3.5 FAUNA SURVEYS - metallicaminerals.com.au · Melaleuca leucadendra. The swamp was completely dry at the time of survey. The trees present generally lacked hollows. A small amount

Radix Doc ID 225501 Page 14

3.5 FAUNA SURVEYS

Fauna surveys catalogued all species of vertebrates other than fish recorded within the UPBP area,with particular focus on detecting species of conservation significance. This was achieved through acombination of trapping, remote-sensory cameras, AnaBat analysis, visual searches and audiosurveys, focusing on habitats considered to be of highest quality.In accordance with Queensland fauna survey guidelines (Eyre et al. 2014) the survey area wasstratified into assessment units of environmentally similar habitats that are expected to support similarsuites of species. This stratification was carried out to ensure that all habitat types were adequatelysampled. The following terrestrial assessment units were identified within the UPBP area:

1) open eucalypt woodland dominated by Eucalyptus tetrodonta on sandy soils (REs 3.2.10,3.5.2, 3.5.22c);

2) closed vine forests (REs 3.2.2a and 3.5.4);3) open grasslands and herbfields on sand dunes and around salt pans (REs 3.1.5, 3.2.25 and

3.3.60b);4) seasonally swampy open forests dominated by Melaleuca spp. and/or Lophostemon

suaveolens (REs 3.2.4, 3.3.9, 3.3.14b, 3.3.42); and5) ephemerally flooded wetlands dominated by the sedge Eleocharis sundaica (RE 3.3.63);6) mangroves in intertidal zones (REs 3.1.1 and 3.1.3).

The Queensland fauna survey guidelines (Eyre et al. 2014) recommend a minimum of three replicatedsurvey sites to be established per assessment unit. These targets were achieved in the surveys withthe following exceptions:

traps could not be installed in flooded wetlands or mangroves due to the potential drowningof fauna; and

small patch size of open grasslands meant only one site could be established in this unit.

A total of 12 systematic fauna survey sites were sampled (six in April 2015 and six in November 2015)(Table 3-1). Within each assessment unit, survey sites were positioned in habitat representing best-on-offer, focussing on areas to be most impacted by proposed mining activities.

Table 3-1 Systematic fauna survey site descriptionsSite Description

A1 Open eucalypt forest

Eucalyptus tetrodonta open forest on old sanddunes (regional ecosystem 3.2.10c). The subcanopycontained Owenia vernicosa, Acacia platycarpa andParinari nonda. The groundcover was a sparse tomid-dense layer of annual grasses such asPseudopogonatherum irritans and Schizachyriumpachyarthron (18% cover of understoreyvegetation). The site had burnt within the previousyear and there were few fallen logs. Rocks wereabsent. The canopy trees contained many hollows.Site A1 represented the most widespread habitat inareas A and B. Sampled in April.


Site Description

A2 Open eucalypt forest

Eucalyptus tetrodonta open forest on old sand dunes(regional ecosystem 3.2.10c). The subcanopy wasdominated by Acacia platycarpa, Erythrophleumchlorostachys and Grevillea glauca. There was a denseshrub layer (~1 m tall) of re-sprouting tree saplings.Otherwise, the ground layer was dominated by theperennial grasses, Heteropogon triticeus and Sargaplumosum (35% cover of understorey vegetation). Thesite had burnt within the last year, and there were fewfallen logs. The canopy trees contained many hollows.Rocks were absent. Site A2 represented the mostwidespread habitat in areas A and B. Sampled in April.

A3 Closed vine forest

Semi-deciduous vine-thicket growing on coastal sanddunes (regional ecosystem 3.2.2a). The low canopy(8-9 m) had a very high total cover (~95%). It wasdominated by a high diversity of rainforest species,including Cryptocarya triplinervis, Gossia floribundaand Aglaia elaeagnoidea. Alstonia actinophylla was anoccasional emergent tree. Vines were abundant. Theunderstorey was relatively open, with a dense cover ofleaf litter. There were few logs and no rocks. Hollowswere scarce within the mostly small canopy trees. SiteA3 represented a limited habitat within Area A, but onethat was located in a narrow band on the landwardside of the mangroves. Sampled in April.

A4 Swamp forest

An ephemeral, wooded swamp dominated byMelaleuca leucadendra. The swamp was completelydry at the time of survey. The trees present generallylacked hollows. A small amount of fallen timberprovided shelter for fauna. Most of the ground wascovered with a thin, dead mat of the sedge Eleocharissundaica. Sampled in November.

A5 Closed vine forest

Semi-deciduous vine-thicket growing on coastal sanddunes (regional ecosystem 3.2.2a). The low canopy(7-8 m) had a high cover (86%). It contained a highdiversity of woody rainforest species, includingStrychnos lucida, Sersalisia sericea, Terminaliasubacroptera and Miliusa traceyi. Bombax ceiba andCorymbia novoguinensis were occasional emergents.The understorey was relatively open, with a densecover of leaf litter. There were few logs and no rocks.This represented one of the few habitats within theUPBP area that did not burn in the four monthspreceding the survey. Sampled in November.


Site Description

A6 Open grassland

Site A6 represented the largest patch of grasslandpresent in the UPBP area. It was dominated byChrysopogon elongatus, and was adjacent to asaltmarsh dominated by Sporobolus virginicus. The sitehad burnt a few months prior to the survey.Vegetation covered 25% of the ground, with theremainder being bare soil. There was a thin (15 cm)layer of peaty topsoil overlying heavy clay subsoil. Thesite is waterlogged during the wet season, but pit falltraps were able to be installed during the dry season.Hoof prints from pigs and cattle created holes thatprovide shelter for fauna. Rocks and litter were absent.The site was near Melaleuca swamps, mangroves andvine thickets, and some of the birds recorded at thesite were calling from these nearby habitats. Sampledin November.

