastal non-floodplain grass, sedge and herb swamps;

Coastal/sub coastal floodplain tree swamps (Melaleuca and Eucalyptus); and

Riverine/riparian.

GDEs are classified based on the role of groundwater in maintaining biodiversity and ecological

condition. The following describes each GDE classification; note that only Type 2 and Type 3 GDEs

occur in the Project area:

Type 1 Aquifer and cave ecosystems where groundwater-inhabiting ecosystems (e.g.

stygofauna) reside. These ecosystems typically include karst aquifer systems and fractured rock

groundwater environments;

Type 2 GDEs dominate the Project area. These are ecosystems dependent on the surface

expression of groundwater include wetlands, lakes, seeps, springs, and river baseflow systems;

and

Type 3 GDEs are dependent on subsurface presence of groundwater and include terrestrial

vegetation which depends on groundwater on a seasonal, episodic or permanent basis in order

to prevent water stress and generally avoid adverse impacts to their condition.

Based on the review of site specific data and available information, the following potential

groundwater dependent areas have been identified within the study area, which are potentially

sensitive to changes in the hydrogeological regimes:

Skardon River, including its tributaries, and the riparian zone. The Skardon River is a perennial

river, receiving groundwater discharge (baseflow). Aquatic ecosystems associated with the

river are therefore likely to be seasonally dependent on discharge of groundwater that

maintains flow during the dry season (Type 2). Vegetation within the riparian zone is supported

by rainfall and surface flows as well as groundwater, either via surface expression (Type 2),

particularly during the wet season, or proximity of the water table to the plant root zone (Type

3) e.g. groundwater from the alluvial aquifers (Valley Fill Deposits);

Big Footprint Swamp, which is a freshwater swamp located near the northwest boundary of

BH6. According to the GDE Atlas, the swamp is classified as a coastal/sub-coastal floodplain tree

swamp (Melaleuca and Eucalypt) that has a high potential to rely on surface expression of

groundwater, and is registered in the Queensland DIWA;

North to south trending drainage line (Lunette Creek) to the west of Big Footprint Swamp, which

is identified in the GDE Atlas as having a high potential to rely on surface expression of

groundwater. Discharge of groundwater along the drainage line occurs during the wet season;


5-58

Lunette Swamp, located adjacent to the southern boundary of BH6. According to the GDE Atlas,

there is a moderate potential for groundwater interaction at Lunette Swamp i.e. discharge of

groundwater is possible, at least temporarily, as the water table rises during the wet season;

and

Namaleta Creek and the riparian zone, located to the south of Lunette Swamp and BH6. The GDE

Atlas identifies a low lying wetland along the east-west trending portion of the creek with a high

potential for groundwater interaction, relying on surface expression of groundwater (Type 2).

No perennial spring complexes have been identified within the study area.

Terrestrial vegetation experiences seasonal variations in root zone moisture content. At the onset

of the wet season, infiltration and surface water inundation replenishes the soil moisture. As the

water table rises, it reaches the root zone and, in some places, the ground surface providing a source

of water to surface and subsurface GDEs temporarily. As the water table declines soil water left

within the unsaturated zone is likely to be accessed by terrestrial vegetation i.e. terrestrial

vegetation is likely to be more reliant on soil water that is seasonally replenished by the high water

table rather than direct extraction from the water table.

Big Footprint Swamp has an area absent of any tree species directly surrounding the areas of

standing water. While the surface inflow and rising water table replenishes the soil moisture and

provides a temporary source of water to surface and subsurface GDEs, the seasonal decline of the

water table and reduction in the size of standing water during the dry season are also critical for

root zone aeration (aerobic soil condition) that maintains the population of Melaleuca trees within

Big Footprint Swamp.




SKARDON RIVER

610000

610000

615000

615000

620000

620000

625000

625000

8690

000

8690

000

8695

000

8695

000

DATE



within this map.


/0 500 1,000250

Metres

Figure 5-8Groundwater dependent-ecosystems



APPROVEDDRAWN

03/05/16

CHECKED

LegendBarge Loading AreaWatercourseHaul RoadPit ExtentsAccomoodation CampMetro Mining Mine Lease Area

Groundwater DependenceHigh potential for GW interactionModerate potential for GW interactionLow potential for GW interaction



(Geofabric) PRODUCT SUITE V2.1.1 DRG Ref: BES150115-007-R1_GDEs

DESIGNER CLIENT

1:45,000Scale @ A3 -

-DESIGNEDCHECKED -

MDMD-


Notes:

2-----

F:\1_PROJECTS\BES150115_Bauxite_Hill\GIS\DATA\MXD\FINAL\ERA\TER FW ECOL\BES150115-007-R1_GDEs.mxd


Barge Loading Area

Haul Road

Haul Road

Accommodation Camp

03/05/16

CampAccess

Road


5-60

Stygofauna

No sampling of stygofauna has been carried out for the Project. However, a pilot survey of

stygofauna sampling has been carried out for the adjacent SRBP as per the Guideline for the

Environmental Assessment of Subterranean Aquatic Fauna (DSITIA, 2014). Ten bores were sampled

in April 2015, five of which lie within, or directly adjacent to the Project area. Of these, six bore

samples were found to contain a single individual of stygofauna, either a segmented worm

(Oligochaete) or freshwater mite (Acarina) (frc environmental, 2015). This low representation of

stygofauna species is not unexpected as the Type 1 aquifer and cave ecosystems where

groundwater-inhabiting ecosystems (e.g. stygofauna) preferentially reside were not identified

within the Project area. These ecosystems typically include karst aquifer systems and fractured rock

groundwater environments.

Of the two types of stygofauna that were identified in the area, Oligochaetes are found in a range of

fresh (surface and groundwater) and marine habitats and are tolerant of degraded habitats. They

perform important ecological functions where they occur as stygofauna such as consuming bacteria

and microalgae between sediment layers. Acarina are also found in fresh and marine waters and in

terrestrial habitats as well. They often have a patchy and limited distribution.

There are several environmental factors known to influence the diversity and abundance of

stygofauna communities:

Higher stygofauna diversity is found where the water table occurs less than 10 m below ground

level (Hancock and Boulton, 2008). Aquifers in the Project area are within this range;

It is considered that stygofauna prefer the electrical conductivity (EC) of water to be below 5000

µS/cm. Water quality results from the Project area groundwater bores indicate suitable EC

readings, largely below 110 µS/cm;

Stygofauna diversity is highest where pH ranges from 6.5 to 7.5 although they can tolerate pH

as low as 4.5 (Hancock and Boulton, 2008). Water quality results found local groundwater pH

ranged from 4.83 to 5.15, being more acidic than stygofauna generally prefer; and

In eastern Australia stygofauna diversity and abundance is greater in alluvial or sand dominated

groundwater ecosystems (Hancock and Boulton, 2008). Clay-dominated geological systems

such as that which dominate the Project area and surrounds provide relatively poor habitat for

stygofauna due to the small size of pore and void spaces within the substrate (frc environmental,

2015).

The project area is dominated by a clay substrate providing generally unsuitable habitat for

stygofauna. In addition, the groundwater in the Project area was found to be relatively acidic (low

pH) and outside the range of diverse stygofauna habitats. Given only two taxa were sampled in very

low numbers it appears the site provides poor habitat for stygofauna.

5.6.3.2 Field Results

The key physical habitat features of each aquatic ecology site (refer Figure 5-3) are summarised in

the Aquatic Ecology Technology report (Appendix B2). The substrate at all sites were dominated by

silt/clay with small amounts of sand, although the stream site (AQ03) substrate comprised

approximately 10% of bauxite cobbles. The riparian vegetation at all sites was dominated by a

Melaleuca species overstore with a predominant grass ground layer.


5-61

Water Quality

Water quality could only be sampled from one site (AQ01) during the dry season survey. During dry

season surveys the water in the remnant pool at AQ01 was slightly acidic (pH 6.21) with a relatively

low conductivity (291 μS/cm). The low conductivity in the dry season survey suggests that there is

little uptake of salts from the local geology. The water was highly turbid with a relatively low

dissolved oxygen content (10.1%). High turbidity may be attributed to the watering of wild cattle

and feral pigs.

Water quality readings from the wet season survey were characterised by acidic water with low

conductivity and low turbidity (Table 5-10). For a more detailed analysis of local surface water

quality refer to Section 9.5.5 in Chapter 9: Water Quality. The low turbidity is likely due to the

undisturbed nature of the surrounding landscape as well as recent inundation. The acidity is likely

due to tannic and humic acids in the recently inundated vegetative matter. While the low

conductivity would be related to increased inundation of water entering the system relative to

evaporation rates. The higher dissolved oxygen concentration at AQ03 is likely due to mixing in the

water column from inflows. Inflows are not as pronounced at the wetland sites, AQ01 and AQ02.

Table 5-10 In situ surface water sampling results (Feb 2015)

Parameter Site

AQ01 AQ02 AQ03

Water temperature (°C) 28.78 28.85 29.04

pH 5.24 4.85 4.34

Electrical conductivity (µS/cm) 50 37 24

Dissolved oxygen (% saturation 53.6 46.8 76.8

Turbidity (NTU) 4 5 5

Aquatic Flora

Melaleuca forest was the dominant vegetation at all sites. At the time of the late dry season surveys

only two aquatic/semi aquatic plant species were recorded in the understory of AQ01 and AQ02;

Native Couch and Water Chestnut. Neither of these species are of conservation significance. During

the wet season surveys Native Couch had developed large beds at AQ01, but Water Chestnut had

been flooded and was yet to re-establish in the recently inundated conditions. No aquatic/semi-

aquatic macrophytes were recorded at site AQ03 in the dry season. In the wet season, several

specimens of Small Water Ribbons (Triglochin dubia) had emerged from the stream substrate.

Aquatic Macroinvertebrates

During the late dry season surveys macroinvertebrate sampling was restricted due to limited

presence of standing water and only visual observations were made. During the wet season surveys,

24 families/taxa of macroinvertebrates, and three families/taxa of microcrustacean were recorded

either within, or immediately adjacent to the Project area (Table 8 of Appendix B2).

The highest diversity and abundance of aquatic fauna was recorded at AQ02, suggesting that of the

sites surveyed, it may have been inundated the longest. A total of 74 macroinvertebrate individuals

were recorded from 16 family/taxa groups. In addition, two family/taxa of microcrustaceans

(cladocera and copepod) were recorded.

The second highest diversity and abundance of aquatic fauna was recorded at the other wetland

site, AQ01. Here, 40 macroinvertebrate individuals from 10 different family/taxa groups were

identified. Three family/taxa of microcrustaceans (cladocera, copepod and ostracoda) were also

recorded at AQ01. The lowest diversity was recorded at the stream site, AQ03, where 28 individuals


5-62

were recorded from six macroinvertebrate family/taxa. This suggests that this site had only recently

been inundated, meaning that colonisation was later than at the other aquatic sites.

The macroinvertebrate communities recorded in wet season surveys are considered typical of those

found in ephemeral systems across Cape York following recent inundation.

Many of the macroinvertebrates recorded during the surveys are likely to be widespread across the

region and tolerant of a range of water quality conditions. Two genus of malacostraca in western

Cape York are currently poorly understood and therefore may be susceptible to significant changes

in the environments around them. These are crayfish (Cherax spp.) and freshwater crabs

(Austrothelphusa spp.).

The crayfish in western Cape York (family Parastacidae) are morphologically similar to the Orange-

fingered Yabby (Cherax depressus), but are thought to represent a different species complex (Robert

McCormack pers. comm.). Genetic and morphological studies are currently in progress to clarify the

taxonomic status and geographical ranges. A single crayfish specimen was recorded at site AQ02.

Freshwater crabs contain many undescribed species (Peter Davie, pers. comm), several of which are

recorded only from Cape York Peninsula. Several specimens of a small freshwater crab were

recorded at sites AQ01 and AQ03, with another specimen collected in a non-targeted assessment

downstream from AQ03. Adults were comparable with a species collected from south of Weipa in

similar habitat. The species is currently being described by the Queensland Museum and was

identified during surveys for the Amrun Project (formerly named the South of Embley Project) (Rio

Tinto Alcan, 2011) from the Winda Winda Creek catchment (from three separate sites). This species

appears to be closely associated with bauxite deposits, suggesting that it may be excluded from

other types of aquatic habitats due to specific water chemistry requirements (Ross Smith pers.

comm). A voucher specimen was provided to the Queensland Museum, with its identification yet to

be confirmed. Another specimen was captured during aquatic surveys for the SRBP. The crab was

sent to the Queensland Museum and identified as an unknown species of juvenile Austrothelphusa.

Aquatic Vertebrates

There was little suitable habitat for aquatic vertebrates at AQ01 and AQ02, and no standing water

at site AQ03 during the dry season surveys. The early wet season surveys were conducted following

a number of significant rainfall events that had resulted in creek flows and there was substantially

more water at all sites compared to the dry season surveys. No vertebrate species were recorded at

the wetland site (AQ01 or AQ02) in the wet season surveys. Box traps captured eight specimens of

Empire Gudgeon (Hypseleotris compressa). A school of 12 Checkered Rainbowfish (Melanotaenia

splendida ssp. inornata) were observed in one pool with a fine mesh cast net used to capture two

individuals and verify the species identification.

Similarly no fish species were captured at the two wetland sites during surveys for the SRBP aquatic

surveys. Seven species were captured at two sites on Namaleta creek. All were common species and

comprised Eastern Rainbowfish (Melanotaenia splendida), Sailfin Glassfish (Ambassis agrammus),

Boney Bream (Nematalosa erebi) and Archer Fish (Toxotes chatareus). The catchment of Namaleta

Creek lies outside the Project area.

5.6.3.3 Threatened Aquatic Fauna and Flora Species

Of the species listed with a threatened status (refer to Table 5 of Appendix B2), the Largetooth

Sawfish (Pristis microdon) is the only one that may be present in the broader Skardon River

(freshwater) aquatic environment; however, there is insufficient freshwater habitat across or


5-63

adjacent to the Project area to support juveniles of the species (Peverell, 2005). This species is

considered further in Chapter 6 – MNES.

The Estuarine Crocodile is the only fauna species of State significance known to occur within or

adjacent the Project area and is discussed in Section 5.6.2.

The only true freshwater species, listed as a Back on Track species for the Cape York NRM region,

was Waterhole Yabby (Cherax cartalacoolah). The waterhole yabbie has been recorded on the east

coast of Cape York and is unlikely to be present within the Project area due to lack of suitable year-

long habitat.

One flora species, Lycopodiella limosa, listed as near threatened under the NC Act, has previously

been recorded 50 km to the east of BH1 (WorleyParsons, 2011b). The species has not; however,

been previously recorded within the Project area. Databases searches found no listed aquatic flora

species within a 25 km radius of the Project area (refer Appendix B2).

Two species of aquatic macrophytes (plants) were listed in the BoT (although not of critical or high

conservation importance); Aponogeton cuneatus and A. queenslandicus. A. cuneatus is found in

permanent creeks and rivers, often in shaded areas (Jacobs et al., 2006), and as such is not

considered likely to occur on or adjacent the Project area. A. queenslandicus grows in temporary

freshwater bodies but is unlikely to be present as all known records occur further south than the

Project area (Stephens and Dowling, 2002).

5.7 Potential Impacts

The Project comprises a number of components and operational activities, including open cut

mining areas and development of associated infrastructure such as the MIA, haul roads and barge

landing as described in Chapter 2. Each of these components and activities has the potential to have

direct and indirect impacts on MSES, including threatened vegetation communities and marine

vegetation, as well as other ecological values.

Throughout the construction, operation and decommissioning phases, the Project has the potential

to impact on these ecological values through the following activities:

Removal of remnant vegetation for the MIA, open-cut mine pits, road corridors and barge

landing;

Topsoil stripping;

Construction of above ground buildings and facilities;

Day and night time operation of bauxite mining activities;

Stockpiling and transportation of the coal resource; and

General transportation movements.

5.7.1 Direct Impacts – Terrestrial Ecology

5.7.1.1 Vegetation Clearing

The Project will require the clearing of remnant vegetation for construction of the MIA, open-cut

mine pits, road corridors and barge landing. Remnant vegetation may also provide habitat for fauna

and flora listed as threatened under the NC Act and/or EPBC Act. The layout of the proposed mine,


5-64

associated infrastructure and the existing remnant vegetation on the site is depicted in Figure 5-9.

The projected extent of vegetation clearing for each component and relevant REs within the Project

including potential impacts to threatened fauna and flora species is presented in Table 5-11. Only

those species considered ‘likely’ or ‘known’ to occur are considered.

Table 5-12 details the total projected clearing for each RE within the Project area and the remaining

extent of each RE within a 20 km radius of the Project area and within the Cape York Bioregion

based on current DNRM mapping.