B1 Swamp forest

Open forest dominated by Lophostemon suaveolens,Eucalyptus novoguinensis, Eucalyptus brassiana,Parinari nonda and Erythrophleum chlorostachys, onswampy alluvial terraces (regional ecosystem3.5.22c/3.3.9). Livistona muelleri and Acaciaplatycarpa were common components of themidstorey. The dense understorey (75% cover) wasdominated by the perennial grasses, Mnesithearottboellioides, Chrysopogon setifolius and Eulaliamackinlayi. The site had burnt within the previousyear, and there were few fallen logs. Rocks wereabsent. There was a medium density of tree hollows.Site B1 represented a localised habitat within area B,and was located within 200 m of a large Eleocharissundaica dominated wetland. Sampled in April.

B2 Open eucalypt forest

Eucalyptus tetrodonta open forest on sandy soil(regional ecosystem 3.5.2/3.2.10c). The site had burntwithin the previous year, and there was a high densityof tree saplings in the understorey. Otherwise, theunderstorey was dominated by the grasses, Mnesithearottboelioides, Heteropogon triticeus andPseudopogonatherum irritans. There were few fallenlogs and no rocks. Site B2 represented the dominanthabitat within areas A and B. It was located within 30m of a small, isolated patch of notophyll vine forest.Sampled in April.

B3 Swamp forest

Melaleuca viridiflora dominated ephemeral swampwithin a swale of coastal dunes. The trap site itselfwas located ~10 m from the edge of the swamp,where the soil was less saturated. It was also located~200 m from mangroves, with a matrix of smallswamps and open sand dunes located in between. Thetrap site was located within a dense growth of thegrasses Imperata cylindrica and Mnesithearottboellioides. Site B3 represented a highly localisedhabitat within areas A and B. Sampled in April.


Site Description

B4 Closed vine forest

A small (~1 ha) patch of notophyll vine forestdominated by Myristica insipida, Maranthescorymbosa, Endiandra glauca, Algaia elaeagnoidea,among other species (regional ecosystem 3.5.4). Thetall canopy (15-24 m tall) had a high cover (97%). Theground was dominated by leaf litter. Rocks wereabsent and fallen timber was scarce. The patch wassurrounded by open Eucalyptus tetrodonta forest. Thesite represented the only example of closed vine forestwithin Area B. Sampled in November.


Eucalyptus tetrodonta open forest on sandy loam soil(regional ecosystem 3.5.2). The canopy wasapproximately 20 m tall and contained a few hollows.The subcanopy was dominated by Erythrophleumchlorostachys, Parinari nonda and Planchonia careya.The understorey had burnt a few months prior to thesurvey, although substantial regrowth had occurred.The ground cover comprised 40% litter, 10%vegetation and 50% bare soil. A few fallen logs werepresent, but rocks were absent. Sampled in November.


Eucalyptus tetrodonta open forest on sandy loam soil(regional ecosystem 3.5.2). Corymbia spp. weresubdominant within the canopy. The canopy wasapproximately 18 m tall and contained numeroushollows. The subcanopy was dominated byErythrophleum chlorostachys, Alphitonia excelsa,Planchonia careya and Livistona muelleri. Theunderstorey had burnt a few months prior to thesurvey, although substantial regrowth had occurred.The ground cover comprised 50% litter, 10%vegetation and 40% bare soil. A few fallen logs werepresent, but rocks were absent. Sampled in November.

Employment of a variety of survey methods results in the detection of the greatest diversity of wildlife(Garden et al. 2007). At each systematic fauna survey site, pitfall, Elliott and funnel traps wereinstalled, and birds, diurnal mammals and reptiles were surveyed. The methodology employedfollowed standard survey techniques (Eyre et al. 2014), and are described in detail below.3.5.1 Pitfall Traps

One pitfall trap-line was established at each of the systematic fauna survey sites (Figure 3-3). Eachtrap-line contained five evenly spaced 20L buckets buried flush to the ground, which were connectedby a 40 cm tall drift fence made of aluminium fly-screen. This drift fence was 30 m long. The use of20 L buckets instead of narrower pipes increases capture rates of small vertebrates (Friend et al.1989). The design of this trap-line (i.e., a straight line, with buckets approximately 7.5 m apart) isoptimal for catching the greatest diversity and number of reptiles (Hobbs et al. 1994), despitecontrasting with the t-design suggested in the Queensland fauna survey guidelines (Eyre et al. 2014).

Four pairs of funnel traps were placed at even spacing along each drift fence.

Traps were operational for four consecutive nights per systematic survey site. They were checked andcleared each morning and evening.


3.5.2 Elliott Traps

At each systematic fauna survey site, 20 type-A Elliott traps were placed 5-10 m apart and baited withstandard small mammal mix (peanut butter, oats and honey). Elliott traps were generally arranged intwo parallel lines running either side of the drift fence (approximately 20 m from the drift fence). Theirexact placement targeted habitats of greatest complexity (dense vegetation, fallen timber and rockoutcrops). In addition, three type-B Elliott traps (targeting bandicoots, quolls and large rodents) wereinstalled in the corners of the trap array (refer to Figure 3-3).Each trap was opened late each afternoon, and checked and closed the following morning before 8am. Traps were operational for four nights per site.

3.5.3 Remote-sensory CamerasRemote-sensory camera ‘traps’ were used to complement type-B Elliott traps in an effort to detectmedium-sized and large mammals. At each camera site, one RECONYXTM HC500 HyperFire Semi-covert infra-red camera was attached to a tree trunk at approximately 1.5 m height and angled 45˚towards the ground. Each camera site was operational for 4 consecutive days and nights. Eachcamera was baited with a combination of tinned fish and standard mammal mix (peanut butter, oatsand honey). Eight camera sites were sampling during the survey, spanning a range of habitat types(Table 3-2).