Table 5-11 Projected clearing of remnant vegetation

Project Component RE VM Act Status

Clearing Area (ha)

MSES and Habitat for Threatened Fauna/Flora

BH1 – Pit Extraction Area

3.5.2 LC 664.39

Potential habitat for: Palm Cockatoo (Near Threatened NC Act, Vulnerable EPBC Act) Black-footed Tree-rat (Vulnerable EPBC Act)

BH6 East – Pit Extraction Area

3.3.14 LC

7.9 Potential habitat for D. johannis (Vulnerable NC Act and EPBC Act)

3.5.2 LC 284.3 Potential habitat for: Palm Cockatoo (Near Threatened NC Act, Vulnerable EPBC Act) Black-footed Tree-rat (Vulnerable EPBC Act)

BH6 West – pit extraction area

3.5.2 LC 394.65

Mine infrastructure area 3.5.2 LC 6.05

Camp accommodation 3.5.2 LC 11.41

Camp access roads 3.3.14 LC 0.62 Potential habitat for D. johannis (Vulnerable NC Act and EPBC Act)


Barge loading area 3.1.1a/3.1.3 LC 0.25 Marine plants


Roll on/ Roll off facility 3.1.1a/3.1.3 LC 0.15 Marine plants


Northern haul road 3.1.1 LC 7.89 Marine plants

3.1.1a/3.1.3 LC 2.83 Marine plants


Southern haul road 3.1.1 LC 1.85 Marine plants

3.1.1a/3.1.3 LC 7.49 Marine plants

3.1.6 LC 0.25 Marine plants

3.3.12 OC 0.6 Of Concern RE Potential habitat for D. johannis (Vulnerable NC Act and EPBC Act)

3.3.22 LC 0.43

3.3.49b/3.3.9 LC 7.22 Potential habitat for D. johannis (Vulnerable NC Act and EPBC Act)


Internal haul roads 3.5.2 LC 10.99


5-65

Table 5-12 Total clearing of remnant vegetation (DNRM, 2015)

RE VM Act Status Clearing Area (ha) Within 20 km radius of Project (ha)

Within Cape York Bioregion (ha)

3.1.1 LC 9.74 133.0 (3.1.1a) 7,247.5 (3.1.1a)

3.1.1a/3.1.3 LC 10.72 5,501.1 24,114.3

3.1.6 LC 0.25 1,118.5 22,048.88

3.3.12 OC 0.6 0 219.5

3.3.14 LC 8.52 0 6,355.0 (3.3.14a)

3.3.22 LC 0.43 0 2541.5 (3.3.22a)

3.3.49b/3.3.9 LC 7.22 491.9 1,530.9

3.5.2 LC 1,429.46 44,280.9 528,862.4

Total 1,466.94

The extent of REs in Table 5-12 are based on ‘pure’ REs, or vegetation polygons in which only one

RE appears, and may not reflect the actual extent of less common communities. The majority of areas

identified for clearing within the Project area have been ground-truthed, whereas vegetation within

the 20km radius has been sourced from the higher level State RE mapping that may not have

identified all of the applicable communities. For instance, the Of Concern RE 3.3.12 was not

originally identified for the Project in the State RE mapping and was only identified following

ground-truthing surveys, and is also contained within two large mixed polygons covering

approximately 1,000 ha and located directly west of the study area, several small tracts to the east

of BH6 East and in Big Footprint Swamp.

Of the REs to be cleared, one is listed Of Concern under the VM Act (RE 3.3.12), while the remainder

are listed as least concern. There are no Endangered REs or listed Threatened Ecological

Communities in the Project area or surrounds. RE 3.3.12 is impacted by the southern haul road with

approximately 0.60 ha expected to be cleared. Where possible, the area of disturbance will be

minimised through reducing the haul road width or making adjustments to their location. Additional

impacts to remaining vegetation communities will be minimised wherever practicable.

Direct residual impacts on habitat within the Project footprint will be expected to arise as a result

of the loss of vegetation communities (including mangrove communities) or individual threatened

species during clearing.

Other effects of land clearing may include:

Encroachment on riparian vegetation associated with Skardon River and Skardon River-

Cotterell River Aggregation (refer Figure 5-9) by Project activities which potentially may be

subject to degradation through edge effects;

Loss of habitat, loss of connectivity between habitat areas and associated diminished fauna

movement;

Erosion which then results in sediment runoff into adjacent wetlands and creeks and a

reduction in water quality; and

Loss of land stabilisation and riparian filtration functions.

5.7.1.2 Habitat Loss

Clearing of vegetation will result in loss of habitat for terrestrial flora and fauna including

threatened species (refer Table 5-11). Habitat loss has been limited to the mine and minor

infrastructure areas. Residual impacts on habitat within the Project footprint will be expected to

arise as a result of removal of fauna breeding and resting habitat, such as tree hollows and coarse

woody debris, from within mine and infrastructure footprints.


5-66

Impacts on Threatened Flora Values

The potential occurrence of threatened flora species, habitat associations and impacts are

summarised in Table 5-8 and Appendix B1

No nationally significant EPBC Act listed flora species were confirmed within the disturbance

footprints of the mine areas during the surveys. It is considered Chocolate Tea Tree Orchid, listed as

Vulnerable under EPBC Act and NC Act is likely to occur. The species is known from the broader

area and the Project site contains suitable habitat for the species. Potential records of the Chocolate

Tea Tree Orchid were encountered within wetland habitats proximate to the study area; however,

individuals were not in flower and not able to be positively identified. Orchid species were detected

in Melaleuca swamps adjacent to proposed mining operations and are unlikely to be impacted by

the proposed mining operations. A minimum buffer width of 300 metres is currently provided

between proposed operations and the site of the records.

Clearing for the Project will remove 7.8 ha of Melalaeuca dominated habitat (RE 3.3.49 and 3.3.12).

These areas will be subject to an inspection by a qualified environmental specialist prior to clearing.

Where individuals are identified they will be translocated to similar habitat elsewhere, where

possible within the Project area boundary.




SKAR DON RIVER

610000

610000

615000

615000

620000

620000

8690

000

8690

000

8695

000

8695

000

Figure 5-9

DATE



within this map.


/0 500 1,000250

Metres

Expected vegetation clearance©COPYRIGHT CDM SMITH


APPROVEDDRAWN

03/05/16

CHECKED

LegendWatercourseArea to be clearedMetro Mining Mine Lease Area



(Geofabric) PRODUCT SUITE V2.1.1 DRG Ref: BES150115-009-R2_GROUND_REs_CL

DESIGNER CLIENT

1:45,000Scale @ A3 -

-DESIGNEDCHECKED -

MDMD-


Notes:

2-----

F:\1_PROJECTS\BES150115_Bauxite_Hill\GIS\DATA\MXD\FINAL\ERA\TER FW ECOL\BES150115-009-R2_GROUND_REs_CL.mxd


Barge Loading Area

Haul Road

Haul Road

Accommodation Camp

03/05/16

CampAccess

Road


5-68

Impacts on Threatened Terrestrial Fauna Values

Impacts to threatened terrestrial fauna will result from land clearing, habitat loss and

fragmentation. The potential occurrence of threatened fauna species, habitat associations and

impacts are summarised in Table 5-9 and Appendix B1. Only species considered as known or likely

to occur are considered to be impacted for this assessment.

Palm Cockatoo (Near Threatened NC Act; Vulnerable EPBC Act) has been observed on the site on

several occasions during studies for the Project and SRBP. Habitat for the species includes RE 3.5.2

which is the dominant woodland vegetation in the region and will be subject to the most clearing

(1,429 ha over the life of the Project). The species nests in large tree hollows. Therefore it is

anticipated that impacts to this species will occur including a reduction in the quality and quantity

of foraging and breeding habitat.

Black-footed Tree-rat (Vulnerable EPBC Act) has been recorded on a remote camera trap during a

SRBP survey in September 2014. Habitat for this species also includes RE 3.5.2 although it may

prefer eucalypt habitat closer to waterways. The species is also known to utilise tree hollows as

daytime roost sites. Impacts to this species include a reduction in the quality and quantity of

foraging and breeding habitat.

Estuarine Crocodile is known from the area and is listed as Vulnerable (NC Act) and Migratory (EPBC

Act). This species is considered in detail in Chapter 6 – Marine Ecology.

Suitable habitat for most of the migratory and marine avian species known to occur, or likely to

occur within the Project area includes coastal, wetland, riverine and riparian habitats. It is predicted

approximately 30.2 ha of these moister habitats will be impacted by the proposed development

layout through clearing for infrastructure (RE 3.1.1, 3.1.3, 3.1.6 and 3.3.14). Impacts to these species

are mainly concentrated in mangrove habitat and are considered minor given the extensive similar

habitat in the area and region. The area of disturbance will be minimised to the greatest extent

possible.

There will be potential indirect impacts to the palustrine wetland Big Footprint Swamp as a result

of the Project. The swamp provides foraging and nesting habitat for a number of water birds.

However, as the impact may result in a rise in wetland height levels (of approximately 0.15 m) this

may increase the amount of available wetland habitat for these species.

Impacts to migratory avifauna which utilise drier habitats such as the rainbow bee-eater or dollar

bird were not considered significant either given the extent and quality of habitat supported within

the wider region and their ability to adapt to impacts (e.g. persist in urban and cleared

environments).

5.7.1.4 Habitat Fragmentation and Connectivity

Connectivity across the broader Project area has been considered in terms of habitat connections

and broader corridors with regional linkages beyond the boundaries of the Project area

(Attachment 6 in Appendix B1). Within the Project area connectivity is strongly linked to riparian

corridors associated with the Skardon River and its tributaries, as well as contiguous tracts of

woodland in BH1 and BH6. The Project site is dominated by eucalyptus woodlands that transition

to Melaleuca forests and wetlands through to estuarine mangrove forests fringing tributaries of the

Skardon River. Vegetation within the site has contiguous linkages to large tracts of eucalypt

woodlands in the south and west that then transition to coastal vegetation communities.


5-69

The primary areas of impact on connectivity within the Project area as a result of the Project,

include:

Loss of connectivity within the band of terrestrial vegetation in MLA 20676 associated with the

establishment of the BH1 mine area. This would result in the remaining woodlands becoming

narrower and more isolated from large, contiguous tracts of vegetation to the east of the Project

area. However there will be fringes of woodland retained along the boundary of BH1 to allow

fauna to move through these woodlands to riparian vegetation along the Skardon River

tributaries to similar habitats in the east;

Loss of connectivity between riparian corridors and wetland areas in the south of MLA 20676,

and between MLA 20676 and riparian and wetland habitats to the west; and

Reduced connectivity of riparian corridors along the lower Skardon River associated with the

construction of mine areas and haul roads. Fauna movement along this corridor and access for

less mobile species to aquatic habitats would be restricted. The haul roads also increases the

potential for interaction between vehicles and fauna.

5.7.1.5 Edge Effects

A key impact associated with the clearing of vegetation and construction of infrastructure and mine

area is the creation of smaller patches of vegetation, with a greater edge-to-surface-area ratio.

Impacts associated with this increase in edge area are known as ‘edge effects’ and include increased

exposure to weed invasion, light and wind penetration (which can alter microclimate features).

Plant communities may become susceptible to disease and an overall decrease in health; over time

community structure and composition may change as a result. The quality of associated fauna

habitats may deteriorate as a result and some species are known to avoid disturbed habitats.

The impacts of edge effects are difficult to quantify as these effects occur gradually over time.

Therefore, direct impacts such as vegetation loss and fragmentation are used to determine impacts.

Rehabilitation of disturbed areas and the provision of buffers around undisturbed areas of remnant

vegetation will help to minimise edge effects. Similarly, adopting other measures described

throughout this assessment will help to lessen the impact of edge effects over the life of the Project.

5.7.1.6 Direct Fauna Mortality

Direct mortality of native fauna may occur as a result of the Project during habitat clearing

(particularly where large tree hollows occur), through vehicle collisions and excavations. Mortality

during habitat clearing will be managed through the presence of a qualified fauna spotter. It is

anticipated that vehicle collisions may pose a long-term risk to local native fauna.

5.7.1.7 Impacts on Surface Water

Potential impacts to surface waters arising from the Project with the potential to impact aquatic

values of the Project area include, water quality and alteration of surface water inflows to the

swamps and wetland associated with the Skardon River. Surface flow modelling has been

undertaken to determine surface water flows of the Project area. The modelling is detailed in the

Surface Water Technical Report (Appendix E2) including appropriate management and mitigation

measures which are summarised in this section.

During mining, minor drainage channels supplying water to the Skardon River and associated

swamps and wetlands will be disrupted, potentially altering flows to these watercourses. Surface

water flows from areas associated with the Project may carry pollutants including, sediments,


5-70

hydrocarbons and other chemicals. These will negatively impact water quality of aquatic environs,

and lead to significant impacts of aquatic values.

5.7.1.8 Impacts to Groundwater

Groundwater resources are present within the Project area and have been assessed in Chapter 10 –

Water Resources and Appendix E1. An assessment of the groundwater resources in the Project area

has been completed and potential impacts to groundwater discussed. One potential area of impact

is due to clearing of vegetation required and lowering of the ground surface during mining this has

the potential to temporarily increase recharge rates.

Numerical groundwater modelling predicts that groundwater discharge rates to Big Footprint

Swamp and Skardon River (including the tributaries and estuary) may increase during mining. The

quality of recharge water is expected to remain unaffected and relatively small additional volumes

of groundwater discharged to the Skardon River are not expected to adversely affect aquatic or

riparian ecosystem function.

Numerical groundwater modelling for the Project predicts that groundwater discharge rates to Big

Footprint Swamp will have a minor net increase during and post mining activities. Using baseline

information gathered for Big Footprint Swamp, the groundwater modelling predicts that with, and

without, the Project, pool level fluctuations between wet and dry seasons would be very similar.

With mining a maximum increase in pool level of 0.35 metres (m) above the pre-disturbance

baseline may occur, although the maximum predicted increase in the peak pool level, at the height

of the wet season, would be 0.15 m.

5.7.1.9 Dust

Increased dust resulting from excavations, topsoil stripping, vehicle movement, open-cut mining

activities and construction of infrastructure has the potential to impact flora and fauna within the

Project area throughout construction and operation. Dust generation has the potential to smother

plants, reducing photosynthesis and resulting in decreased vegetation condition or the death of

vegetation. Increased dust can result in respiratory issues in fauna, adverse impacts on plant

photosynthesis and productivity (Chaston and Doley, 2006), changes in soil properties ultimately

impacting plant species assemblages’ (Farmer, 1993), and mortality and/or decrease in aquatic

health on aquatic communities from the toxicity of poor water quality. In contrast, recent research

on threatened flora in a semi-arid environment in Western Australia found no significant impact on

plant health as a result of a range of dust accumulation loads (between 20 and 77 mg/m2) caused

by vehicle movements (Matsuki et al., 2016).

Project activities likely to generate dust include mining, waste rock stockpiling, vehicle movements,

stockpiling (e.g. topsoil, spoil, product bauxite), and bauxite transport (e.g. haul trucks, etc.). A

deposition rate of 500 mg/m2/day is considered sufficient to have a detrimental effect on plant

health.

Air quality modelling for the Project (refer Chapter 12 – Air Quality) shows the highest daily dust

deposition will occur at the mine village (located 300 m from operational areas on the Project site),

with a total deposition of 58.7 mg/m2/day. This is approximately half of the recommended Air

Quality Objectives set under State legislation and is not anticipated to significantly impact fauna and

flora within the study area.


5-71

5.7.1.10 Noise

Understanding of the impacts of noise on fauna is limited. There are no current government policies

or guidelines that recommend thresholds or limits in relation to fauna. Noise may adversely affect

wildlife by interfering with communication, masking the sound of predators and prey, causing stress

or avoidance reactions, and in some cases may lead to changes in reproductive or nesting behaviour.

Excessive noise may lead some species to avoid noisy areas, potentially resulting in the

fragmentation of species habitat.

Radle (2007) states the general consensus that terrestrial fauna will avoid any industrial plant or

construction area where noise or vibration presents an annoyance to them. Additionally, many

animals react to new noise initially as a potential threat, but quickly ‘learn’ that the noise is not

associated with a threat (Radle, 2007). Increased noise from operation of machinery and vehicle

traffic has the potential to disturb terrestrial fauna species and impact on feeding and breeding

behaviour. In general, increased activity levels are likely to result in reduced fauna activity around

work areas.

Noise will be generated by the Project through the use of machinery, plant, vehicles, and blasting.

The generation of construction and operational noise will be in areas surrounded by intact

woodland and wetlands. Fauna species that occur on the site are expected to leave the immediate

area of noise impact. During operation the species may become habituated to adjacent habitat

following completion of construction disturbance.

5.7.1.11 Light

During the dry season it is proposed that mining operations will be continuous operating 24 hours

a day. Therefore lighting will be required at night associated with the mine areas, associated

infrastructure such as MIA and accommodation camp, and haul roads. Headlights and flashing lights

associated with vehicle movements will also contribute. Combined, these sources would also be

expected to result in ‘sky glow’ or the general lightening of the night sky.

Light spill has the potential to impact on nocturnal terrestrial fauna species by disrupting feeding

or breeding behaviour and reducing effective ranges. This is likely to be more pronounced in open

woodland than light near mangroves as they are denser and light cannot penetrate. Though there

are few studies on the impacts of artificial lighting on Australian fauna, research has shown

behavioural changes in most faunal groups, for example sugar gliders, amphibians, sea turtles and

birds (Ogden, 1996; Longcore and Rich, 2004).

Conversely, increased light will attract insects which may be beneficial for some species. Bats are

solely nocturnal, highly mobile (i.e. more likely to come into contact with artificial lights) and forage

at a height where light spill is most likely. As such, this group of mammals may be disproportionately

affected by artificial lighting. Some species, which are not light adverse, would benefit from lighting

due to an associated increase in insect abundance. Other species are light averse, and in some cases

even small amounts of light may impinge on activity. Studies done in urban areas has shown that

responses to artificial lighting by bats is species specific.


5-72

5.7.1.12 Traffic

The traffic generation associated with the Project has the potential to impact terrestrial flora and

fauna in the following ways:

Mortality resulting from vehicle collision;

Dust generation, which has the potential to smother roadside plants thereby affecting

vegetation condition and reducing available habitat and food resources; and

Noise disturbance which can disrupt fauna behaviour.

Direct fauna mortality associated with vehicle movement on haul roads and access roads has the

potential to impact on a number of fauna species. Reptile species are most at risk as they may use

road verges as habitat, or look to cross haul roads therefore are susceptible to collision as they are

less mobile than other species. Vehicles will also be using haul roads at night in the dry season

therefore collision with nocturnal species may occur.

The highest risk of direct fauna mortality is likely to be associated with vehicles travelling along the

haul road to the barge load out facility. This risk is heightened due to its proximity to riparian

corridors and wetlands associated with the Skardon River. Reduced speeds on all haul roads should

be implemented to minimise the risk of vehicle collision. Provision of directed lighting onto the road

also increases visibility for the driver and reduces the risk of startling animals crossing the road at

night.

5.7.1.13 Increased Fire Risk

The Project has the potential to increase fire risk associated with the operation of vehicles, and

activities undertaken by site personnel (e.g. welding, inappropriate discarding cigarette butts).

Uncontrolled fires have the potential to alter ecosystem characteristics and directly and indirectly

impact on ecological values in the Project area. Vegetation communities such as Melaleuca wetlands

are sensitive to fire and wildfires should be avoided.

Appropriate management systems should be put in place to prevent accidental ignition of fires. A

fire break around the accommodation camp should be put in place and fuel loads managed within

retained bushland around infrastructure and in wetland areas to minimise the risk of a hot bushfire

occurring. Haul roads and access tracks can be used as fire breaks and to assist in managing fire.

Fire regimes and management measures will be documented in a Project-specific Fire Management

Plan that takes into consideration safety needs but also the needs of each vegetation community and

habitat attributes such as tree hollows.

5.7.1.14 Pest Fauna and Weeds

See Chapter 8 – Biosecurity for the impacts associated with the spread of pest fauna and weeds.

5.7.1.15 Aquatic Habitats

The mining footprints of BH1 and BH6 do not overlap wetland habitats within the Project area. The

two designated haul roads and barge loading facility do overlap habitat mapped as HES wetlands

associated with tributaries of the Skardon River (refer Figure 5-9). These areas are wholly restricted

to mangrove communities (RE 3.1.1 and 3.1.3) and marine saltpans (RE 3.1.6).


5-73

Impacts on Surface Water

Potential impacts to surface waters arising from the Project with the potential to impact aquatic

values of the Project area include, water quality and alteration of surface water inflows to the

swamps and wetlands associated with the Skardon River.

During mining, the drainage channels supplying water to the Skardon River and associated swamps

and wetlands may be disrupted, potentially altering flows to these watercourses. Surface water

flows from areas associated with the Project may carry pollutants including, sediments,

hydrocarbons and other chemicals. These have potential to negatively impact water quality of

aquatic environs, and lead to significant impacts of aquatic values.

Similarly any contamination of groundwater due to Project activities may impact surface waters

through groundwater baseflows to these environments.

Erosion and Sediment Runoff

Land clearing will occur during the construction and operation phases of the Project as a result of

clearing of mining areas, and construction of ancillary infrastructure (e.g. haul roads, barge loading

facility etc.). Clearing of remnant vegetation will be required across the mining footprint and will

occur in a staged process as the mine progresses. The effects of land clearing relevant to the aquatic

ecological values of the Project area may include:

Increased erosion of soils and runoff to adjacent environs;

Loss of land stabilisation and riparian filtration functions; and

Loss of habitat, loss of connectivity between habitat areas and associated diminished fauna

movement.

Dust

The Project is located in close proximity to wetland areas such as Big Footprint Swamp which may

be impacted by elevated dust levels. Dust generation has the potential to enter aquatic habitats,

impacting water quality, and reducing photosynthesis of aquatic plants and riparian vegetation.

Project activities likely to generate dust include mining, waste rock stockpiling, vehicle movements,

stockpiling (e.g. topsoil, spoil, product bauxite), and bauxite transport.

Light and Noise

The majority of activities that generate increased noise do not occur in close proximity to significant

aquatic ecology values, it is expected that potential impacts will be minimal.

Light spill is not likely to impact on aquatic species and light spill should be outside of aquatic

ecosystems such as Big Footprint Swamp. There may be potential for light spill in proximity to

mangroves along the Skardon River along the northern haul road. This is likely to be less of an

impact due to the density of mangroves; however, there is still the potential for impacts to nocturnal

species that utilise these mangrove habitats.


5-74

Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

Groundwater modelling has been carried out to assess the potential impact of Project activities on

Big Footprint Swamp and surrounding aquatic ecosystems (refer Appendix E1). Numerical

groundwater modelling for the Project predicts that groundwater discharge rates to Big Footprint

Swamp will have a minor net increase during and post mining activities.

The size of the standing pool of water present at Big Footprint Swamp in the dry season will

naturally vary significantly with different year-on-year climatic conditions. The predicted

temporary increase in groundwater discharged to Big Footprint Swamp during mining is unlikely

to significantly alter the overall aquatic flora diversity. As with most ecosystems associated with

variable and perennial inundation, aquatic and terrestrial ecology values are likely to be tolerant of

significant changes in abiotic conditions and available habitats. Species colonising these areas can

generally tolerate a range of conditions.

Currently Big Footprint Swamp has an area absent of any tree species directly surrounding the area

of standing water during the dry season. If the size of standing water during the dry season

significantly increases in area, and does not recede over several years, it is possible for Melaleuca

trees to be impacted by anaerobic soil conditions. The modelling results indicate this to be highly

unlikely due to the negligible effect on the extent of the inundation zone and connectivity of the

swamp with groundwater. As recharge and groundwater discharge are expected to reduce following

rehabilitation, any area of the swamp affected temporarily will likely be recolonised by Melaleuca

trees post-mining.

The Skardon River receives baseflow and ecosystems (particularly the aquatic ecosystems) depend

on this discharge. Additional volumes of groundwater introduced temporarily are predicted to be

small (an increase of up to 5%), affecting only the peak discharge, and any changes are likely to be

well within natural ranges of ecosystem resilience and resistance. The quality of recharge water is

also expected to be unaffected as the mined pits are backfilled with in-situ material. Therefore,

potential small increases in groundwater discharge rates to the Skardon River are not considered

to adversely affect aquatic or riparian ecosystem function.

The quality of recharge water is expected to remain unaffected and the relatively small additional

volumes of groundwater predicted to be discharged to the Skardon River are not expected to

adversely affect aquatic or riparian ecosystem function.

Stygofauna

Two stygofauna taxa were sampled from the Project area and surrounds in low numbers with a total of six individual specimens collected in 10 bore samples (frc environmental, 2015): Oligochaete (segmented) worms and Acarina (freshwater mites). The extent to which to the species occurs in the surrounding region is unknown. The potential impacts of the Project to the stygofauna community are considered low and includes the following:

Vegetation clearing;

Contamination from above-ground pollutant sources; and

Physical disturbance of groundwater ecosystems through:

Removal of top soil, sub soils, and bauxite mining

Drawdown of water tables

Compaction of shallow aquifers below haul roads (frc environmental, 2015).


5-75

5.8 Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impacts on terrestrial ecological values were assessed by considering impacts on vegetation communities and significant species from past, current and (reasonably foreseeable) proposed developments within the broader bioregion. The scope of the cumulative impact assessment included:

Projects within 150 km of the proposed development;

Projects in the broader bioregion; and

Known major infrastructure projects (e.g., power stations or water infrastructure) that are seeking approval or have obtained development approval other than through an EIS.

One operational and several proposed mine developments were identified in the broader bioregion (Figure 5-10), and include:

SRBP - Gulf Alumina Limited are progressing approvals for the Project, approximately 100 km north of Weipa. The Project includes three MLAs - MLA 40082, 40069 and 6025 covering a total area of 3,925 ha. These MLAs surround and dissect those of the Project (refer inset Figure 5-10). The Project involves the construction and operation of an open cut bauxite mine with an expected life of ten years. The Project’s EIS was publically released from 2 November 2015 to 11 December 2015, information from which has already informed sections of this chapter;

Weipa and Amrun (formerly South of the Embley) developments - Rio Tinto Aluminium Limited have mined and shipped bauxite from the Weipa mine (north of the Embley River) since 1963. This development has long been the only operating bauxite mine in Queensland, and one of the world’s largest. The bauxite reserves at the Weipa mine are gradually depleting; however, Rio Tinto Aluminium Limited recently secured approval (subject to conditions) to expand the development to include MLAs south of the Embley River (the Amrun Project);

Hey Point Project - Green Coast Resources Pty. Limited proposes to develop a bauxite mine approximately 10 km south of Weipa. A site-specific application for an EA was lodged with EHP in July 2013. Due to the relatively minor scale of the proposed development the EHP deemed that an EIS was not required; however, further information was requested pertaining to land values (rehabilitation), surface and groundwater, and biodiversity impacts. The requested supporting information was submitted to the EHP in November 2014; and

Aurukun development - On August 19 2014, Glencore was selected by the Queensland government as the preferred developer of the Arukun Bauxite Resource, and the Development Agreement was finalised in December 2014. Glencore are currently progressing a feasibility study for the development. The proposed development is approximately 100 km south east of Weipa on Archer Bay, between the Ward and Watson Rivers.

Other significant developments in the area include the Urquhart Point Minerals Sands Project, Archer River Quarry, the existing Port of Weipa, and a proposed port development on the Embley River.

It is noted Cape Alumina (now known as Metro Mining) were progressing approvals for the Pisolite Hills Project, approximately 50 km north east of Weipa. The ToR for the EIS were released by the Queensland Government in December 2012. However, Metro Mining have since directed their attention to the Project. The EIS was not completed and the ToR has now lapsed. The area of the proposed Project has now been designated a Strategic Environmental Area and will now not be subject to any future development.

!(

!(

!(

!(

_̂Port Musgrave

AR

CH

ER

RIV

ER

WENLOCK RIVER

CO

XC

RE

EK

WA

TS

ON

RIV

E

R

DUCIE RIV

ER

MY

AL

LC

RE

EK

CO CKATOO CREEK

DULHUNTY R IVER

PICCANINNY CREEK

NORTH ALIC

ECR

EEK

MISSION RIVER

EMBLEY

RIV

E

R

MERKUNGA CREEK

PALM CREEK

SKARDON RIVER

COEN RIVER

BLA

CKG

IN C

REEK

HE

SK

ET CREEK

KU

RR

AC

OO

CR

EE

K

LAGOON CREEK

SCRUBBY

CR

E

EK

CHOLMONDELEY CREEK

RUNNING CREEK

MAPOON

AURUKUN

WEIPA

NAPRANUM

Peninsula Dev Road

142°30'0"E

142°0'0"E

142°0'0"E

141°30'0"E

141°30'0"E

12

°0'0

"S

12

°0'0

"S

12

°30'0

"S

12

°30'0

"S

13

°0'0

"S

13

°0'0

"S

13

°30'0

"S

13

°30'0

"S

-

DISCLAIMER




within this map.

GCS GDA 1994

/0 10 205

Kilometres

142°30'0"E

Figure

Significant development projects

surrounding the Project

DESIGNED

Details

MD




Legend

!( Town

_̂ Port Musgrave

Road

Watercourse

Surrounding Projects

Metro Mining Bauxite Hills Project

Gulf Alumina Skardon River Bauxite Project

Rio Tinto Alcan Weipa Bauxite Project

Rio Tinto Alcan Amrun Bauxite Project

Glencore Aurukun Bauxite Project

Hey Point Bauxite Project

CLIENTDate

1:660,000Scale @ A3 -29/03/16

CHECKED

DRAWN CHECKED

APPROVED DATE

TK

TK

MD

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1 Details 28/01/16

-

Notes:

R

F:\1_PROJECTS\BES150115_Bauxite_Hill\GIS\DATA\MXD\FINAL\ERA\SOCIAL\003-R1_SURROUND_PROJ.mxd

DRG Ref: 003-R1_SURROUND_PROJ

DESIGNER

DATA SOURCE




5-77

5.8.1 Cumulative Impact Assessment

Of the developments currently operating or proposed for the area, the SRBP is expected to have the

greatest cumulative impact on terrestrial ecological values when considered in conjunction with the

Project. The SRBP is directly adjacent to the Project, is due to commence construction at a similar

time and operations will also occur during the dry season. The SRBP is also the most likely to

proceed as environmental studies have been completed, the EIS has been released, and public

consultation completed. The most relevant impacts to be considered for terrestrial flora species

relate to the area of remnant vegetation and REs to be impacted, associated loss of fauna habitats

and corresponding impacts relating to habitat fragmentation and threatening processes.

5.8.1.1 Cumulative Impacts on Vegetation Communities and Threatened Flora Species

The loss of remnant vegetation cover will occur as a result of construction and operation of the

Project and SRBP. Direct impacts on vegetation will occur as a result of staged vegetation clearing

for the pit mine areas, and to accommodate the Project infrastructure. For the Project approximately

1,467 ha of remnant vegetation is required to be cleared and the SRBP will result in a total of

approximately 1,374 ha. The total combined area of clearing is 2,841 ha. Over 95% of the total

clearing will impact RE 3.5.2 (E. tetrodonta and C. nesophila tall woodland on deeply weathered

plateaus). This is the most widespread vegetation community in Cape York Table 5-12 and supports

a range of flora and fauna species.

Both Projects will result in minor clearing to the Of Concern RE 3.3.12 (M. quinquenervia open forest

associated with scattered coastal swamps). The Project and SRBP will impact 0.6 ha and 0.2 ha

respectively, giving a total of 0.8 ha. While this RE is locally restricted in its distribution to small

patches or linear strips associated with palustrine wetlands and riparian systems, there are two

large patches of mixed vegetation polygons containing RE 3.3.12 to the west of the Projects under

current DNRM vegetation mapping. RE 3.3.12 comprises 10% of the mapped area. It is associated

with a coastal dune wetland system and the polygon is approximately 1,000 ha in area. This patch

of RE 3.3.12 is outside of any proposed development footprint. There are no impacts to TECs or

Endangered REs as a result of the two bauxite mine Projects.

Flora ecology surveys for both projects have not confirmed the presence of any threatened flora

species under the EPBC Act or NC Act. Surveys for the Project potentially recorded D. johannis within

wetland habitats proximate to proposed mining areas. The vast majority of known and potential

habitat for threatened flora species identified as likely to occur in the broader Project area do not

fall with the areas proposed for mining. These habitats are generally associated with buffers

protecting riparian or wetland areas and the impact of the Project on these species was not

considered significant under the EPBC Act Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1 (DotE, 2015) (refer

Chapter 7 - MNES).

Orchid species were detected in Melaleuca swamps and mangrove edges adjacent to proposed

mining operations and are unlikely to be impacted by the proposed mining operations. A minimum

buffer width of 300 m is currently provided between proposed operations and these records. If

these orchids are recorded at a later date in the SRBP area they are also likely to be located in

vegetation communities outside of proposed disturbance areas. Should an orchid species be

recorded within an area required for clearing the species also has the ability to be translocated to

suitable adjacent habitats.


5-78

5.8.1.2 Cumulative Impacts to Wetlands

Both this Project and SRBP do not expect direct impacts on the two palustrine wetlands; Big

Footprint Swamp and Lunette Swamp. The two wetlands are outside of proposed mining and

infrastructure areas however it is noted that the Projects will be undertaking some clearing and

mining in close proximity to these wetland areas. Therefore there is potential for indirect impacts

to wetlands through changes to hydrology, potential for increased pest animals and plants and

altered fire regimes. Both Projects have stated there is likely to be potential for changes to surface

water runoff and groundwater levels in these wetland systems. It is expected there will be a small

increase in the peak water table in parts of the area due to enhanced recharge, and other parts of

the area a decrease in the peak water table due to discharge in the mine pits.

In the vicinity of Big Footprint Swamp, Ewan Wilson Consulting (2015) identifies two time periods

when changes to the water table are most extreme:

Year 2022 when the peak water table to the north of Big Footprint Swamp is predicted to

decrease by 0.1 m and the peak water table to the south is predicted to increase by 0.1 m; and

Year 2026 when the peak water table in the south of Big Footprint Swamp is predicted to

increase by 0.1 m.

At these times the Project groundwater modelling is showing small to negligible increases in peak

pool level. In year 2026 the peak pool level is predicted to increase by less than 0.1 m. Therefore, a

combined peak pool level is no more than 0.2 m. It could be viewed that the predicted drawdown

by Skardon River in year 2022 will be offset by the predicted increase in pool level by the Project.

Further information in relation to the groundwater modelling is provided in the SRBP EIS Chapter

13 and Appendix E1 – Groundwater Technical Report.

It is not expected the minor changes to pool level and subsequent potential increase in the

inundation zone for a period of the year, will have a significant impact on the wetlands ecological

function and biodiversity. The wetlands are resilient to changes in water level and duration of

inundation due to natural conditions being quite dynamic between wet and dry seasons and also

monsoons. The wetlands will still provide habitat for aquatic and terrestrial flora and fauna.

5.8.1.3 Cumulative Impacts to Threatened Fauna Species

Direct impacts to threatened fauna known or potentially occurring in the area would result from

vegetation clearing required to accommodate the mine and infrastructure footprints for the Project

and SRBP. This will in turn result in a loss of foraging and breeding habitats for some species. The

largest impact will be to the E. tetrodonta woodlands and those species that utilise these habitats

for foraging, nesting and breeding. This may include threatened species such as the Palm Cockatoo

and Black-footed Tree-rat and ground-dwelling mammals and reptiles that reside in fallen logs and

leaf litter. Both Projects will result in a large loss of E. tetrodonta woodland in the order of 2,841 ha,

that will be cleared in stages over approximately 10 years. The clearing represents approximately

6.4% of the extent of this RE within a 20 km radius of the Project and 0.005% of the total extent of

this RE in the bioregion.

There will be large areas of E. tetrodonta woodland that will be retained adjacent to those areas

cleared within the MLAs, and in the local region and bioregion. Therefore the loss of foraging habitat

is not likely to be significant, also including consideration that a number of species are highly mobile

and will forage over large areas. Therefore the most significant cumulative impact is likely to be the

loss of breeding places such as hollow-bearing trees and fallen logs.


5-79

Species Management Plans and a Vegetation Clearing Plan will be prepared prior to disturbance.