Figure 3-3 Trap array within systematic fauna survey sites

Type A Elliott trapPitfall trapFunnel trap

Legend

Drift fence

Type B Elliott trap8 m

35 m 60 m


Table 3-2 Description of camera sitesSite Habitat Date

CA1 Semi-deciduous vine thicket on sand dunes (regional ecosystem 3.2.2a) 29/4/2015-3/5/2015

CA2 Eucalyptus tetrodonta and Corymbia novoguinenesis open forest with a grassyunderstorey (regional ecosystem 3.2.10c)

29/4/2015-3/5/2015

CA3 Eucalyptus tetrodonta open forest with a grassy understorey (regionalecosystem 3.5.2)

3/5/2015-7/5/2015

CA4 Edge of intertidal mangroves dominated by Ceriops tagal (regional ecosystem3.1.3)

3/5/2015-7/5/2015




21/11/2015-25/11/2015


21/11/2015-25/11/2015

3.5.4 BatsMicrochiropteran bats were censused using two techniques. The first entailed the recording andanalysis of ultrasonic bat calls using an AnaBat Express Bat Detector. The detector was operational forthe entire night, ensuring that recording took place during periods of peak activity. Rather than recordat systematic fauna survey sites as suggested by Eyre et al. (2014), locations for AnaBat recordingwere selected in suitable flyways or near waterbodies where bat activity is typically high (Young andFord 2000). This ensured that a greater number and diversity of bats were sampled. A total of 24 siteswere sampled (Table 3-3), and each site was recorded for one night, with the exception of a swampysite (AB9) that was recorded over two nights. This second night of sampling was included in order toredress the lack of wetland habitat available for sampling on the UPBP.

To complement AnaBat recordings, harp traps were installed within potential flyways to catch low-flying bats. At appropriate sites, a pair of Faunatech two-bank harp traps was installed side by side.Because suitable trapping locations were scarce in the UPBP area (due to the open midstoreyvegetation and inaccessibility of sites near water), this technique was used opportunistically. Harptrapping was conducted at two locations (Table 3-3), and traps were operational for two hours persite (6.45 to 8.45 pm) to limit undue stress to individuals utilising the flyway (Churchill 2008).

Table 3-3 Description of bat sampling sitesSite Habitat Date

AnaBat Sites

AB1 Open forest dominated by Eucalyptus tetrodonta and Corymbia novoguinensis (regionalecosystem 3.2.10c).

30/4/2015


30/4/2015

AB3 Narrow gap within an otherwise dense semi-deciduous vine thicket (regional ecosystem3.2.2a).

1/5/2015

AB4 Narrow band of open forest on sand dunes between semi-deciduous vine thicket(regional ecosystem 3.2.2a) and mangroves (regional ecosystem 3.1.1).

1/5/2015


2/5/2015


2/5/2015

AB7 Open herbfield/grassland on sand dunes, between two small wetlands dominated byEleocharis sundaica.

4/5/2015


AB8 Swampy Eucalyptus tetrodonta, Lophostemon suaveolens and Corymbia novoguinensisopen forest, and a midstorey of Banksia dentata (regional ecosystem 3.5.22c).

4/5/2015

AB9 Melaleuca viridiflora dominated forest at the edge of an extensive flooded wetlanddominated by the sedge, Eleocharis sundaica.

5/5/2015 and

6/5/2015

AB10 Swampy Eucalyptus tetrodonta, Lophostemon suaveolens and Corymbia novoguinensisopen forest, and a midstorey of Banksia dentata (regional ecosystem 3.5.22c).

5/5/2015

AB11 Natural opening in Eucalyptus tetrodonta open forest (regional ecosystem 3.5.2). 6/5/2015

AB12 Chrysopogon elongatus closed tussock grassland on alluvial plains (regional ecosystem3.3.60b).

18/11/2015


18/11/2015


19/11/2015

AB15 Melaleuca leucadendra dominated ephemeral wetland (regional ecosystem 3.3.14b). 19/11/2015


20/11/2015


20/11/2015

AB18 Eucalyptus tetrodonta and Corymbia nesophila woodland on deeply weathered plateausand remnants (regional ecosystem 3.5.2).

21/11/2015


21/11/2015

AB20 Open forest to woodland dominated by Melaleuca spp. +/- Xanthostemon crenulatus orLophostemon suaveolens (regional ecosystem 3.2.4)

22/11/2015


22/11/2015


23/11/2015


23/11/2015


24/11/2015


24/11/2015

Harp Trap Sites

HT1 Open forest dominated by Eucalyptus tetrodonta and Corymbia novoguinensis (regionalecosystem 3.2.10c).

1/5/2015

HT2 Swampy Eucalyptus tetrodonta, Lophostemon suaveolens and Corymbia novoguinensisopen forest, and a midstorey of Banksia dentata (regional ecosystem 3.5.22c).

5/5/2015

3.5.5 BirdsBird species were recorded at each systematic site during the twice-daily visits to check traps. Birdswere identified by sight or from their vocalisations. An area with an approximate radius of 100maround each trap-line was included in these bird censuses. At least 2 hours of survey effort wasdevoted to each site.

In addition to censuses of each systematic fauna survey site, a large number of species were recordedduring targeted searches of the entire UPBP area. These targeted surveys were carried outopportunistically in all regional ecosystems visited by observers with excellent knowledge of bird calls.


Special effort was made to thoroughly search habitats that could not be sampled by systematictrapping (e.g., coastal saltmarshes, mangroves and flooded wetlands).

The timing of surveys was optimal for detecting a broad range of migratory and resident species. It ispossible that some winter visitors (e.g., Satin Flycatcher) may have been missed between the May-October sampling gap; however, there are relatively few species that potentially fall in this category,and the timing of surveys was ideal for detecting summer visitors and passage migrants (many ofwhich are protected under international agreements).

3.5.6 Spot-lightingSpot-lighting was undertaken on foot over four nights. Spot-lighting was undertaken only on calm,warm nights when faunal activity is expected to be highest. Spot-lighting was focused largely on openeucalypt forests (RE 3.2.10), as this was the only habitat type accessible at night via existing drilltracks. In addition, at least one hour each was spent spot-lighting along the edge of the extensivewetland near the southeastern boundary of area B (RE 3.3.63), and within a rainforest patch in thecentre of area B.