These plans will identify specific mitigation measures that will be in put in place to reduce impacts

to fauna species and associated habitats and breeding places. Specific mitigation measures will be

put in place to minimise the loss of hollow-bearing trees through:

Retention in-situ where possible;

A small number of large, hollow-bearing trees will be selectively felled ahead of general clearing

and relocated (e.g. cemented in place) within the rehabilitation areas to provide immediate

breeding and nesting locations for some species, and act as ‘tall points’ for bird perching within

the otherwise cleared areas, whilst rehabilitation is establishing;

Use of fauna spotters during clearing to ensure hollow bearing trees are identified and measures

taken to encourage fauna to exit the hollow, or the spotter will check for fauna once the tree is

down and relocate the species to suitable habitats away from clearing; and

Installation of appropriate nest boxes in adjacent intact habitat that are designed for particular

species requirements.

Migratory birds recorded or likely to occur in the Project areas predominantly utilise estuarine

habitats such as mangroves, tidal flats and bays associated with the Skardon River and mouth of the

Skardon River. Migratory species such as Great Egret and Eastern Cattle Egret have been recorded

in close proximity to Big Footprint Swamp and may use this as a foraging area in the wet season.

The SRBP will not require clearing in any wetland REs and the Project estimates wetland impacts

up to 20.5 ha largely of mangrove habitat. While there are some predicted changes to hydrology of

the Big Footprint Swamp and Lunette Swamp in proximity to the two mines, these changes are not

expected to have a negative impact on the ecological function or biodiversity values of these

swamps. Groundwater modelling is predicting a small increase in pool level and area of inundation

which may benefit Migratory bird species by providing a larger foraging area for potentially a longer

duration. Therefore it is not expected the Projects will have a cumulative impact on Migratory birds

or their habitats.

5.8.1.4 Cumulative Impacts to Connectivity and Threatening Processes

The development of both the Project and SRBP will result in some fragmentation of remnant

vegetation and flora and fauna habitats in the local area. Potential for the largest impact to

connectivity is between the southern arm of the Skardon River and Big Footprint Swamp. The

Project is proposing a haul road directly adjacent to the river and the SRBP is proposing to conduct

open pit mining. There is an existing haul road and the Project proposes an open cut pit up to the

proposed buffer to the Big Footprint Swamp. Therefore connectivity from the Skardon River

southern arm west towards the swamp and coast will be limited for those species that are less

mobile. Other areas of habitat loss in the east of the Project area (BH1) will retain connectivity as

the riparian areas adjacent to the Skardon River in the north are being retained with buffers to the

mine, and remnant tracts of woodland are retained to the east and south of the BH1 pit. Riparian

vegetation along Namaleta Creek will also be retained by the SRBP and connectivity to Big Footprint

Swamp and Lunette Swamp from the west will not be impacted.

Combined mitigation measures by both projects are anticipated to be considered and implemented

to reduce the overall impact to connectivity. These measures include ensuring adequate buffers

between Big Footprint Swamp and Lunette Swamp from development, retaining adequate riparian

buffers along Skardon River and Nameleta Creek to allow fauna to move through these riparian

systems and looking to retain one or two east-west corridors between the southern arm of the

Skardon River and Big Footprint Swamp and further south in proximity to Lunette Swamp.


5-80

5.9 Management and Mitigation Measures

The proposed management and mitigation processes outlined within this document will be

provided within the Project Environmental Management Plan (EMP). In addition to the Project EMP,

Significant Species Management Plans will be prepared for significant terrestrial flora and fauna

known or predicted to occur on the site.

5.9.1 Management of Direct Impacts

5.9.1.1 Land Clearing

General mitigation measures to be implemented to reduce the impacts of vegetation clearance and

habitat loss include:

Vegetation clearing will be conducted in the dry season (probably May to August). This is

outside the breeding season for a number of species. For example Palm Cockatoo is known to

start nest preparation between August to November during the peak breading period, although

the species may breed all year round;

A Significant Species Management Plan should be put in place prior to Project construction and

clearing and include the potential presence of threatened species known or likely to occur:

Black-footed Tree-rat and Palm Cockatoo. The Plan should outline measures such as

translocation processes (during vegetation clearing) and maintain a register of threatened

species records for the Project area and surrounds;

Prior to vegetation clearing an ecological pre-clearance survey will be undertaken by an

experienced environmental professional/fauna spotter. Results of the surveys will then inform

additional measures that need to be taken either prior to, or during clearing. The surveys will

include:

Identify and mark any hollow bearing trees with a particular focus on potential

breeding hollows used by threatened species (such as Palm Cockatoo), nests or other

fauna breeding places

Identify any available seed which can be collected where possible for future

rehabilitation

Identify any listed flora or fauna species that may not have been recorded previously

During clearing fauna spotters will be present to identify any fauna or fauna breeding places,

relocate fauna where possible, and ensure measures are taken to minimise impacts on fauna

and their breeding places during clearing;

The on-site Environmental Representative will be notified of any injured native fauna;

Clear delineation of areas of native vegetation requiring removal to equipment operators and

supervisors before any clearance to ensure disturbance is minimised;

Use of some fallen logs, rocks will be put into adjacent habitats to retain fauna micro-habitats;

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

to limiting fauna road mortality;


5-81

Maintenance of retained areas of existing vegetation to assist in providing a source of seed for

mine rehabilitation works; and

Where practicable, minimise the total area of disturbance at any particular time and implement

progressive rehabilitation.

5.9.1.2 Rehabilitation Management Plan

Metro mining will develop and prepare a site Rehabilitation Management Plan which incorporates

rehabilitation monitoring and use of native species for rehabilitation (refer Section 4.8.3 of Chapter

4 – Land for more detail). Rehabilitation will be carried out progressively across the site as the

Project progresses. Flora species used for rehabilitation will be based on the results of Biocondition

assessments already carried out during site surveys (refer Attachment 6, Appendix B1) and will be

monitored. The Rehabilitation Management Plan will incorporate the following:

Monitoring of rehabilitation success to be conducted at locations representative of the range of

conditions on the rehabilitating areas. Reviews will be conducted of monitoring data to assess

trends and monitoring program effectiveness;

A seed bank will be maintained/sourced from adjacent undisturbed habitat and prior to clearing

of Project impact areas;

Use of fallen logs, rocks will be put into rehabilitation areas to retain fauna micro-habitats; and

A small number of large, hollow-bearing trees will be selectively felled ahead of general clearing

and will be relocated (e.g. cemented in place) within the rehabilitation areas to provide

immediate breeding and nesting locations for some species, and act as ‘tall points’ for bird

perching within the otherwise cleared areas, whilst rehabilitation is establishing.

5.9.1.3 Habitat Loss

Impacts on habitat and associated fauna will be minimised by:

Minimising vegetation clearance along drainage features in order to maintain bank stability,

habitat connectivity and movement corridors for terrestrial fauna species and a habitat refuge

for fauna seeking shelter and water including the use of alternate citing for haul roads;

No clearing of riparian vegetation, or if riparian clearing is required, minimising this to the

greatest extent possible and implementing appropriate management and/or mitigation

measures;

Having a qualified spotter-catcher available when clearing in habitat areas; and

Progressive rehabilitation of mined areas to incorporate the provision of nest hollows and

microhabitat features such as trees and logs.


5-82

5.9.1.4 Habitat Fragmentation

These site-scale impacts on connectivity are not considered to have a significant impact on regional-

scale connectivity or the value of state-significant biodiversity corridors to the south. Mitigation

measures mentioned in the previous sections such as progressive rehabilitation and minimising

clearing along drainage features will alleviate potential habitat fragmentation. Other measures for

reducing impacts of connectivity are:

Retain buffers of at least 100m from mine pits to sensitive environmental areas such as wetlands and riparian vegetation as this will reduce edge effects and assist to maintain connectivity;

Construct fauna crossings to assist movement of fauna between habitats (e.g. culverts at creek crossings so fauna can continue to move safely through these areas); and

Fauna crossing structures to assist arboreal fauna to move safely across haul roads, where practicable.

5.9.1.5 Dust

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

aid in limiting impacts of dust on vegetation and fauna including:

Regular watering of active mining areas, stockpiles areas and haul roads that are subject to frequent vehicle movements;

Where possible, erect physical barriers such as bunds and or wind breaks around stockpiles or areas where earth moving is required;

After initial extraction, all overburden material will be placed back within the mined area; and

Overburden will be revegetated progressively.

Refer to Chapter 12 – Air Quality for more detailed management and mitigation measures related to

air quality including dust suppression and avoidance measures.

5.9.1.6 Noise

Refer to Chapter 13 – Noise and Vibration for further details on proposed noise attenuation

measures.

5.9.1.7 Light

Lighting will be required for the construction and operational activities associated with the Project.

The current mine plan is based on a two 12-hour shifts for mining, therefore land-based lighting at

night time will be required. The following lighting impact management measures will be employed

for the Project:

Direct lights away from adjacent bushland areas including installation of light shields and place lights back from retained bushland areas where possible;

Lighting will be limited to only that which is essential during both construction and operational periods;

Look at using lights that have a reduced light spill effect;

Ground-level path lighting will be used, where practicable; and

Intense lights, or cluster of light, will be avoided, where practicable.


5-83

5.9.1.8 Traffic

The highest risk of direct fauna mortality is likely to be associated with vehicles travelling along the

haul road to the barge loading facility. This risk is heightened where the corridor is in close

proximity to riparian corridors and wetlands associated with the Skardon River. Reduced speeds

will be implemented to minimise the risk of vehicle collision with fauna. Provision of lighting also

reduces the risk of startling animals crossing the road at night.

The on-site Environmental Representative will be notified of any injured native fauna and will be

trained to treat these animals accordingly. Given the remote nature of the mining operations,

veterinary assistance may not be available, in which case a site procedure for humane euthanasia of

critically injured fauna will be developed.

5.9.1.9 Increased Fire Risk

Appropriate management systems will be put in place to prevent accidental ignition of fires.

Vegetation retained on site will be managed for fuel load and appropriate fire regimes will be put in

place to maintain biodiversity values while minimising the risk of bushfire. Fire regimes and

management measures will be documented in a site-specific Fire Management Plan that will be

developed in coordination with the Mapoon Land and Sea Rangers, and any neighbouring

management plans.

5.9.1.10 Weeds

Refer to Chapter 8 – Biosecurity for weed management.

5.9.1.11 Pest Fauna

Refer to Chapter 8 – Biosecurity for pest fauna management and mitigation measures.

5.9.1.12 Aquatic Habitats

The Project alignment was created to incorporate both an efficient design whilst positioning

infrastructure where possible to minimise environmental harm. The MLA 20689 boundary was

reduced during the design phase to offer additional protection to Big Footprint Swamp, a large

alluvial swamp system comprising a broad drainage depression to the west of the BH6 mining

footprint. Reducing the extent of the MLA boundary ensures the buffer between this habitat and the

mine footprint will be maintained, with a commitment that the buffer will be maintained to at least

100 m.

Buffer zones around watercourses will be in accordance with relevant guidelines, and comprise:

50 m for stream order 1 or 2 watercourses;

100 m for stream order 3 or 4 watercourses; and

200 m for stream order 5 or greater watercourses.

Impacts on Surface Water

Management of potential impacts to water quality within aquatic environs may include:

Implementing a site-specific Surface Water Management Plan;


5-84

Preparation of a site Erosion and Sediment Control Plan which incorporates rehabilitation

monitoring and trials;

Sediment containing stormwater from mining operations will be directed to sediment ponds;

Sediment removal devices will be incorporated in the watercourse crossing design, where

appropriate, to reduce sediment loads entering the system; and

Implementing suitable spill containment around hydrocarbon, chemicals and other harmful

substance stores.

A Receiving Environment Monitoring Program (REMP) will be developed and periodically updated

as required throughout the life of the Project. The REMP will be implemented through the EMP and

will incorporate water quality monitoring to be undertaken up and down stream of the mine site,

and in all Project affected waterbodies and watercourses on-site.

Refer to Chapter 9 – Water Quality for additional detail and management and mitigation measures

associated with potential impacts to surface water.

Erosion and Sediment Runoff

Clearing of vegetation will occur in stages as mining progresses. General mitigation measures to be

implemented to reduce the impacts of vegetation clearance and habitat loss on aquatic values

include:

Maintain a buffer around riparian vegetation;

Preparation of a site Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (refer to Appendix A3 – Erosion and

Sediment Control Plan) and progressive vegetation rehabilitation plan including monitoring

and trials; and

Monitoring of rehabilitation success to be conducted at locations representative of the range of

conditions on the rehabilitating areas. Reviews will be conducted of monitoring data to assess

trends and monitoring program effectiveness (refer Section 4.8.3 of Chapter 4 – Land for more

detail).

5.9.1.13 Impacts to Groundwater

The quality of recharge water is expected to remain unaffected and the relatively small additional

volumes of groundwater predicted to be discharged to the Skardon River are not expected to

adversely affect aquatic or riparian ecosystem function. A Groundwater Monitoring and

Management Plan will be established. Ongoing monitoring and analysis will refine the

understanding of the hydrogeological regime of Big Footprint Swamp and the Skardon River and

the sensitivity of the associated ecosystems to small variations in pool levels/groundwater

discharge rates. If the outcome of further monitoring and investigation identifies unacceptable risks,

direct intervention, such as redirection of excess water, may become necessary i.e. minimise the

extent of the dry season inundation zone to facilitate aeration of the root zone and maintain the

existing extent of Melaleuca trees. Further information is provided in Section 5.8.1.16 and in detail

in the Groundwater Technical Report (Appendix E1) regarding Big Footprint Swamp and potential

impacts from hydrology changes.

Refer to Chapter 10 – Water Resources for management and mitigation measures associated with

potential groundwater impacts.


5-85

5.9.2 Management of Indirect Impacts

Given the unpredictable nature of potential impacts to Big Footprint Swamp, a REMP will be

developed with consideration of EHP’s Receiving Environment Monitoring Program Guideline - For

use with Environmental Relevant Activities under the EP Act (2014). The REMP will include annual

monitoring of Big Footprint Swamp. Where significant changes in the swamp are observed, suitable

mitigation measures will be developed and undertaken if necessary.

5.9.2.1 Management of Impacts on Riparian Habitat Values

The area of direct disturbance to riparian vegetation will be minimised to the greatest extent

possible. Buffer zones to watercourses (Figure 5-11) will be in accordance with the defined

distances as stipulated under the Queensland Environmental Offsets Policy for the Cape York

Peninsula Bioregion and comprise:




Impacts on remnant watercourse vegetation will be avoided or minimised through:

Reducing the width of haul roads/internal roads where they cross watercourses;

Maintaining adequate buffers where possible from the Skardon River riparian corridor, and

providing appropriate scour and erosion protection to maintain the integrity of vegetation and

ecological function; and

Maintaining adequate buffer distances from watercourses not directly impacted by mining.

5.9.2.2 Management of Impacts on Aquatic Habitats

Modelling of impacts to Big Footprint Swamp resulting from changes in groundwater levels

indicates a potential average rise in seasonal water levels. The REMP will include annual monitoring

of Big Footprint Swamp. Groundwater levels monitored in the vicinity of the swamp and pool levels

monitored within the swamp (including the dry season extent of standing water) will enable

ongoing refinement of the understanding of the hydrogeological regime of the swamp.

If the outcome of further monitoring and investigation identifies unacceptable risks, direct

intervention, such as redirection of excess water, may become necessary i.e. minimise the extent of

the dry season inundation zone to facilitate aeration of the root zone and maintain the existing

extent of Melaleuca trees.




SKARDON RIVER

605000

605000

610000

610000

615000

615000

620000

620000

625000

625000

630000

630000

8690

000

8690

000

8695

000

8695

000

8700

000

8700

000

DATE



within this map.


/0 1,000 2,000500

Metres

Figure 5-11Waterway stream order and buffer areas



APPROVEDDRAWN

04/05/16

CHECKED

LegendBarge Loading AreaWatercourseHaul RoadPit ExtentsAccomoodation CampMetro Mining Mine Lease AreaDirectory of Important Wetlands

DIW - BuffersDirectory of Important Wetlands100m Buffer

Stream Order - Buffers5 - 400m4 - 300m3 - 200m2 - 100m



(Geofabric) PRODUCT SUITE V2.1.1 DRG Ref: BES150115-056-R1_BUFFER_AREAS

DESIGNER CLIENT

1:70,000Scale @ A3 -

-DESIGNEDCHECKED -

MDMD-


Notes:

2-----

F:\1_PROJECTS\BES150115_Bauxite_Hill\GIS\DATA\MXD\FINAL\ERA\BES150115-056-R1_BUFFER_AREAS.mxd


Barge Loading Area

Haul Road

Haul Road

Accommodation Camp

04/05/16

CampAccess

Road


5-87

5.9.3 Matters of State Environmental Significance and Matters of National Environmental Significance

The MSES (including MNES) that are applicable to the Project under the Queensland Environmental

Offsets Policy (SoQ, 2014a) and as it applies to the Project EVs are compiled in Table 5-13.

It is noted that Palm Cockatoo is listed as Near Threatened under the NC Act and is not treated as an

MSES species under the Queensland Environmental Offsets Policy (SoQ, 2014a). Palm Cockatoo was

listed as Vulnerable under the EPBC Act in October 2015. As the Project was listed as a Controlled

Action in September 2015 the species is not required to be assessed. Nevertheless the species is

assessed under the EPBC Act Significant Impact Guidelines (DotE, 2013) in Chapter 7 – MNES.

Table 5-13 Project MSES

Category Description Project Applicability

Protected area estates Includes all classes of protected area

(except nature refuges and

coordinated conservation areas).

There are no declared protected areas within or

near the Project area. The nearest area is

Heathlands Resource Reserve approximately 45

km to the east and will not be impacted.

Marine Parks Includes state marine park zones. There are no State Marine Park zones declared

for the Gulf of Carpentaria. Not applicable.

Fish habitat areas Includes areas declared as Fish

habitat area A, or fish habitat area B

under the Fisheries Act 1994.

Also includes protected marine

plants.

Nearest declared Fish habitat area is Pine River

Bay in the Weipa area approximately 80 km to

the south. This area is already subject to

substantial local disturbance. No impacts

expected from the Project activities.

The Project will require some clearing of

protected marine plants.

Threatened Species Includes flora and fauna species

listed as Special Least Concern,

Vulnerable, or Endangered under the

NC Act and includes habitat that

supports a listed fauna species (e.g.

foraging roosting or breeding

habitat).

There are several terrestrial fauna and flora

species listed as Vulnerable or Special Least

Concern under the NC Act (including bird species

listed as Migratory under the EPBC Act) that

occur in the study area.

There are nine marine fauna species listed as

Endangered or Vulnerable that are likely to occur

in the study area. Refer Chapter 7 – MNES.

Regulated vegetation Includes REs classified as

‘endangered’ or ‘of concern’, ‘High

value regrowth’ areas containing

‘endangered’ or ‘of concern’ REs and

REs classified as ‘watercourse’.

There are REs classified as Of Concern, and

regulated vegetation intersecting a watercourse

that may be impacted by the Project.

Wild rivers (high

preservation areas)

Include the ‘high preservation area’

in the wild river declaration for the

area.

At the time of writing the wild rivers legislation

has been repealed and therefore does not apply.

High conservation value

wetlands

Includes:

Wetlands assessed as ‘High

Ecological Significance’ on the map of

referable wetlands; or

High ecological value freshwater and

estuarine areas declared under the

There are wetland areas considered as of ‘High

Ecological Significance’ that may be impacted by

the Project.


5-88

Category Description Project Applicability

Environmental Protection (water)

Policy 2009.

Legally secured offset

areas

Includes offset areas legally secured

under a registered covenant,

easement, conservation agreement

or development approval condition.

There are no secured offset areas on or near the

Project area. Not applicable.

5.9.3.1 Habitat for Threatened Fauna (MSES Species)

Section 5.6.2 describes the likelihood of occurrence of threatened (listed under the NC Act and/or

EPBC Act) fauna. Species that are considered unlikely or with potential to occur are not considered

further and will not be subject to significant residual impacts from Project activities. There are two

fauna species listed as Vulnerable under the NC Act which are considered as likely or known to occur

in the Project area or immediate surrounds:

Beach Stone-curlew; and

Estuarine Crocodile (also listed as Migratory under the EPBC Act).

Under the Queensland Environmental Offsets Policy: Significant Residual Impact Guideline (SoQ,

2014b) the residual impact criteria for assessing the potential impact of a project’s activities are

essentially the same as that for Vulnerable MNES fauna under the EPBC Act Significant Impact

Guidelines 1.1 (DotE, 2013) (refer Chapter 7 – MNES). The significant impact criteria assessment for

each of the threatened species listed above is presented in the following table.

Table 5-14 MSES significant impact criteria: Beach Stone-curlew and Estuarine Crocodile

Assessment Criterion Beach Stone-curlew Estuarine Crocodile

Assessment Against Significance Criteria

Lead to a long-term decrease in the size of a local population of the species

The species occurs sparsely along coastal areas and was recorded at the mouth of the Skardon River (RPS, 2015). The Project will not impact this area and will not impact the preferred coastal habitat. The Project will not lead to a long-term decrease in the size of a local population.

The Project will require the removal of approximately 20 ha of mangrove habitat. There is substantial mangrove habitat in the surrounds that will remain undisturbed. A buffer zone is proposed for Big Footprint Swamp which lies outside the Project MLA. The Project will not lead to a long-term decrease in the size of a local population.

Reduce the area of occurrence of the species

The Project will not impact the preferred coastal habitat. The Project will not reduce the area of occurrence of the species.

The Project will require the removal of approximately 20 ha of mangrove habitat. There is substantial mangrove habitat in the surrounds that will remain undisturbed. A buffer zone is proposed for Big Footprint Swamp which lies outside of the Project MLA. The Project will not reduce the area of occurrence of the species.

Fragment an existing population The species occurs sparsely along coastal areas and the Project will not impact this habitat. The Project will not fragment an existing population.

The Project is not of an extent that will fragment an existing population.

Result in genetically distinct populations forming as a result of habitat isolation

Project design and location within surrounding landscape is unlikely to result in habitat isolation of any species.


5-89

Assessment Criterion Beach Stone-curlew Estuarine Crocodile

Assessment Against Significance Criteria

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

A Pest and Weed Management Plan (PWMP) (refer Chapter 8 – Biosecurity) to control the introduction and spread of weed species across the Project area. The PWMP will be in place for the life of the Project, and will minimise the potential for weed invasion and may in the long-term improve habitat condition within vegetation communities located adjacent to Project infrastructure. The Project is considered very unlikely to result in invasive species becoming established in the Project area to the detriment of any threatened species’ habitat.

Introduce disease that may cause the population to decline

The Project will incorporate the management of invasive species (refer Chapter 8 – Biosecurity) which will assist in the prevention of pest plant introduction and associated diseases resulting from Project activities. Project equipment sourced from overseas will be quarantined as required under State and Commonwealth legislation. The Project is considered unlikely to introduce disease that may cause a population of threatened species to decline.

Interfere with the recovery of the species

The extent of the Project area impact on suitable habitat for these species is non-existent (Beach Stone-curlew) or negligible (Estuarine Crocodile) and no substantial population of either of the threatened species have been found on the Project site. With mitigation of potential Project impacts any potential impact on a threatened species, should it occur in the Project area, will be very minor and is considered unlikely to interfere with the recovery of the species.

Cause disruption to ecologically significant locations (breeding, feeding, nesting, migration or resting sites) of a species

The species occurs sparsely along coastal areas and the Project will not impact this habitat. The Project will not disrupt any ecologically significant locations.

The Project will require the removal of approximately 20 ha of mangrove habitat. There is substantial mangrove habitat in the surrounds that will remain undisturbed. The Project will not disrupt any ecologically significant locations to more than a minor degree.

Assessment of potential for significant residual impacts

No significant residual impacts expected.

No significant residual impacts expected.

From the significant impact assessment guidelines for habitat for MSES fauna no species are

considered to have significant residual impacts as a result of Project activities and as a result will

not be subject to the Project biodiversity offsets plan.

5.9.3.2 Matters of National Environmental Significance - Significant Impact Assessment

Assessment of impact significance has been completed as per DotE Significant Impact Guidelines (2013) for those species listed as MNES. These include criteria for species listed as Vulnerable at the time the Section 75 decision for this Project was made (September 2015), including Chocolate Tea Tree Orchid (Table 5-15) and Black-footed Tree-rat (Table 5-16). As stated previously Palm Cockatoo was listed as Vulnerable in October 2015 and as such is not required to be addressed for the Project. Nevertheless this species has been addressed in Table 5-17.

The vulnerable species assessments commence with an evaluation of the likely importance of the population, as defined within the significant impact criteria for vulnerable species:

‘An important population is a population that is necessary for a species’ long-term survival and recovery. This may include populations identified as such in recovery plans, and/or that are:

Key source populations either for breeding or dispersal;

Populations that are necessary for maintaining genetic diversity; and/or

Populations that are near the limit of the species’ range.


5-90

Given the specificity of the above definition and the scarcity of information and records available for

most listed species and populations in the region (and Australia), it is difficult to determine: 1)

attributes such as breeding and dispersal behaviour and whether the particular population is a ‘key

source’ and 2) the genetic diversity of individuals inhabiting a population or sub-population. Given

the paucity of information available, significance of impacts to threatened species has been based

on experience of the assessment team and the latest available information.

Chocolate Tea Tree Orchid

The Chocolate Tea Tree Orchid is known to occur in Cape York and prefers open, humid habitats

and is often found on trees growing in or close to swamps and in pockets of monsoon forest

(Queensland Herbarium, 1997). Vegetation surveys have confirmed suitable habitat for the species

does occur in the broader Project area, such as the lower melaleuca wetlands and fringing habitats.

Given these suitable habitats occur within and proximate to the Project area and Dendrobium

species were found within these habitats, it is likely this species could occur. The specimens were

noted as likely to be The Three Lamellas Dendrobium based on their habit and form. As surveys

were conducted at a time when the species is not flowering, it has been classified as “likely to occur”.

No orchids have been identified in the proposed clearing footprint of the Project. Pre-clearance

surveys will be undertaken by suitably qualified ecologists prior to clearing. Any orchids identified

in proposed disturbance areas will be recorded and relocated to suitable habitat away from any

potential disturbance. The species flowering period is March to July and if flowering individual

orchids are found a sample will be taken for confirmation from the Queensland Herbarium. The area

lies well within the known range of the species and an ‘important population’ is not considered likely

to occur.

Table 5-15 Assessment against significant impact criteria: Chocolate Tea Tree Orchid

Criterion Assessment Against Significance Criteria (Vulnerable)

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

All orchids identified during surveys were not within the proposed disturbance areas for the Project. A number of orchid specimens were identified within fringing melaleuca and mangrove communities adjoining the proposed impact areas.

The proposed action is not expected to result in a decrease to individual or orchid populations as no orchids were found within the proposed impact areas, and a minimum of 300 m buffer is proposed to these records. The proposed action will only result in minor impacts to habitat for these species such as wetlands including melaleuca and mangrove fringing communities. Approximately 37 ha of potential habitat is anticipated to be cleared to accommodate Project infrastructure.

Should any threatened orchids be confirmed within the impact areas prior to clearing, they will be translocated where practicable into adjacent, suitable habitats that are outside of any potential impacts. Therefore no short term or long term decrease to the orchid populations are expected.

Reduce the area of occupancy of an important population

The proposed action is not expected to result in a decrease to individual or orchid populations as no orchids were found within the proposed impact areas. The proposed action will only result in minor impacts to suitable habitat for these species such as wetlands including melaleuca and mangrove fringing communities. Approximately 37 ha of suitable habitat is anticipated to be cleared to accommodate Project infrastructure. Areas of melaleuca wetlands and mangroves are being retained on site and there are also large areas of suitable habitat for the orchid species in adjacent areas to the Project that will support populations.

The Project is not expected to reduce the area of occupancy of important orchid populations.


5-91


Fragment an existing important population into two or more populations

The Project will not fragment existing orchid populations. Where orchids were found, and suitable habitat areas, all occur within the wetland areas of melaleuca and mangrove communities. These habitats are connected to the Skardon River and associated tributaries. Large areas of these habitats will be retained on site and are connected to adjacent habitats in the north, south and west of the Project.

Adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of the species

All orchids identified during surveys were not within the proposed disturbance areas for the Project. A number of orchid specimens were identified within fringing melaleuca and mangrove communities adjoining the proposed impact areas.

The proposed action is not expected to result in a decrease to individual or orchid populations as no orchids were found within the proposed impact areas, and a minimum of 300 m buffer is proposed to these records. The Project will not adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of the species.

Disrupt the breeding cycle of an important population

It is considered the proposed action will not disrupt the breeding cycle of any existing important populations. The orchid species habitats are within wetland areas of melaleuca and mangrove communities. These are connected to the Skardon River and associated tributaries. Large areas of these habitats will be retained on site and adjacent areas therefore reproduction will not be impacted.

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

All orchids were detected outside proposed Project impact areas within fringing melaleuca and mangrove communities. These specimens were noted as likely to be Chocolate Tea Tree Orchid based on their habit and form; however, there is potential for some of these specimens to be Chocolate Tea Tree Orchid which is a very similar species (these species were recently known as the same species and referred to as Chocolate Tea Tree Orchid). No flowering material was present at the time of the survey. Therefore identification could not be confirmed.

The proposed action will only result in minor impacts to habitat for these species such as wetlands including melaleuca and mangrove fringing communities. Approximately 37 ha of suitable habitat is anticipated to be cleared to accommodate Project infrastructure. Should any threatened or least concern orchids be confirmed on site within proposed clearing areas they will be translocated to suitable adjacent habitats that are not subject to disturbance.

Although the action will result in the removal of up to 37 ha of potential habitat for the species, there are still large areas of suitable habitat being retained on site. Also large areas of suitable habitat exist in the broader region which support these orchid populations, therefore the species is unlikely to decline as a result of the Project.

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

Ecological surveys found minimal weed incursion within areas of remnant vegetation. Weeds observed were generally restricted to areas surrounding existing disturbances such as the existing camp facility at Skardon Mine.

The Project will implement a PWMP to control the introduction and spread of weed species across the Project area. The PWMP will be in place for the life of the Project, and will minimise the potential for weed invasion and may in the long-term improve habitat condition within vegetation communities located adjacent to Project infrastructure. The Project is considered unlikely to result in invasive species becoming established in this species’ habitat.

Introduce disease that may cause the species to decline

The Project EMP will incorporate the management of invasive species which will assist in the prevention of pest plant introduction and associated diseases resulting from Project activities. Project equipment sourced from overseas will be quarantined as required under State and Commonwealth legislation. The Project is considered unlikely to introduce disease that may cause the species to decline. Monitoring of any confirmed threatened orchids will also occur during operation of the Project to identify if any impacts are arising from disease


5-92


Interfere substantially with the recovery of the species

All orchids were detected outside proposed Project impact areas within fringing melaleuca and mangrove communities. The proposed action will only result in minor impacts to habitat for these species such as wetlands including melaleuca and mangrove fringing communities. Approximately 37 ha of suitable habitat is anticipated to be cleared to accommodate Project infrastructure. Should any threatened or least concern individual orchids be confirmed on site within proposed clearing areas they will be translocated to suitable adjacent habitats that are not subject to disturbance.

The action is not likely to interfere with the recovery of this species. No areas identified as priority recovery areas or offsets for this species are known from the Project area or adjoining lands.


The subspecies of Black-footed Tree-rat found in north Queensland was listed as Vulnerable under

the EPBC Act in June 2015. It was recorded on a camera trap in unspecified habitat (although likely

to be Darwin Stringybark woodland) during intensive surveys for Northern Quoll in

September/October 2014 for the SRBP (RPS, 2015). It was not recorded on any other occasion

despite extensive small mammal and remote camera trapping and spotlighting over several surveys.

The nearest record to the Project area appears to be a 2004 EHP record located approximately 30

km east of Weipa. Current records hold the species at various locations on Cape York Peninsula

including Mareeba, Piccaninny Plains and Mungkan Kandju National Park (Greencap, 2015). The

species current potential distribution is the entire Cape York Peninsula where extensive tracts of

undisturbed woodland remain and the species may well go undetected. The density of individuals

in the area is uncertain; however, it is noted that the species was not detected during any other

surveys for this Project or the SRBP. It is considered unlikely an important population occurs in the

area.

Preclearance surveys will require the presence of a fauna spotter to check tree hollows for resident

fauna prior to clearing and be present when clearing takes place. Should any individuals be located

during tree clearing they will be relocated to suitable adjacent habitats by a qualified environmental

practitioner/fauna spotter. A SSMP would be put in place prior to Project construction and clearing

and include the potential presence of this species. The Plan would outline measures such as

translocation processes (during vegetation clearing) and maintain a register of individual records

which will also add to the knowledge of the extent of the species occurrence in the area.

Table 5-16 Assessment against significant impact criteria: Black-footed Tree-rat



It is unlikely an important population exists in the area. The Project requires the clearing 1,429 ha of Darwin Stringybark woodland (RE 3.5.2). This habitat remains widespread in the surrounding region with a further 44,280 ha located within a 20 km radius of the Project area. The habitat the species is considered more likely to occur in (eucalypt woodlands close to watercourses/low-lying areas) will remain largely undisturbed by clearing and will remain connected to similar vegetation beyond the Project’s boundary. Tree clearing activities will require the presence of a fauna spotter to check tree hollows prior to clearing. Should any individuals be located during preclearance activities they will be relocated to suitable adjacent habitats by a qualified environmental practitioner/fauna spotter.

The Project is unlikely to lead to a long-term decrease in the size of an important population.


5-93


It is unlikely an important population exists on the site. The Project requires the clearing 1,429 ha of Darwin Stringybark woodland. This habitat remains widespread in the surrounding region. There is 44,280 ha of the same habitat within a 20 km radius of the site and over 520, 000 ha within the Cape York Bioregion. The habitat the species is considered more likely to occur in (eucalypt woodlands close to watercourses/low-lying areas) will remain largely undisturbed by clearing and will remain connected to similar vegetation beyond the Project’s boundary.

The Project is not expected to reduce the area of occupancy of an important population (should such a population occur on the site) by more than a very minor extent.


The Project requires the clearing 1,429 ha of Darwin Stringybark woodland in three separate areas. This habitat remains widespread in the surrounding area (44,200 ha in a 20 km radius) and Cape York Bioregion. The habitat the species is considered more likely to occur in (eucalypt woodlands close to watercourses/low-lying areas) will remain largely undisturbed by clearing and will remain connected to similar vegetation beyond the Project’s boundary.

The Project will not fragment an existing important population of this subspecies.


The Project requires the clearing 1,429 ha of Darwin Stringybark woodland in three separate areas. This habitat remains widespread in the surrounding area (44,200 ha in a 20 km radius) and Cape York Bioregion. The habitat the species is considered more likely to occur in (eucalypt woodlands close to watercourses/low-lying areas) will remain largely undisturbed by clearing and will remain connected to similar vegetation beyond the Project’s boundary.

The Project is unlikely to adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of the subspecies.


It is unlikely an important population occurs in the area or at what population density. It is unknown at what time of year the species may breed in the region. Clearing of vegetation will occur in the dry season and will largely avoid areas where the species is more likely to occur (eucalypt woodlands close to watercourses/low-lying areas). Tree clearing activities will require the presence of a fauna spotter to check tree hollows prior to clearing and present when clearing.