3.5.7 Targeted Searches of Shelter SitesInspections of potential shelter sites (e.g., fallen timber, riparian zones) were carried out during theday to search for additional species not recorded using other survey techniques. Targeted searchesalso focused on habitats that could not be sampled using conventional trapping techniques (e.g.,mangroves, wetlands). All species of vertebrate observed opportunistically while travelling around theUPBP area were recorded.3.5.8 Summary of Search effort

The sampling effort across the UPBP surveys is summarised in Table 3-4. Locations of sampling sitesare shown in Figure 3-4.

Table 3-4 Summary of fauna survey effortSurvey technique Fauna targeted Total effort Unit

Pitfall trap Skinks, snakes, pygopods, small goannasfrogs, small mammals 240 Trap-nights

Funnel trap reptiles, frogs 384 Trap-nights

Type A Elliott Trap Small mammals, reptiles 960 Trap-nights

Type B Elliott Trap Medium-sized mammals 144 Trap-nights

Camera trap Medium-sized to large mammals and birds 32 Trap-nights

AnaBat Microchiropteran bats 26 Trap-nights

Harp Trap Microchiropteran bats 4 Hours

Diurnal targeted searches Birds, skinks, snakes 270 Person-hours

Spot-lighting Nocturnal mammals, geckos, owls,nightjars, snakes. 14 Person-hours

AB10AB10AB10AB10AB10AB10AB10AB10AB10AB10AB10AB10AB10AB10AB10AB10AB10AB10AB10AB10AB10AB10AB10AB10AB10AB10AB10AB10AB10AB10AB10AB10AB10AB10AB10AB10AB10AB10AB10AB10AB10AB10AB10AB10AB10AB10AB10AB10AB10CA3CA3CA3CA3CA3CA3CA3CA3CA3CA3CA3CA3CA3CA3CA3CA3CA3CA3CA3CA3CA3CA3CA3CA3CA3CA3CA3CA3CA3CA3CA3CA3CA3CA3CA3CA3CA3CA3CA3CA3CA3CA3CA3CA3CA3CA3CA3CA3CA3

HT2HT2HT2HT2HT2HT2HT2HT2HT2HT2HT2HT2HT2HT2HT2HT2HT2HT2HT2HT2HT2HT2HT2HT2HT2HT2HT2HT2HT2HT2HT2HT2HT2HT2HT2HT2HT2HT2HT2HT2HT2HT2HT2HT2HT2HT2HT2HT2HT2

AB9AB9AB9AB9AB9AB9AB9AB9AB9AB9AB9AB9AB9AB9AB9AB9AB9AB9AB9AB9AB9AB9AB9AB9AB9AB9AB9AB9AB9AB9AB9AB9AB9AB9AB9AB9AB9AB9AB9AB9AB9AB9AB9AB9AB9AB9AB9AB9AB9

B1B1B1B1B1B1B1B1B1B1B1B1B1B1B1B1B1B1B1B1B1B1B1B1B1B1B1B1B1B1B1B1B1B1B1B1B1B1B1B1B1B1B1B1B1B1B1B1B1

B2B2B2B2B2B2B2B2B2B2B2B2B2B2B2B2B2B2B2B2B2B2B2B2B2B2B2B2B2B2B2B2B2B2B2B2B2B2B2B2B2B2B2B2B2B2B2B2B2AB11AB11AB11AB11AB11AB11AB11AB11AB11AB11AB11AB11AB11AB11AB11AB11AB11AB11AB11AB11AB11AB11AB11AB11AB11AB11AB11AB11AB11AB11AB11AB11AB11AB11AB11AB11AB11AB11AB11AB11AB11AB11AB11AB11AB11AB11AB11AB11AB11



CA4CA4CA4CA4CA4CA4CA4CA4CA4CA4CA4CA4CA4CA4CA4CA4CA4CA4CA4CA4CA4CA4CA4CA4CA4CA4CA4CA4CA4CA4CA4CA4CA4CA4CA4CA4CA4CA4CA4CA4CA4CA4CA4CA4CA4CA4CA4CA4CA4




AB5AB5AB5AB5AB5AB5AB5AB5AB5AB5AB5AB5AB5AB5AB5AB5AB5AB5AB5AB5AB5AB5AB5AB5AB5AB5AB5AB5AB5AB5AB5AB5AB5AB5AB5AB5AB5AB5AB5AB5AB5AB5AB5AB5AB5AB5AB5AB5AB5HT1HT1HT1HT1HT1HT1HT1HT1HT1HT1HT1HT1HT1HT1HT1HT1HT1HT1HT1HT1HT1HT1HT1HT1HT1HT1HT1HT1HT1HT1HT1HT1HT1HT1HT1HT1HT1HT1HT1HT1HT1HT1HT1HT1HT1HT1HT1HT1HT1

A2A2A2A2A2A2A2A2A2A2A2A2A2A2A2A2A2A2A2A2A2A2A2A2A2A2A2A2A2A2A2A2A2A2A2A2A2A2A2A2A2A2A2A2A2A2A2A2A2

A3A3A3A3A3A3A3A3A3A3A3A3A3A3A3A3A3A3A3A3A3A3A3A3A3A3A3A3A3A3A3A3A3A3A3A3A3A3A3A3A3A3A3A3A3A3A3A3A3


CA2CA2CA2CA2CA2CA2CA2CA2CA2CA2CA2CA2CA2CA2CA2CA2CA2CA2CA2CA2CA2CA2CA2CA2CA2CA2CA2CA2CA2CA2CA2CA2CA2CA2CA2CA2CA2CA2CA2CA2CA2CA2CA2CA2CA2CA2CA2CA2CA2A1A1A1A1A1A1A1A1A1A1A1A1A1A1A1A1A1A1A1A1A1A1A1A1A1A1A1A1A1A1A1A1A1A1A1A1A1A1A1A1A1A1A1A1A1A1A1A1A1

