The Project is unlikely to disrupt the breeding cycle of an important population.


The Project requires the clearing of 1,429 ha of Darwin Stringybark woodland. This habitat remains widespread in the surrounding region with a further 44,280 ha located within a 20 km radius of the Project area. The habitat the species is considered more likely to occur in (eucalypt woodlands close to watercourses/low-lying areas) will remain largely undisturbed by clearing and will remain connected to similar vegetation beyond the Project’s boundary.

The Project will not decrease the availability or quality of habitat to the extent that the species is likely to decline.


Ecological surveys found minimal weed incursion within areas of remnant vegetation. Weeds observed were generally restricted to areas surrounding existing disturbances such as the existing camp facility at Skardon Mine. The area was already found to have populations of pest fauna including feral pigs and cattle.



The Project EMP will incorporate the management of invasive species which will assist in the prevention of pest plant introduction and associated diseases resulting from Project activities. Project equipment sourced from overseas will be quarantined as required under State and Commonwealth legislation. The Project is considered unlikely to introduce disease that may cause the species to decline. Monitoring of any confirmed threatened orchids will also occur during operation of the Project to identify if any impacts are arising from disease


5-94


There is no State or Commonwealth recovery plan for this species. With appropriate mitigation measures applied, any potential impact on Black-footed Tree-rat will be minor and is considered unlikely to interfere with the recovery of the species.

Palm Cockatoo

This subspecies is distributed across the north of Cape York Peninsula, Queensland, from north of

Pompuraaw on the west coast to Saltwater Creek, Princess Charlotte Bay on the east coast. The

species inhabits closed forest and riparian systems, and open woodlands adjacent to these habitats.

They feed mostly on the hard seeds of fibrous and woody fruits of woodland, littoral and closed

forest species, taken from the canopy and the ground. It was recorded infrequently during dry

season fauna surveys (November, 2014) in groups of one to three individuals throughout the Project

area and observed during SRBP surveys in fringing woodland immediately to the north of Namaleta

Creek and in Darwin Stringybark woodland.

The Project will impact potential breeding habitat where large nest hollows may occur; however,

this is unlikely to present primary foraging habitat which will remain largely undisturbed.

Vegetation clearing for the Project will be conducted in the dry season (probably May to August).

This is outside the breeding season for Palm Cockatoo which is known to start nest preparation

between August and November during peak breeding period, although the species breeds all year

round. The species is well within its known range and an important population is considered

unlikely to occur.

Preclearance surveys will require the presence of a fauna spotter to check tree hollows for resident

fauna prior to clearing and be present when clearing takes place. A SSMP would be put in place prior

to Project construction and clearing and include the potential presence of this species.

Table 5-17 Assessment against significant impact criteria: Palm Cockatoo



It is unlikely an important population exists in the area. The Project requires the clearing 1,429 ha of Darwin Stringybark woodland (RE 3.5.2). This habitat remains widespread in the surrounding region with a further 44,280 ha located within a 20 km radius of the Project area. Vegetation clearing for the Project will be conducted in the dry season (probably May to August) outside of the known breeding season for Palm Cockatoo. Should any individuals be located during tree clearing they will be allowed to leave the area before any works commence.

The Project is unlikely to lead to a long-term decrease in the size of an important population.


It is unlikely an important population exists on the site. The Project requires the clearing 1,429 ha of Darwin Stringybark woodland. This habitat remains widespread in the surrounding region and is unlikely to comprise primary foraging habitat for the species. There is 44,280 ha of the same habitat within a 20 km radius of the site and over 520,000 ha within the Cape York Bioregion.

The Project is not expected to reduce the area of occupancy of an important population (should such a population occur on the site) by more than a very minor extent.


The Project requires the clearing 1,429 ha of Darwin Stringybark woodland in three separate areas. This habitat remains widespread in the surrounding area (44,200 ha in a 20 km radius) and Cape York Bioregion.

The Project will not fragment an existing important population of this subspecies.


The Project requires the clearing of 1,429 ha of Darwin Stringybark woodland. This habitat is unlikely to comprise primary foraging habitat for the species and remains widespread in the surrounding region with a further 44,280 ha located within a 20 km radius of the Project area.

The Project will not adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of the species.


5-95


It is unlikely an important population occurs in the area. Vegetation clearing for the Project will be conducted in the dry season (probably May to August) outside of the known breeding season for Palm Cockatoo. Should any individuals be located during tree clearing they will be allowed to leave the area before any works commence.

The Project is unlikely to disrupt the breeding cycle of an important population.


The Project requires the clearing of 1,429 ha of Darwin Stringybark woodland. This habitat remains widespread in the surrounding region with a further 44,280 ha located within a 20 km radius of the Project area.

The Project is unlikely to adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of the subspecies.


Ecological surveys found minimal weed incursion within areas of remnant vegetation. Weeds observed were generally restricted to areas surrounding existing disturbances such as the existing camp facility at Skardon Mine. The area was already found to have populations of pest fauna including feral pigs and cattle.



The Project EMP will incorporate the management of invasive species which will assist in the prevention of pest plant introduction and associated diseases resulting from Project activities. Project equipment sourced from overseas will be quarantined as required under State and Commonwealth legislation. The Project is considered unlikely to introduce disease that may cause the species to decline.


There is no State or Commonwealth recovery plan for this species. With appropriate mitigation measures applied, any potential impact on Palm Cockatoo will be minor and is considered unlikely to interfere with the recovery of the species.

From the significant impact assessment guidelines for MNES fauna no species are considered to

have significant residual impacts as a result of Project activities and as a result will not be subject to

the Project biodiversity offsets plan.

5.9.4 Summary

The potential impacts to terrestrial and aquatic ecology as a result of the Project include:

The clearing of remnant vegetation such as 0.6 ha of an Of Concern vegetation community and

1,429 ha of Darwin Stringybark woodland providing potential habitat for resident native fauna

and flora including threatened species;

Reduction in local connectivity between habitats for less mobile species;

Fauna mortality during vegetation clearing and vehicle movements;

Erosion resulting in sediment runoff into adjacent wetlands and creeks and a reduction in water

quality;

Potentially altered flows to drainage channels supplying water to the Skardon River and

associated swamps;

Surface water flows and groundwater from areas associated with the Project may carry

contaminants including, sediments, hydrocarbons and other chemicals;

Groundwater hydrology impacts are modelled to create a minor maximum increase to wet

season wetland levels at Big Footprint Swamp;


5-96

Dust accumulation from traffic movements, construction and operation activity may have

deleterious impacts on vegetation health;

Increased noise and lighting may impact fauna activity;

Increased fire risk; and

Increases in the occurrence of weed and pest species.

The majority of these impacts will be mitigated under measures incorporated and monitored within

the Project Environmental Management Plan. The greatest cumulative impact associated with the

joint development of the Project and Gulf Alumina’s SRBP arises from the clearing of Darwin

Stringybark woodland and the associated value to native fauna and connectivity. The cumulative

impact of this clearing is fully incorporated in the assessment shown in Section 5.10.

5.10 Offsets

Biodiversity offsets will be required for the Project to compensate for any significant, residual

impacts to MNES and biodiversity values listed as MSES. Offsets for the Project are required to be

assessed and delivered under the EPBC Offsets Policy and EO Act. To fully address the Projects offset

requirements a Biodiversity Offsets Strategy Report has been prepared by Amec Foster Wheeler

(Appendix C). This report evaluates both MNES and MSES offset requirements, including a

Significant Impact Assessment for MSES using the Queensland Environmental Offsets Policy:

Significant Residual Impact Guideline (SoQ, 2014) to determine the extent of offsets required. Offset

delivery options are then considered (e.g. direct offsets, financial contributions, in-direct offsets) as

applicable under relevant policies and timing of offset delivery.

This section identifies the MNES and MSES offset requirements and extent of the impacts to be offset

and evaluates suitable offset delivery options based on the findings of the following technical

reports:

Terrestrial Ecology Assessment Report (Amec Foster Wheeler, 2016a) (Appendix B1);

Aquatic Ecology Assessment Report (Amec Foster Wheeler, 2016b) (Appendix B2);

SRBP Terrestrial Ecology Report (RPS, 2015a); and

Marine Ecology Report (Ports and Coast Environment, 2016) (Appendix B3).

5.10.1 Objectives

As evident in the aforementioned sections Metro Mining is seeking to avoid, minimise and mitigate

environmental impacts to the greatest extent possible when planning for, and operating the Project.

Where possible, infrastructure will be located away from significant biodiversity areas, clearing of

native vegetation will be minimised where possible and mitigation measures such as those in

Section 5.12 will be implemented. Where a significant residual impact (after management and

mitigation measure has been implemented) to MNES or MSES has been determined, these are

proposed to be offset. An overall objective is to integrate Commonwealth and State offset

requirements to avoid duplication. This is also an intended purpose of the EO Act.

It is recognised the Project’s bioregion and landscapes are unique, and present some challenges to

the typical approach of offset delivery. A more flexible approach is needed. The Cape York Peninsula

Bioregion is highly vegetated and remote. Threats from vegetation clearing and fragmentation in


5-97

the bioregion are low. Threats to biodiversity are recognised from altered fire regimes, pest animals

and plants, and grazing. Challenges to offsetting are evaluated in this report including land tenure,

and recommendations to deliver offsets in a way that will provide the greatest conservation gains

and involvement of local traditional owners to provide social benefits are recommended. Offset

delivery options tailored to this Project are discussed further in Section 5.13.

Post approvals Metro Mining will undertake further analysis and consultation to finalise the offset

delivery options which will be detailed in an Offset Delivery Plan. The Offset Delivery Plan will be

submitted to the relevant assessment agencies for approval prior to Project commencement,

including any vegetation clearing on site.

5.10.2 EPBC Act Environmental Offsets Policy

The EPBC Act Environmental Offsets Policy outlines the Commonwealth Government’s approach to

the use of environmental offsets. Offsets are viewed as the third strategy to reduce potential impacts

to MNES after avoidance and mitigation, which are generally referred to as on-site measures. Offsets

are defined as measures that compensate for the residual adverse impacts of an action on the

environment. This policy provides flexibility in delivering ‘good environmental outcomes’. For

example, the enduring protection and management of a threatened species’ habitat can be achieved

through a variety of methods, including through conservation land management by rural

landholders, or in partnerships with Indigenous communities.

The Offsets Assessment Guide accompanies this policy, to give effect to the requirements of this

policy, utilising a balance sheet approach to measure impacts and offsets. It applies where the

impacted protected matter is a threatened species or ecological community. An offset can comprise

a combination of direct offsets and other compensatory measures and should align with

conservation priorities for the impacted protected matter. Offsets that deliver social, economic

and/or environmental co-benefits are encouraged.

5.10.3 Environmental Offsets Act 2014

A new offset framework was introduced in Queensland in July 2014. This includes:

Environmental Offsets Act 2014;

Environmental Offsets Regulation 2014; and

Queensland Environmental Offsets Policy 2014.

The above framework replaces all previous State offset policies. The Queensland Offset Framework

establishes an ‘avoid, mitigate, offset’ hierarchy for development. Where it is demonstrated that

impacts cannot be avoided or mitigated, and there is a ‘significant’ residual impact to a prescribed

environmental matter, then an offset is required.

Under the Queensland Environmental Offsets Policy (QEOP) to avoid duplication between

jurisdictions, State governments can only impose an offset condition on a prescribed activity, if the

same, or substantially the same impact and the same, or substantially the same matter, has not been

subject to assessment under the EPBC Act for an activity declared as a controlled action. Therefore

it is proposed where a MSES is also listed as MNES and impacts have been assessed, that outcome

will also apply to the MSES value.


5-98

A proposed offset delivery package needs to be approved by EHP for MSES and MNES. A draft Offset

Delivery Plan is required to be submitted and approved prior to disturbance. Three primary options

(or a combination of options) are provided for offset delivery. These are detailed below:

Financial Settlement Offsets

A financial settlement payment can be used to meet an offset requirement for MSES impacted by a

development. It must be calculated using the Financial Settlement Offset Calculation Methodology

set out in the QEOP. A financial settlement must be paid to the offset account administered by EHP

prior to Project commencement. Financial payments are made up of costs associated with on-

ground land management, administration and landholder incentive payment.

Land-based Offsets

This is referred to as a type of proponent-driven offset. The offset is to achieve an equivalent

environmental outcome. It must be of a size and scale proportionate to the significant residual

impact on MSES. Land-based offsets are to provide environmental values as similar as possible to

those being lost and may consist of remnant or non-remnant vegetation. The size of a land based

offset can be determined through use of the Land-based Offsets Multiplier Calculator or using a rapid

assessment which caps the offset at a ratio of 1:4.

The offset must be legally secured for at least the duration of the impact. The policy provides a

number of options for legal security, specifically:

Voluntary declaration under the VM Act;

Nature refuge or other form of protected area under the NC Act; or

Statutory covenant for environmental purposes under the Land Act 1994 or Land Title Act 1994.

Direct Benefit Management Plans

Proponent-driven offsets can also be delivered through priority actions identified in a direct benefit

management plan (DBMP). DBMPs are pre-approved packaged investments that outline priority

actions to address threats to, and provide substantial benefits for MSES. Substantial benefits are

achieved by providing landscape scale benefits for those matters, or if the matter is localised,

improved outcomes compared to a traditional land-based offset. Research and education can be

included but form no greater than 10% of the package, unless otherwise agreed. Examples of DBMP

actions are:

Enhancing, restoring and establishing key habitat across multiple tenures or properties;

Protecting and restoring significant freshwater, marine or estuarine ecosystems;

Threat mitigation activities such as weed or feral animal control on a landscape or multiple

property scale;

Research programs that are consistent with published recovery plans, conservation advice

statements or government/community established programs; and

Landscape scale fire management activities.

In electing to provide an offset (or part of) through a DBMP, the proponent will need to include the

approved DBMP that relates to the MSES, in an offset delivery plan outlining how the actions will be


5-99

implemented and demonstration of how proposed actions are additional to existing activities, are

cost effective, and will provide a conservation outcome.

5.10.4 Significant Impact Assessments

This section summarises the analysis that has been completed to determine the MSES that are

known and likely to occur in the Project site, and whether the Project will have a ‘significant, residual

impact’ to MSES. MSES are prescribed environmental matters defined in Schedule 2 of the

Environmental Offsets Regulation 2014. This section summarises the significant impact

assessments that have been completed to identify whether the Project will have a significant,

residual impact to MNES or MSES, which are then required to be offset.

5.10.4.1 MNES Confirmed within the Project Area

An assessment of the impacts to MNES has been carried out using the Significant Impact Guidelines

1.1 (DotE, 2013). The results of the assessment are located in Chapter 7 – MNES and summarised in

Appendix C. The assessment of impacts to MNES is as follows:

No TECs listed under the EPBC Act have been identified within or adjacent to the Project site;

No listed flora species were confirmed, however one orchid species, Chocolate Tea Tree Orchid

listed as Vulnerable under the EPBC Act is identified as likely to occur within the Project site;

Two terrestrial threatened fauna species listed as Vulnerable under the EPBC Act have been

recorded during surveys or are likely to occur within the Project site – Palm Cockatoo

(Australian) and Black-footed Tree-rat (north Queensland). Palm Cockatoo was listed under the

EPBC Act in October 2015. The Project was listed as a ‘controlled action’ by DotE in September

2015 prior to the listing of Palm Cockatoo and as such, the species is not required to be

considered further;

One terrestrial threatened fauna species listed as Vulnerable under the NC Act (Migratory under

the EPBC Act) known to occur within the Project site – Estuarine Crocodile;

Nine marine threatened fauna species listed as Critically Endangered, Endangered or

Vulnerable under the NC Act and/or EPBC Act have been recorded during previous surveys or

are considered likely to occur within the Project site:

Five threatened marine turtle species

Australian Snubfin Dolphin and Australian Humpbacked Dolphin

Three sawfish species and Speartooth Shark

Dugong (Refer Chapter 6 – Marine Ecology)Nine avian species listed as Migratory under the

EPBC Act have been recorded, or are likely to occur, in the Project area (refer to Table 5-9);

Two marine fauna species listed only as Migratory under the EPBC Act have been recorded, or

are likely to occur, in the Project area (refer Chapter 6 – Marine Ecology).

Under the assessment for potential significant impacts to MNES (refer Chapter 7 - MNES) no

significant residual impacts have been predicted on matters of MNES and therefore no offsets are

proposed under the EPBC Act.


5-100

5.10.4.2 MSES Confirmed within the Project Area

This section summarises the analysis that has been completed to determine the MSES that are

known or likely to occur in the Project area, and whether the Project will have a ‘significant, residual

impact’ to MSES. MSES are prescribed environmental matters defined in Schedule 2 of the

Environmental Offsets Regulation 2014. An assessment of the impacts to MSES fauna known or likely

to occur on the site under the Significant Residual Impact Guideline is presented in Section 5.9.3.1

(SoQ, 2014).

The remaining MSES impacts have then been assessed for significance in detail in the Biodiversity

Offsets Strategy (refer Table 4-3, Appendix C) guided by the Significant Residual Impact Guideline,

2014. Table 5-18 summarises the predicted impacts to MSES of the Project.

Table 5-18 Impacts to MSES as a result of clearing

MSES Trigger VM Act or NC Act

Status

Direct Impact

Area of Estimated Disturbance

Endangered and OC REs

OC RE 3.3.12 OC 0.6 ha (Southern Haul Road)

Watercourse REs (within a defined distance

from a Strahler stream order)

Stream Order 2 (25m Buffer) RE 3.1.1 - 0.06 ha (Southern Haul Road)

Stream Order 2 (25m Buffer) RE 3.1.1a/3.1.3 - 0.39 ha (Southern Haul Road)

Stream Order 2 (25m Buffer) RE 3.3.22 - 0.28 ha (Southern Haul Road)

Stream Order 3 (50m Buffer) RE 3.1.1a/3.1.3 - 0.05 ha (Barge Loading Facility)

Stream Order 3 (50m Buffer) RE 3.1.1a/3.1.3 - 0.03 ha (Roll on/Roll off Facility)

Total 0.81 ha

Connectivity

The connectivity tool was run and the result

stated there is no significant impact to

connectivity.

- 0

Waterways barrier works – estuary

Major category - 5 - 9.23 ha (Northern Haul Road)

Major category - 5 - 9.64 ha (Southern Haul Road)

Major category - 5 - 1.00 ha (Barge Loading Area)

Major category - 5 - 0.15 ha (Roll on/Roll off Facility)

Major category - 5 - 4.25 ha (Mooring Area)

Total 24.27 ha

Waterways barrier works – stream

Category 1 - Low - 107.65 m

Total 107.65 m

Mapped essential habitat

None - -

Fish habitat areas

None - -

Queensland protected flora trigger area

None - -

Strategic environmental areas

None - -

Vegetation management mapped wetlands

None - -


5-101

Wetland Areas HES

Wetland Management Area (HES) - 0.15 ha (Roll on/Roll off Facility)

Wetland Management Area (HES) - 9.57 ha (Southern Haul Road)

Wetland Management Area (HES) - 9.23 ha (Northern Haul Road)

Wetland Management Area (HES) - 0.25 ha (Barge Loading Area)

Total 19.20 ha

Wetland protection area trigger

None - -

Endangered and Vulnerable fauna species

Black-footed Tree-rat V (EPBC Act

Assessed as MNES (refer Chapter 7). No

significant residual impacts have been

confirmed.

Beach Stone-curlew V

Assessed as MSES (refer Table 5.14). No


confirmed.

Estuarine Crocodile V

Assessed as MSES (refer Table 5.14). No


confirmed.

Endangered and Vulnerable flora species

Chocolate Tea Tree Orchid V

Assessed as MNES (refer Chapter 7). No


confirmed.

Marine plants

RE3.1.1 Closed forest of Rhizophora stylosa ±

Bruguiera gymnorhiza. Occurs as outer

mangroves.

7.89ha (Northern Haul Road)

1.85ha (Southern Haul Road)

Total: 9.74 ha

RE3.1.1/3.1.3 Closed forest of Rhizophora

stylosa ± Bruguiera gymnorhiza. / Ceriops

tagal ± Avicennia marina low closed forest.

Extensive on intertidal area.

0.25 ha (Barge Loading Area)

0.15 ha (Roll on/Roll off Facility)

2.83 ha (Northern Haul Road)

7.49 ha (Southern Haul Road)

Total: 10.72 ha

RE3.1.6 Sparse herbland or bare saltpans.

Associated with salt plains and saline flats 0.25 ha (Southern Haul Road)

Seagrass communities 0.0 ha#

Total 20.75 ha

Existing offset areas

None - #To be confirmed as existing mapping shows no seagrass. Detailed surveys for the presence of seagrass within the

proposed BLF footprint are yet to be undertaken.

5.10.5 Offset Delivery Evaluation

Based on the biodiversity values required to be offset an evaluation of the factors that influence the

preferred offset delivery approach has been undertaken. The following describes key

considerations that have been taken into account:

The Project is within the Cape York Peninsula bioregion, and Weipa Plateau sub-region. The subregion is highly vegetated with 97.4% consisting of remnant vegetation. Vegetation is predominantly eucalypt and Melaleuca woodlands with Darwin Stringybark as the dominant species. This is also the dominant ecological community on the Project site. Offsetting with non-remnant or regrowth vegetation is highly constrained. A land-based offset is likely to consist of


5-102

remnant vegetation, where the vegetation contains the biodiversity attributes required to be offset, and conservation gains are achieved through improved land management practices to increase habitat quality and reduce threats (e.g. weed management, pest animal management and fire management).

The range of biodiversity values required to be offset include of concern RE consisting of Melaleuca wetlands, estuarine wetlands, riparian vegetation and marine plants including mangroves, saltflats and seagrass. Across the Cape York bioregion and Weipa Plateau sub-region land clearing is a minor threat to the longevity of these values. In particular there are extensive areas of estuarine wetlands including mangroves in the local area (approximately 732 km2 within the Weipa Plateau subregion) (Wetland Info, 2016) that are not under threat from development and are in good ecological condition.

Key natural resource management issues in Cape York include introduced pest fauna species, weeds and fire. Feral pigs are of particular concern in the region due to their impacts on riparian and wetland vegetation, and on turtle nesting sites. Feral pigs are responsible for high levels of nest-predation of some marine turtle species, such as Flatback Turtle (Natator depressus), with 90% of nests predated in west Cape York (Cape York Turtle and Dugong Taskforce, 2013). Four pest fauna species were recorded during ecology surveys for the Project, including feral pig, feral cat, feral dog/dingo and cane toads.

Therefore the offset package needs to take into consideration for each offset value, what are the key threatening processes and the scale, intensity and duration of the impact. Then propose offset measures that can reduce those threats, and deliver a conservation outcome that improves or maintains the viability of the offset value.

Approximately half of the bioregion is used for pastoralism. Land tenure in Cape York is either leasehold land, owned by traditional owner groups or under mining leases. In the Project area land is owned and managed by Mapoon Aboriginal Shire Council. Therefore legally securing land on the title for offsets would need to be supported by the landowner or lease-holder.

Offsetting marine plant communities, such as mangroves, can present challenges when looking at direct, land based offsets. These communities are in tidal areas and predominantly under State ownership and management. In these remote regions they also have limited impact and under few threats. Therefore flexibility in offset actions needs to be granted through use of compensatory measures that have a positive impact on these estuarine ecosystems and species they support.

There are significant opportunities to deliver social and environmental co-benefits with offsets for this Project. Indigenous people play a vital role in managing large proportions of the land and sea on Cape York. There are a number of existing natural resource management programs being implemented in the local region. Some of these are administered by government and others by Traditional Owner groups. The Cape York NRM Group has prepared a ‘Cape York NRM Regional Investment Strategy 2013-2018’. This resulted in an overall program logic for five themes, (fire, water, soils, livelihoods and integrated pest management). Metro Mining wants to ensure that resources and funding invested towards biodiversity offsets for the Project are maximised by supplementing existing programs where possible.

Metro Mining is currently in consultations with the Mapoon Land and Sea Rangers. The Mapoon Land and Sea Rangers started in 2008/2009. The team has a ranger coordinator, senior rangers and seven rangers - three women and four men. The Ranger Base is located at the Jean Jimmy Centre next to the Council in Mapoon. The Rangers look after 183,000 ha of traditional lands including 70 km of coastline and three main river catchments. Metro Mining is committed to working with this group and providing them with support to achieve improvements to natural resource management outcomes in the Mapoon region.


5-103

5.10.6 EPBC Act Offset Requirements

The Project has been identified through the environmental impact assessment process as not having

a ‘significant’ impact on MNES including marine and terrestrial species and communities (refer to

Chapter 7 – Matters of National Environmental Significance, Appendix B1 - Terrestrial Ecology

Technical Report, Appendix B2 - Aquatic Ecology Technical Report and Appendix B3 - Marine

Ecology and Coastal Processes). Therefore no offsets are proposed under the EPBC Act

Environmental Offsets Policy, Oct 2012. However, it should be recognised the proposed offset

delivery approach for MSES will provide significant conservation benefits for MNES, including

marine and migratory species.

5.10.7 Queensland Offset Requirements

Three primary options are provided for offset delivery. These are:

Financial settlement offsets;

Land-based offsets; and

Direct benefit management plans.

Further information on the offset delivery options is presented below.

5.10.7.1 Financial Settlement

All MSES proposed to be offset can be acquitted by a financial settlement. The online financial

payment calculator has been applied based on the MSES required to be offset, and extent of impact

with a final calculated figure of approximately $4.5 million. The breakdown of the estimated

financial payments are summarised in Appendix A of the Biodiversity Offsets Strategy (Appendix C).

5.10.7.2 Land-based Offsets

Land based offsets are generally a vegetated area that contains the prescribed MSES to be offset, is

legally secured on title, and actively managed to improve condition and reduce threats. This is an

option being explored by Metro Mining. However as noted previously the loss of vegetation is not a

major threat in the region. Threats are primarily from feral animals, weeds, fire and land use that

reduces habitat quality and impacts on a species ability to breed such as feral pig predation on turtle

eggs and a loss of hollows from fire.

Legally securing areas will also require the landowner’s consent.

Where the biggest conservation gains can be achieved is through the reduction of threatening

processes at a broader landscape scale that will provide a direct, tangible benefit to the offset values.

It should also involve local Traditional Owners who currently manage vast areas of this region to

support them and increase their participation in these conservation measures and outcomes. The

land based offset measures not only would look to reduce threats but improve condition of

ecosystems and increase species survival rates. The offset package could include a combination of

land-based offsets and in-direct compensatory measures.

Direct Benefit Management Plans

Metro Mining are exploring this offset delivery option. The DBMP will provide greater flexibility to

use a combination of direct and compensatory measures in an offset package. It will describe the

environmental programs and actions proposed to be implemented (supported in-kind or funded)


5-104

by Metro Mining for the life of the Project and what conservation benefits they will achieve. The

information to be provided will be guided by the EHP ‘DBMP Checklist.’

Further consultation will occur with regulators and stakeholder groups during the EIS public

consultation period to discuss the DBMP approach and discuss the suitability of the proposed

actions, funding and roles and responsibilities that would be required.

The intent is that these programs will focus on the biodiversity values required to be offset (e.g. Of

Concern RE 3.3.12, riparian vegetation, wetlands and mangroves/saltpans) and where possible

enhance existing environmental programs to maximise conservation gains that can be achieved, and

support local Traditional Owner groups such as the Mapoon Land and Sea Rangers. Key biodiversity

issues include feral animal control (including reducing predation on marine turtle eggs), fire

management, conserving migratory bird habitats and ghost nets. Initial recommendations are

outlined in Table 5-19.

Table 5-19 Potential offset actions

MSES Offset Value Offset Approach

Of Concern RE 3.3.12

(M. quinquenervia open forest

associated with scattered

coastal swamps)

Palustrine wetlands of HES

Metro Mining are evaluating any available land based offset provisions for Of

Concern RE 3.3.12. If available, the offset would need to be approximately 2.4ha (1:4

ratio) and located outside of any MLAs. Management would include weed

management, feral animal control program and fire management.

To supplement this land based offset Metro Mining are proposing to actively

manage and conduct ongoing ecological monitoring of Big Footprint Swamp. This

palustrine wetland includes an area of Of Concern RE 3.3.12 of 19ha in size.

Management for the duration of the Project will include eradication of weeds, feral

animals particularly targeting feral pigs, implement an appropriate fire regime and

an ecological monitoring program. Discussions with Old Mapoon Aboriginal Council

will be held regarding these proposed measures and the area over which they will

occur.

The purpose of these management actions will be to maintain and enhance the

condition of vegetation and habitats, reduce threatening processes, and learn more

about the flora and fauna species that reside in these wetlands. A monitoring

program for Big Footprint Swamp will include monitoring groundwater, native

vegetation extent, diversity and condition (through BioCondition assessments),

fauna species present, and seek to identify any changes that occur over time.

HES Wetlands and

Watercourse vegetation

Metro Mining would like to work in collaboration with the Mapoon Land and Sea

Rangers to conduct a landscape scale fire management and feral animal control

program to enhance the conservation and regeneration of native vegetation

communities and also reduce the likelihood of hot damaging wildfires. This will

also have a conservation benefit for fauna and flora species, as it will protect fire

sensitive communities such as Melaleuca from damaging hot fires, and protect old

hollow bearing trees in which fauna species nest.

This will include wetlands and riparian areas within and adjacent to the Project site

(e.g. Big Footprint Swamp and vegetation adjacent to Skardon River). Feral pig

control will reduce degradation of riparian vegetation and wetlands and improve

water quality. Controlling foxes and feral cats will also reduce predation on native

animals.

This action would result in conservation outcomes for a much larger area, than

limiting the offset to only a small area of riparian vegetation and wetlands.

Mangroves It is proposed that some flexibility be provided when looking to offset impacts to

mangroves. There are large areas of mangroves remaining in the Skardon River and

broader region in good condition that are not under threat predominantly due to

the remoteness of this region.


5-105


Therefore Metro Mining are looking to put their offset investment into providing a

conservation outcome for marine turtles which utilise the estuarine environments

in the Project’s local area. Marine turtles are under significant threat from issues

such as nest predation and ghost nets. Metro Mining are investigating supporting

the following programs:

Support Mapoon Land and Sea Rangers Annual Turtle Camp: Mapoon Land

and Sea Rangers complete an annual Turtle Camp on Flinders Beach working

with EHP staff. Flinders Beach is a remote beach 25km in length that runs from

Janie Creek to Pennefather River on western Cape York. Rangers spend

approximately 3 weeks on the beach removing Ghost Nets and Ropes, foreign

timbers, marine debris and monitoring turtle nest predation.

In 2014 over 500 nests were recorded and monitored. Data collected included,

predation rates and what the predators were, hatchling emergence rates as

well as egg numbers and size. Two Olive Ridley turtles were tagged with

satellite trackers to follow their journey from Mapoon to their feeding grounds.

Mapoon Turtle Camp has been operating for many years and a large amount of

coordination and resources are needed to ensure the success of the camp.

Metro Mining are investigating providing support in the way of hosting rangers

in accommodation, providing meals, allowing access through the mine lease, as

well as support to barge vehicles etc. Additional resources may also be made

available.

Provide an annual financial contribution to the Western Cape Turtle Threat

Abatement Alliance (WCTTAA) Nest to Ocean Turtle Protection Program: The

alliance was formally established in May 2013 following 12 months of regional

discussions for the future of turtle management on Cape York. Land and Sea

Managers recognised that local coordination led to effective outcomes for

turtle conservation and would be further enhanced by regional coordination.

WCTTAA’s vision is “to seek to efficiently manage threats to coastal habitats

and enhance opportunities for nesting marine turtle populations of the

Western Cape”. The mission of WCTTAA states they are “a partnership of on

ground land and sea owners and managers, formed to set priorities, seek

solutions and share knowledge to maximise the use of resources for coastal

management on Western Cape York.”

The Queensland and Commonwealth governments have each committed

matching funds of up to $3.5 million over the next four years to the ‘Nest to

Ocean Turtle Protection Program’ to help reduce the threat of feral predation

on marine turtle nests. Approximately $5 million remains for investment in

predator control programs that will develop collaborative partnerships across

governments and the community to enhance the incubation success of turtle

eggs in Queensland. An opportunity exists for Metro Mining to contribute

financially or in kind to this scheme.

Salt pans It is proposed that some flexibility is provided when looking to offset impacts to

salt pans. There are large areas of saltpans in the local area that are in good

condition and not under significant threat predominantly due to the remoteness of

this region. Therefore Metro Mining are looking to put their offset investment into

conserving shorebirds which utilise salt pans for foraging and breeding habitat.

Metro Mining are investigating supporting the following program:

Support nomination for East Asian – Australasian Flyway Site Network

Mapoon Shire Council is working to have a migratory shorebird area nominated

in the East Asian – Australasian Flyway Site Network. The area extends from

Skardon River in the north, south to Pennefather River and takes in Port

Musgrave. This is an important shorebird area containing extensive areas of

migratory bird habitats. This is a non-legal, collaborative project involving over


5-106


90 sites across thirteen countries. The Flyway Site Network has been operating

since 1996 and it is now supported by the East Asian – Australasian Flyway

Partnership.

The Flyway Site Network represents a unique opportunity for Site Managers in

the Flyway to work together to achieve more effective conservation and

protection of migratory waterbirds. The Network provides for internationally

important sites to be included in a broad-based conservation arrangement

across the Flyway. Through the Flyway Site Network, national governments,

site managers and local stakeholders can work cooperatively to achieve

positive conservation outcomes to protect migratory waterbirds.

Site Managers are expected to ensure that the waterbird values of their site are

maintained and enhanced where possible. Recognising that waterbird values

are one of the range of management objectives for a site, managers are

expected to encourage the adoption of sustainable land use practises at the

site with the range of stakeholders including local communities, industries and

governments. Opportunities to work with other Site Managers in the

conservation of shared species will also be an important aspect of the

management of the site.

Sawfish and Speartooth Shark

While offsets are not required, Metro Mining are exploring the potential to

contribute to a broader project in the region that will support the sawfish and

Speartooth Shark. Whilst not confirmed, these species may occur in the Skardon

River and they are an important group of species in the region in which the Project

will be operating. Further evaluation for this Project will be explored during the EIS

assessment phase.

5.10.8 Next Steps

During the Project’s EIS public consultation phase further consultation with stakeholders and

government agencies will occur to discuss the possibility for an offset package to consist of a

combination of direct and compensatory measures. These natural resource management programs

will be conducted in the local region in collaboration with local indigenous groups and traditional

owners to provide both conservation and social outcomes.

Following endorsement of the Biodiversity Offsets Strategy and Project approvals being issued,

Metro Mining will prepare a DBMP and Offsets Delivery Plan that sets out the proposed offset

actions for approval by EHP. The documents will be approved by EHP prior to Project

commencement.

Metro Mining is seeking that the Project’s EA conditions will include that significant, residual MSES

impacts be offset. A condition of approval will be to submit a DBMP and Offset Delivery Plan to the

Chief Executive at least three months prior to Project commencement.

For further details on this assessment refer to the Biodiversity Offsets Strategy Report (Appendix

C).


5-107

5.11 Qualitative Risk Assessment

A qualitative risk assessment associated with potential terrestrial and freshwater ecological impacts

is summarised in Table 5-20. An analysis of initial risk, without mitigation, was considered for

terrestrial and freshwater ecology. The residual risk considers the mitigation and management

measures developed for this element and put forward in this assessment.