AB15AB15AB15AB15AB15AB15AB15AB15AB15AB15AB15AB15AB15AB15AB15AB15AB15AB15AB15AB15AB15AB15AB15AB15AB15AB15AB15AB15AB15AB15AB15AB15AB15AB15AB15AB15AB15AB15AB15AB15AB15AB15AB15AB15AB15AB15AB15AB15AB15A4A4A4A4A4A4A4A4A4A4A4A4A4A4A4A4A4A4A4A4A4A4A4A4A4A4A4A4A4A4A4A4A4A4A4A4A4A4A4A4A4A4A4A4A4A4A4A4A4


AB13AB13AB13AB13AB13AB13AB13AB13AB13AB13AB13AB13AB13AB13AB13AB13AB13AB13AB13AB13AB13AB13AB13AB13AB13AB13AB13AB13AB13AB13AB13AB13AB13AB13AB13AB13AB13AB13AB13AB13AB13AB13AB13AB13AB13AB13AB13AB13AB13 A5A5A5A5A5A5A5A5A5A5A5A5A5A5A5A5A5A5A5A5A5A5A5A5A5A5A5A5A5A5A5A5A5A5A5A5A5A5A5A5A5A5A5A5A5A5A5A5A5CA5CA5CA5CA5CA5CA5CA5CA5CA5CA5CA5CA5CA5CA5CA5CA5CA5CA5CA5CA5CA5CA5CA5CA5CA5CA5CA5CA5CA5CA5CA5CA5CA5CA5CA5CA5CA5CA5CA5CA5CA5CA5CA5CA5CA5CA5CA5CA5CA5

A6A6A6A6A6A6A6A6A6A6A6A6A6A6A6A6A6A6A6A6A6A6A6A6A6A6A6A6A6A6A6A6A6A6A6A6A6A6A6A6A6A6A6A6A6A6A6A6A6 AB12AB12AB12AB12AB12AB12AB12AB12AB12AB12AB12AB12AB12AB12AB12AB12AB12AB12AB12AB12AB12AB12AB12AB12AB12AB12AB12AB12AB12AB12AB12AB12AB12AB12AB12AB12AB12AB12AB12AB12AB12AB12AB12AB12AB12AB12AB12AB12AB12




Urquhart PointUrquhart PointUrquhart PointUrquhart PointUrquhart PointUrquhart PointUrquhart PointUrquhart PointUrquhart PointUrquhart PointUrquhart PointUrquhart PointUrquhart PointUrquhart PointUrquhart PointUrquhart PointUrquhart PointUrquhart PointUrquhart PointUrquhart PointUrquhart PointUrquhart PointUrquhart PointUrquhart PointUrquhart PointUrquhart PointUrquhart PointUrquhart PointUrquhart PointUrquhart PointUrquhart PointUrquhart PointUrquhart PointUrquhart PointUrquhart PointUrquhart PointUrquhart PointUrquhart PointUrquhart PointUrquhart PointUrquhart PointUrquhart PointUrquhart PointUrquhart PointUrquhart PointUrquhart PointUrquhart PointUrquhart PointUrquhart Point

Data Source: Survey Sites, Survey Area: METServe 2015; Localities, Regional Ecosystems, Watercourses : DNRM (C) The State of Queensland (Department of Natural Resources and Mines) 2015.All other data supplied by Oresome Australia, June 2015.

Datum: GDA94Projection: MGA54

FIGURE 3.4

11/04/2016

Scale: 1:75,000 (A4)

Fauna Survey Sites

S:\P

roje

cts\

MM

002_

Urqu

hart

Poin

t Eco

logy

\Map

Info

\Wor

kspa

ces\

MM

002_

Fig3

_4_F

auna

_Sur

vey_

Site

s_Co

mbi

ned_

A4.w

or

Oresome AustraliaUrquhart Point

Gulf ofGulf ofGulf ofGulf ofGulf ofGulf ofGulf ofGulf ofGulf ofGulf ofGulf ofGulf ofGulf ofGulf ofGulf ofGulf ofGulf ofGulf ofGulf ofGulf ofGulf ofGulf ofGulf ofGulf ofGulf ofGulf ofGulf ofGulf ofGulf ofGulf ofGulf ofGulf ofGulf ofGulf ofGulf ofGulf ofGulf ofGulf ofGulf ofGulf ofGulf ofGulf ofGulf ofGulf ofGulf ofGulf ofGulf ofGulf ofGulf of

CarpentariaCarpentariaCarpentariaCarpentariaCarpentariaCarpentariaCarpentariaCarpentariaCarpentariaCarpentariaCarpentariaCarpentariaCarpentariaCarpentariaCarpentariaCarpentariaCarpentariaCarpentariaCarpentariaCarpentariaCarpentariaCarpentariaCarpentariaCarpentariaCarpentariaCarpentariaCarpentariaCarpentariaCarpentariaCarpentariaCarpentariaCarpentariaCarpentariaCarpentariaCarpentariaCarpentariaCarpentariaCarpentariaCarpentariaCarpentariaCarpentariaCarpentariaCarpentariaCarpentariaCarpentariaCarpentariaCarpentariaCarpentariaCarpentaria

Albatross BayAlbatross BayAlbatross BayAlbatross BayAlbatross BayAlbatross BayAlbatross BayAlbatross BayAlbatross BayAlbatross BayAlbatross BayAlbatross BayAlbatross BayAlbatross BayAlbatross BayAlbatross BayAlbatross BayAlbatross BayAlbatross BayAlbatross BayAlbatross BayAlbatross BayAlbatross BayAlbatross BayAlbatross BayAlbatross BayAlbatross BayAlbatross BayAlbatross BayAlbatross BayAlbatross BayAlbatross BayAlbatross BayAlbatross BayAlbatross BayAlbatross BayAlbatross BayAlbatross BayAlbatross BayAlbatross BayAlbatross BayAlbatross BayAlbatross BayAlbatross BayAlbatross BayAlbatross BayAlbatross BayAlbatross BayAlbatross Bay