Table 5-20 Qualitative risk assessment - terrestrial and freshwater ecology

Potential Impacts

Init

ial

Co

nse

qu

en

ce

Init

ial

Like

liho

od

Init

ial

Ris

k

Management and Mitigation Measures

Re

sid

ual

Ris

k

Land clearance and habitat loss

Moderate Almost Certain

Extreme

Minimise vegetation clearance along

drainage features;

Have a qualified spotter-catcher

available for clearing activities (prior to

and during);

Site Environmental Representative will

be notified and keep records of all

fauna encountered during clearing and

injuries;

Establish Rehabilitation Management

Plan for progressive rehabilitation of

mined areas; Seed sourced for rehabilitation locally;

and Rehabilitation and adjacent

undisturbed habitat to incorporate the

provision of nest hollows and

microhabitat features.

High

Habitat fragmentation Minor Unlikely Low

Avoid regional-significant biodiversity

corridors to the south and north; Minimising clearing of riparian

vegetation as much as possible where

unavoidable (haul roads);

Retain buffers to riparian vegetation;

and Fauna crossing structures to assist

movement of fauna between habitats

including culverts and arboreal fauna

structures where practicable.

Low

Fauna mortality from land clearing and vehicle collisions

Moderate Possible High

Establish Significant Species

Management Plan and incorporate

translocation processes for clearing;

Have a qualified spotter-catcher

available during clearing activities;

Implement speed limits;

Fauna crossing structures to assist

movement of fauna between habitats

where practicable; and

Avoid riparian corridors and wetlands.

Medium


5-108

Potential Impacts

Init

ial

Co

nse

qu

en

ce

Init

ial

Like

liho

od

Init

ial

Ris

k


Re

sid

ual

Ris

k

Change in feeding and breeding behaviours of nocturnal fauna as a result of increased noise

Minor Possible Medium

Minimise construction activities after

nightfall;

Operational procedures introduced to

reduce noise; and Refer to Chapter 13 – Noise and

Vibration.

Low

Disrupted fauna feeding behaviour due to light spill

Moderate Unlikely Medium

Lights directed away from bushland

where practicable;

Lighting will be limited to only that

which is essential;

Ground-level path lighting will be used,

where practicable; and

Intense lights, or cluster of light, will be

avoided, where practicable.

Low

Smothering plants due to increased dust

Minor Likely Medium

Dust suppression methods

implemented including regular

watering of active mining areas,

stockpiles, overburden and haul roads;

Appropriate management of

overburden; and

Refer to Chapter 12 – Air Quality.

Low

Altered ecosystems as a result of fires

Major Possible High

Retain vegetation on site for fuel load

and conduct appropriate fire regimes;

and Develop and implement a site specific

Fire Management Plan.

Medium

Introduction and spread of weeds and introduction of pests

Moderate Possible High

Develop and implement a site specific

Weed and Pest Management Plan;

Monitor management measures;

Appropriate disposal and management

of wastes; and

Refer to Chapter 8 – Biosecurity.

Low

Reduced water quality and surface water inflows to the swamps and wetland associated with the Skardon River


Apply buffer zones to watercourses;

Implement suitable spill containment

around potential pollutant stores;

Prepare a site Erosion and Sediment

Control Plan (ESCP);

Stormwater from mining operations

directed to sediment ponds;

Implement a site Surface Water

Management Plan;

Implement a Receiving Environment

Monitoring Program (REMP) including

water quality monitoring program; and

Refer to Chapter 9 – Water Quality.

Low


5-109

Potential Impacts

Init

ial

Co

nse

qu

en

ce

Init

ial

Like

liho

od

Init

ial

Ris

k


Re

sid

ual

Ris

k

Change in water levels and impacts downstream as a result of Project activities

Minor Unlikely Low

Develop a REMP; and

Monitor Big Footprint Swamp annually;

and

Where unacceptable risks are identified

apply direct intervention/s in an

adaptive management program (within

REMP).

Low

Impacts on groundwater


Establish Groundwater Monitoring and

Management Plan; and

Refer to Chapter 10 – Water Resources.

Low

Erosion and sediment runoff

Moderate Unlikely Medium

Project will not operate during the wet

season;

Maintain a buffer around riparian

vegetation in accordance with relevant

guidelines; and

Prepare an ESCP which incorporates

rehabilitation monitoring and trials.

Low

5.12 Summary

The study area is located largely on the Weipa Plateau subregion of the Cape York Peninsula

Bioregion and occupies part of the Skardon River catchment draining westward into the Gulf of

Carpentaria. A small portion of the Project area lies within Jardine-Pascoes Sandstones subregion.

Mining and cattle grazing are the predominant post-European settlement land uses in the

immediate vicinity of the Project, however the majority of the Project area and surrounds retains

extensive remnant vegetation cover.

The Project area is located in the Skardon River catchment, or drainage sub-basin. While the

Skardon River is perennial, many associated watercourses within the Project area are ephemeral

and flow only after sustained or intense rainfall. The Skardon River catchment is part of the broader

Skardon River-Cotterell River wetland aggregation, which is listed under the DIWA. The majority of

the aggregation occurs north of the Skardon River and Project area, however wetlands associated

with the aggregation do occur within the Project area and MLAs, and overlap some of the

infrastructure footprint (haul roads and barge loading facility).

The Project area supports a relatively low diversity of vegetation communities and terrestrial flora

and fauna species. The Project is predicted to clear approximately 1,466 ha of remnant vegetation.

Clearing is dominated by least concern RE 3.5.2 (approximately 97.5% of all clearing). While two

REs listed as Of Concern under the VM Act were mapped in the Project area, only RE 3.3.12 will be

impacted by the Project with an impact of 0.6 ha. No Commonwealth-listed Threatened Ecological

Communities occur in or near the Project area.

Other key areas of remnant and riparian vegetation associated with the Skardon River, and Skardon

River-Cotterell River Aggregation occur in the Project area, but not within the mining footprints.

Remnant vegetation in the Project area has linkages to recognised regionally significant biodiversity

corridors. Intact landscape-scale linkages will remain around the Project area.

One threatened flora species, Chocolate Tea Tree Orchid, listed as Vulnerable (under the NC Act and

EPBC Act) is considered likely to occur in the Project area. The Project will have negligible impact


5-110

on suitable habitat for this species as its preferred Melaleuca swamp habitat lies outside of the

Project footprint for the most part

Listed fauna species observed in the Project area and surrounds during site surveys for the Project

and the adjacent SRBP include Palm Cockatoo and Black-footed Tree-rat (both listed as Vulnerable

under the EPBC Act), Beach Stone-curlew and Estuarine Crocodile (both listed as Vulnerable under

the NC Act) and several bird species listed as Migratory (under the EPBC Act). Suitable habitat for

Palm Cockatoo and Black-footed Tree-rat occurs within the Darwin Stringybark woodland that will

be most impacted by the vegetation clearing. This community is widespread in the local region with

more than 44,000 ha occurring within a 20 km radius of the site. With abundant similar habitat

surrounding the Project and appropriate mitigation measures applied to the Project significant

impacts are not expected to these species.

Key habitat resources for fauna identified through the assessment include permanent water sources

associated with riparian corridors and wetlands of the Skardon River-Cotterell River Aggregation,

and large tracts of contiguous remnant vegetation to the south and east of the Project area. In

particular wetland areas to the north and west of the Project area (including Big Footprint Swamp)

were observed to support a relatively high diversity of fauna species, when compared to the

dominant Darwin Stringybark community.

Key habitat for aquatic fauna identified through the assessment include permanent water sources

associated with riparian corridors and wetlands of the Skardon River-Cotterell River Aggregation -

in particular Big Footprint Swamp located adjacent to the west of the Project area presented

perennial wetland conditions. The Project area supports a relatively low diversity of aquatic flora

and fauna species, largely due to the ephemeral nature of the watercourses within the Project area.

No threatened aquatic species were recorded during the surveys and none are predicted as likely to

occur within the Project area.

The Project will result in no removal of permanent water sources but will result in minor areas of

riparian habitat being removed and up to 21 ha of mangrove and intertidal areas being lost to

accommodate haul roads and the proposed barge loading facility on the Skardon River. Big

Footprint Swamp will be potentially impacted by an increase of groundwater flows during mining

operations, followed by a possible very slight decrease of groundwater flows following mining

operations. During mining activities the size and depth of water in Big Footprint Swamp is likely to

increase, returning to close to baseline conditions at the completion of mining.

The mitigation measures proposed as part of the Project will minimise additional indirect impacts

to terrestrial fauna and flora communities within and surrounding the Project area from

construction and operational activities. These measures include fauna crossing infrastructure to

minimise fauna traffic collisions along the transport corridor and a detailed ecological monitoring

program to monitor the health of vegetation and fauna communities adjacent to the Project for

indirect impacts such as dust and surface water contamination. With control measures in place

indirect impacts to fauna and flora are not expected to be significant. Buffer zones will be placed

around sensitive areas including riparian habitat and Big Footprint Swamp. Surface water flows and

water quality will be the subject of a Project-specific Receiving Environment Management Plan that

includes annual monitoring of Big Footprint Swamp.

To fully address the Projects offset requirements a Biodiversity Offsets Strategy Report that details

the Project’s estimated extent of significant, residual impacts to MNES and MSES has been prepared

and is included as Appendix C.


5-111

5.13 Commitments

In managing potential impacts to terrestrial and aquatic ecology Metro Mining’s commitments are

provided in Table 5-21.

Table 5-21 Commitments – terrestrial and aquatic ecology

Commitments

To the extent possible, minimise all disturbance associated with the Project.

A site Rehabilitation Management Plan will be developed which incorporates rehabilitation monitoring and trials and use of native species for rehabilitation. Monitoring results will be reviewed to assess trends and rehabilitation effectiveness.

A Significant Species Management Plan will be put in place prior to Project construction.

A Vegetation Clearing Plan will be prepared prior to the commencement of construction.

A Receiving Environment Monitoring Program will be developed and implemented and will incorporate measures to monitor water levels and quality and Big Footprint Swamp (including the monitoring of management measures to mitigate impacts from prolonged inundation of melaleuca sp.).

Develop and implement a Surface Water Management Plan.

Develop and implement a Project-specific Fire Management Plan.

Develop and implement a Project-specific Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. The conceptual ESCP is included at Appendix A3.

Develop and implement a Project-specific Pest and Weed Management Plan.

Submit a Project Biodiversity Offsets Plan to EHP a minimum of three months prior to Project commencement. The

Biodiversity Offsets Strategy Report is included at Appendix C.

Vegetation clearing for the Project will only be carried out in the dry season.

Prior to any vegetation clearing an ecological pre-clearance survey will be undertaken, and during clearing fauna spotters will be present to identify any fauna, breeding places, or relocate fauna where possible.

Where clearing of riparian vegetation or within identified wetland areas cannot be avoided, this will be minimised to the greatest extent possible including investigation of alternate siting of haul road crossings.

Include fauna crossing structures (such as culverts) in Project construction design where practicable to assist movement of fauna between habitats and reduce road mortality.

The on-site Environmental Representative will be notified of any injured native fauna and will be trained to treat these animals accordingly.

Large, hollow-bearing trees will be selectively felled ahead of general clearing and will be relocated within the rehabilitation areas to provide immediate breeding and nesting locations for some species.

Use of fallen logs and rocks will be put into adjacent habitats to retain fauna micro-habitats in the surrounding area.

The total area of disturbance will be minimised at any particular time and progressive rehabilitation will be implemented over the life of the Project.

Maintenance of retained areas of existing vegetation surrounding Project activities to assist in providing a source of seed for mine rehabilitation works.

Speed restrictions will be imposed on the haul roads.

Buffers zones to watercourses have been mapped in accordance with the defined distances as stipulated under the

Environmental Offsets Policy 2014 for the Cape York Peninsula Bioregion. Buffers will be retained on designated sensitive

environmental areas including:




It is proposed that a minimum 100m buffer width is maintained between mining pits and designated wetlands (i.e. Big

Footprint Swamp).

Project lighting will be assessed to minimise potential impacts on native fauna, including being directed away from adjacent bushland areas and will include installation of light shields where required.


5-112

5.14 ToR Cross-reference

Table 5-22 ToR cross-reference – flora and fauna

Terms of Reference Section of the EIS

8.2 Land, Flora and Fauna (critical matter)

Objectives and performance outcomes

The environmental objectives to be met under the EP Act are that the:

activity is operated in a way that protects the environmental values of land including soils, subsoils, landforms and associated flora and fauna

Objectives and outcomes have been listed in Section 5.4 as per the ToR

choice of the site, at which the activity is to be carried out, minimises serious environmental harm on areas of high conservation value and special significance and sensitive land uses at adjacent places

location for the activity on a site protects all environmental values relevant to adjacent sensitive use

design of the facility permits the operation of the site, at which the activity is to be carried out, in accordance with best practice environmental management

avoids significant residual impacts to matters of national and state environmental significance; mitigates impacts where they cannot be avoided and offsets any residual impacts.

The performance outcomes corresponding to these objectives are in Schedule 5, Tables 1 and 2 of the EP Regulation. The proponent should supply sufficient evidence (including through studies and proposed management measures) that show these outcomes can be achieved.

Information requirements – Flora and Fauna

8.2.12 Describe the likely impacts on the biodiversity and natural environmental values of affected areas arising from the construction, operation and decommissioning of the project (where known), in accordance with the EHP's EIS information guidelines relevant to terrestrial and aquatic ecology5.

Section 5.7- All and see specific sections listed below for each dot point

Take into account any proposed avoidance and/or mitigation measures. Section 5.9 - All

The assessment should include, but not be limited to, the following key elements:

matters of state environmental significance and national environmental significance

Section 5.6.1.3, 5.6.2.2, 5.6.2.4 and 5.10.4

Chapter 7 – Matters of National Environmental Significance

terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems (including groundwater-dependent ecosystems) and their interaction

Section 5.6.3 and 5.6.2

biological diversity including listed flora and fauna species and regional ecosystems

Section 5.5.4, 5.6.1 and 5.6.2

the integrity of ecological processes, including habitats of threatened, near-threatened or special least concern species, movement corridors and fish passage

Section 5.5.2, 5.6.2.6 and 5.6.3

the integrity of landscapes and places, including wilderness and similar natural places

Section 5.6

chronic, low-level exposure to contaminants or the bio-accumulation of contaminants

Chapter 4 – Land

Chapter 18 – Hazard and Safety

Chapter 19 – Coastal Environment

impacts on marine, terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and associated native flora and fauna due to wastes and pollutants at the site, particularly those related to any form of toxicants in:

EIS Chapter 6 – Marine Ecology for impacts to marine ecosystems


5-113

Terms of Reference Section of the EIS

surface water and groundwater Section 5.7.1.7, 5.7.1.8 and 5.7.1.15 for terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems

natural water courses

stormwater run-off

surface run-off

run-off from any bunded areas holding chemicals and/or sewage treatment plant

run-off from surface spoil

o likely impacts (noise, strikes, habitat disturbance) on estuarine and marine fauna due to shipping/barge movements and/or piling programs for jetties/wharfs etc.


o likely impacts of light spill on adjacent terrestrial and marine ecosystems and fauna


Section 5.7.1.11

o a description of alternative options for the location and construction on haul roads and barge landing that reduce impacts to marines plants and fisheries resources.

Section 2.5 of Chapter 2 – Description of the Project

8.2.13 Describe any actions of the project that require an authority under the Nature Conservation Act 1992, and/or would be assessable development for the purposes of the Vegetation Management Act 19996, the Regional Planning Interests Act 2014, the Fisheries Act 1994 and/or the Sustainable Planning Act 2009.

Table 5-18

8.2.14 Propose practical measures for protecting or enhancing natural values, and assess how the nominated quantitative indicators and standards may be achieved for nature conservation management.

Section 5.9.1.1, 5.9.1.2, 5.11 and Section 4.8.3 of Chapter 4 - Land

In particular, address measures to protect or preserve any threatened or near-threatened species.

Section 5.9.1

8.2.15 Specifically address any obligations imposed by State or Commonwealth legislation or policy or international treaty obligations, such as the China–Australia Migratory Bird Agreement, Japan–Australia Migratory Bird Agreement, or Republic of Korea–Australia Migratory Bird Agreement.

Section 5.6.2.2 and 5.6.2.4

8.2.16 Assess the need for buffer zones and the retention, rehabilitation or planting of movement corridors, and propose measures that would avoid the need for waterway barriers, or propose measures to mitigate the impacts of their construction and operation.

Section 5.9.1.3, 5.9.1.4 and 5.9.2.1

The measures proposed for the progressive rehabilitation of disturbed areas should include rehabilitation success criteria in relation to natural values that would be used to measure the progress.

Section 5.9.1.2 and Section 4.8.3 of Chapter 4 - Land

8.2.17 Describe how the achievement of the objectives would be monitored and audited, and how corrective actions would be managed.

Section 4.8.3 of Chapter 4 - Land

Proposals for the rehabilitation of disturbed areas should incorporate, where appropriate, provision of nest hollows and ground litter.

Section 5.9.1.2 and 5.9.1.3

Section 4.8.3 of Chapter 4 – Land

Offsets

8.2.18 Where Queensland legislation or a specific-issue offset policy requires an offset for a significant residual impact on a particular natural environmental value, the offset proposal(s) shall be presented in a form consistent with relevant legislation and policy.

Section 5.10 and Appendix C - Offsets

8.2.19 The proposed offsets should be consistent with the requirements set out in any applicable legislation or specific-issue offset policies.

Section 5.10 and Appendix C - Offsets

metro mining appendix h2 - metro mining community and … · 2018-08-09 · bauxite hills project...

Documents