1 0 1 2

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

CREEKCREEKCREEKCREEKCREEKCREEKCREEKCREEKCREEKCREEKCREEKCREEKCREEKCREEKCREEKCREEKCREEKCREEKCREEKCREEKCREEKCREEKCREEKCREEKCREEKCREEKCREEKCREEKCREEKCREEKCREEKCREEKCREEKCREEKCREEKCREEKCREEKCREEKCREEKCREEKCREEKCREEKCREEKCREEKCREEKCREEKCREEKCREEKCREEK

Kilometres


4 RESULTS

4.1 ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS

Activities within Environmentally Sensitive Areas are subject to approval by the QueenslandDepartment of Environment and Heritage Protection. Environmentally Sensitive Areas fall under threecategories. Category A and B areas are defined in the Environmental Protection Regulation 2008,while Category C areas are defined within the Code of Environmental Compliance for Exploration andMineral Development Projects 2001.

Category A Environmentally Sensitive Areas include National Parks, Conservation Parks and ForestReserves under the Nature Conservation Act 1994, as well as the Wet Tropics area under the WetTropics World Heritage Protection and Management Act 1993.Category B Environmentally Sensitive Areas include Coordinated Conservation Areas, WildernessAreas, World Heritage management areas, areas of Critical Habitat for threatened species, Wetlandsof International Importance, State Forest Parks or Scientific Areas under the Forestry Act 1959,marine plants or Endangered regional ecosystems.

Category C Environmentally Sensitive Areas may include any of the following environments: NatureRefuges and Resource Reserves, declared Catchment Areas, declared Irrigation Areas, WaterReservoirs and Drainage Areas, River Improvement Areas, State Forest or Timber Reserves, DPIResearch Sites, Critical Areas and Public Purpose Reserves, areas subject to a State Planning Policythat designates an area for environmental protection, Coastal Management Districts and land occupiedby the Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations.The UPBP area contains Category B and Category C Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Mangroves alongthe entire estuarine boundaries of the UPBP are listed as Marine Plants, which is a Category BEnvironmentally Sensitive Area. Marine Plants are protected under the Fisheries Act 1994. The Code ofEnvironmental Compliance for Mining Claims and Prospecting Permits specifies that activities may notbe undertaken within a Category B Environmentally Sensitive Area.The entire UPBP is categorised as a Coastal Management District, which is listed as a Category CEnvironmentally Sensitive Area. This area is protected under the Coastal Protection and ManagementAct 1995. Activities may be undertaken within a Category C Environmentally Sensitive Areasubsequent to consultation with the Environmental Protection Agency.No Category A Environmentally Sensitive Areas are located within the UPBP area.

4.2 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES AND REGIONAL ECOSYSTEM CLASSIFICATION

Certified regional ecosystem mapping shows the entire UPBP area comprises remnant vegetation, aCategory B area under Queensland’s Regulated Vegetation Management Map. This remnantvegetation comprises 12 regional ecosystems, with RE 3.2.10c dominating the northern half of thesurvey area (Area A) and RE 3.5.2 dominating the southern half (Area B).

The revised vegetation mapping undertaken in this study, which involved the ground-truthing ofcertified mapping, confirmed that the entire survey area was composed of remnant vegetation. Thecertified mapping was generally correct for the dominant ecosystems; however, there were frequenterrors in the classification of some of the small grassland and wetland ecosystems. Furthermore,additional regional ecosystems were noted as present on-site in areas too small to be included incertified mapping. The location and characteristics of these ecosystems are discussed below.

4.2.1 Regional EcosystemsSeventeen regional ecosystems were recorded within the UPBP area (Table 4-1). Only eight of thesewere contained in certified mapping. The remainder occurred in patches that are too small (<4 ha) tobe mapped at the scale (1:100,000) applied to certified mapping, or were misidentified from satelliteimagery used in the certified mapping. Secondary vegetation assessment site data, supporting theassignment of regional ecosystems to the vegetation communities present, are presented inAppendix C.

None of the regional ecosystems recorded on-site are listed as Endangered under the VM Act.Furthermore, none have an Endangered biodiversity status. Four regional ecosystems have theconservation status (under the VM Act) and/or biodiversity status, Of Concern. Combined, thesecomprised 693.2 ha (42.7% of the total survey area), of which 604.5 ha was a single regional


ecosystem (3.2.10c: Eucalyptus tetrodonta, Corymbia novoguinensis and Erythrophleum chlorostachyswoodland on old sand dunes).

Table 4-1 Regional ecosystems recorded within the UPBP area

RegionalEcosystem Brief description

VMAct*Status

BiodiversityStatus

Totalarea(ha)

3.1.1aRhizophora stylosa +/- Bruguiera gymnorhiza closed forest.Occurs as outer mangroves. LC NC 98.48

3.1.3Ceriops tagal +/- Avicennia marina low closed forest onintertidal areas. LC NC 149.59

3.1.5Sporobolus virginicus closed tussock grassland on coastalplains. LC NC 9.04

3.2.2a Semi-deciduous vine forest on coastal dunes and beach ridges. LC OC 38.62

3.2.4Open forest to woodland dominated by Melaleuca spp. +/-Xanthostemon crenulatus or Lophostemon suaveolens OC OC 47.89

3.2.5a Acacia crassicarpa open forest on stabilised dunes. LC NC 6.53

3.2.10cEucalyptus tetrodonta, Corymbia novoguinensis andErythrophleum chlorostachys woodland on old sand dunes. LC OC 604.54

3.2.25Sparse herbland of mixed herbaceous species on foredunesand beach ridges OC OC 2.11

3.3.9Lophostemon suaveolens dominated open forest on swampsand alluvial terraces. LC NC 30.42

3.3.14b Melaleuca leucadendra dominated ephemeral wetland LC NC 3.383.3.22 Corymbia novoguinensis woodland on alluvial plains. LC NC 11.543.3.42 Melaleuca viridiflora low woodland in drainage areas LC NC 19.24

3.3.60bChrysopogon elongatus closed tussock grassland on alluvialplains LC NC 9.69

3.3.63Eleocharis sundaica dominated closed sedgeland on seasonallyflooded marine plains. LC NC 34.49

3.5.2Eucalyptus tetrodonta and Corymbia nesophila woodland ondeeply weathered plateaus and remnants. LC NC 483.56

3.5.4 Simple evergreen notophyll vine forest on coastal plains. LC NC 3.343.5.22c Corymbia novoguinensis woodland on erosional plain. LC NC 70.38

*VM Act = Vegetation Management Act 1999; LC = Least Concern, NC = Not Of Concern, OC = Of Concern.

S:\Projects\MM002_Urquhart Point Ecology\MapInfo\Workspaces\MM002_Fig4_1_Verified_RE.wor

Scale: 1:40,000 (A3)

Urquhart PointOresome Australia


FIGURE 4.1

11/04/2016

Verified Regional Ecosystems

0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5

KilometresData Source: Study Area, Verified Regional Ecosystems : METServe 2015;

Localities, Watercourses : DNRM (C) The State of Queensland (Department of Natural Resources and Mines) 2015.All other data supplied by Oresome Australia, June 2015.


4.2.2 Regrowth

Certain non-remnant vegetation that has not been cleared since 31 December 1989 is protected asregrowth vegetation under the VMFA Act. No such vegetation occurs within the UPBP area.4.2.3 Nationally Listed Ecological Communities

No threatened ecological communities protected under the EPBC Act occur within the UPBP area(Appendix D).

4.3 HABITAT VALUES

4.3.1 Habitat Diversity and ConnectivityThe entire UPBP area is composed of remnant vegetation. Un-modified landscapes have importantbiodiversity values (Loyn 1985; Martin et al. 2004; Hannah et al. 2007; Nichols and Grant 2007; Gould2011); however, these values are not unique in a regional context. The Cape York bioregion hasexperienced one of the lowest historical clearing rates within Queensland (93% of the bioregionconsists of remnant vegetation: DSITIA 2012). Approximately 96% of the Embley River catchmentconsists of remnant vegetation (DSITIA 2012), suggesting that remnant habitats are widespread inthe region.The UPBP area largely consists of open forest dominated by Eucalyptus tetrodonta with Corymbianesophila and Corymbia novoguinensis being common co-dominant species. Despite comprising anumber of subtly different regional ecosystems, these open forests constitute a relatively homogenoushabitat type for fauna. Eucalyptus tetrodonta forest is the most abundant habitat across Cape YorkPeninsula. There are no barriers to dispersal within E. tetrodonta forests of the UPBP area, or to theeast and south.

A diversity of other habitat types occur in small patches around the periphery of the UPBP area, andthis mosaic of mangroves, saltmarsh, grasslands, vine forest and paperbark swamps supports adifferent community of wildlife to the surrounding eucalypt woodland. Due to the small sizes of thesehabitat fragments, the maintenance of connectivity between them is likely to be important to theirlong-term viability.

The UPBP area contains one block of Essential Habitat for threatened species, on the western side ofarea B. This habitat is mapped as a result of nesting sites for sea turtles along the coastline, outsidethe UPBP area.Habitat values specific to species of conservation significance are discussed in Sections 4.5 and 4.6.

4.3.2 Biodiversity Assessment and Mapping

The Queensland Government, in conjunction with expert panels, has developed Biodiversity PlanningAssessments for most of the state’s bioregions. These assessments identify strategic wildlife corridors,assess the state of wildlife conservation, and indicate priorities for research and conservation effortswithin each bioregion.

The Cape York Biodiversity Assessment (EHP 2012a) maps the ecological values of the UPBP across11 criteria (Table 4-2). Overall, the entire UPBP area is mapped as being of State-significance. Thislevel of significance is common to 40% of the Cape York Heritage Area. There are three main reasonsfor this significance: very high condition of the ecosystems present (due to the lack of grazing, weedsand other pressures), the high diversity of the mangroves present, and the unique tall structure of theopen Eucalyptus tetrodonta forests (EHP 2012a). Most other variables were of low-medium value(Table 4-2).


Table 4-2 Biodiversity Assessment and Mapping for the UPBP areaCriterion

Description Value of UPBP Additional Information

A Habitat for EVNT* taxa Landzones other than 5 are mappedas Low or Medium; Landzone 5 isnot mapped as habitat.

B1 Ecosystem value (regionalassessment)

RE 3.2.10c is High; rest is Low-Medium.

B2 Ecosystem value (sub-regionalassessment)

Medium

C Tract size High

D1 Relative size of regionalecosystem (regionalassessment)

RE 3.2.10c is Medium; rest is Low

D2 Relative size of regionalecosystem (sub-regionalassessment)

RE 3.2.10c is Medium; rest is Low

E Condition Very high

F Ecosystem diversity Mangroves are Very High; RE 3.5.2= Medium; rest is High

G Context and connection Very High

H Essential habitat for Prioritytaxa**

Small amount of Medium in the farnorth of the UPBP; small amount ofVery High in the southwest; rest notmapped as habitat.

Very High priority habitat is mapped forbreeding sea turtles; however, turtlebreeding is likely to be confined to thedune system west of Roberts Creek,rather than in the UPBP area itself.

I Special biodiversity values State-significant

Ia Centres of endemism None mapped

Ib Wildlife refugia Mangroves and RE 3.2.10c are VeryHigh; RE 3.5.2 is High

Local mangroves constitute a diverse,uncommon, restricted vegetationcommunity important for fisheries.

Ic Areas with disjunct populations Mangroves and RE 3.5.2 is High; RE3.2.10c is Very High.

Id Areas with concentrations oftaxa at the limits of their range

None mapped

Ie Areas with high species richness Mangroves and RE 3.2.10c are VeryHigh; RE 3.5.2 is High

Local mangroves constitute a diverse,uncommon, restricted vegetationcommunity important for fisheries.

If Areas with concentrations ofrelictual species

None mapped

Ig Regional ecosystems withdistinct variation in composition

RE 3.5.2 is Very High; rest is notmapped as distinct.

These communities represent the tallestand best developed examples ofEucalyptus tetrodonta forest in tropicalAustralia.

Ih Artificial wetlands of significance None mapped

Ii Areas of high density of hollow-bearing trees

RE 3.5.2 is Very High; rest is notmapped.

These communities represent the tallestand best developed examples ofEucalyptus tetrodonta forest in tropicalAustralia.

Ij Significant breeding/roostingsites

Mangroves are mapped as Very High

J Corridors None mapped

K Threatening process (condition) None mapped

*EVNT taxa = Endangered, Vulnerable or Near Threatened**Priority taxa = Least concern species that are endemic to Cape York, relictual, of management concern, have unique geneticdiversity within Cape York, are economically or culturally important, or are functionally important.


4.3.3 Aquatic Environments

Sampling of aquatic wildlife was beyond the scope of the current terrestrial ecology survey, althoughvascular plants occurring in wetlands are included in this report. Nevertheless, wetlands were mappedas part of the broader regional ecosystem mapping, and their values to terrestrial wildlife wereassessed.

Many of the aquatic environments located on-site are mapped as wetlands on certified QueenslandWetland Mapping (Figure 4-3). These include estuarine wetlands, mangroves and estuaries along thecoastal fringe of the UPBP area, as well as a palustrine wetland (vegetated swamp) located in thenortheast corner of the UPBP area. No wetlands of international or national importance occur in theUPBP area.

Ground-thruthing of regional ecosystems generally revealed the mapping of wetlands to be correct.The principal error in certified mapping was that some areas mapped as estuarine wetlands werefound to be palustrine wetlands. The largest of these was located in the far southeast of the UPBParea. Certified regional ecosystem mapping erroneously labelled the unit as an intertidal saltmarshcommunity (RE 3.1.5 and 3.1.6), whereas field surveys revealed that it was better considered RE3.3.63 (Eleocharis sundaica dominated closed sedgeland on seasonally flooded marine plains) (Figure4-2). This error in classification has ramifications for the ecological values of the site, as the greaterinfluence of fresh water allows the wetland to support a diversity of aquatic plants, frogs and birdsthat is usually absent from saltmarsh.All palustrine wetland systems located within the UPBP area are likely to be ephemeral. Satelliteimagery indicates that these are dry for most of the year, and all were dry at the time of theNovember 2015 survey.

Figure 4-2 Photograph of a palustrine wetland in the southeast corner of the UPBP area(regional ecosystem 3.3.63). This site was erroneously mapped as a saltmarsh communityin certified regional ecosystem mapping, and an estuarine wetland in Queensland WetlandMapping.

Data Source: Survey Area: METServe 2015; Localities, Wetland Systems, Watercourses : DNRM (C) The State of Queensland (Department of Natural Resources and Mines) 2015.All other data supplied by Oresome Australia, June 2015.


FIGURE 4.3

11/04/2016

Scale: 1:75,000 (A4)

Mapped Wetlands

S:\P

roje

cts\

MM

002_

Urqu

hart

Poin

t Ec

olog

y\M

apIn

fo\W

orks

pace

s\M

M00

2_Fi

g4_3

_Wet

land

s_A4

_Rev

_B.w

or


1 0 1 2

Kilometres


Most of the palustrine wetlands on-site were fed by the seepage of ground water in the swales ofdunes and along the landward edge of mangroves. As a result, most comprised narrow ribbons alongthe landward edge of mangroves along Triluck and Roberts Creeks. These are likely to be highlyephemeral, drying in the mid dry season, when water tables are naturally lower.

One wetland occurring on-site (in the far northeast corner of area A) is mapped and assessed underthe Aquatic Conservation Assessment – Cape York Catchments – Non-riverine. The ecological valuesof this wetland were assessed using the Aquatic Biodiversity Assessment and Mapping Methodology(EHP 2012b), and these are summarised in Table 4-3. The overall AquaScore awarded to thewetland was ‘Very High’.

Table 4-3 Criteria ratings for the wetland within the UPBP area. Data taken from EHP(2012b).

Criterion Description Rating

1 Naturalness – aquatic Very high

2 Naturalness – catchment Very high

3 Diversity and richness Medium

4 Threatened species and ecosystems High

5 Priority species and ecosystems Very high

6 Special features Very high

7 Connectivity n/a

8 Representativeness Very high

These scores were based on the assumption, from aerial imagery, that the wetland comprisedregional ecosystem 3.3.14. Field surveys revealed that this assignment was only valid for a smallportion of the mapped wetland (within an old stream channel). The majority of the mapped wetlandwas, instead, regional ecosystem 3.3.42. This ecosystem differed markedly from 3.3.14, in thatstanding water was absent, even at the end of the wet season when surveys were undertaken. Thissuggests that the habitat values assigned to this wetland in the Aquatic Conservation Assessment arelikely to overestimate true values, as the actual wetland is markedly different to the mapped wetland.

4.4 SPECIES DIVERSITY

Field surveys carried out in April and November 2015 detected 317 species of vascular plant, 9 speciesof amphibian, 22 species of reptile, 111 species of bird and 21 species of mammal. This diversity istypical for the Weipa region. This is 61% of the floral diversity and 61% of the faunal diversityrecorded in the adjacent South of Embley Project area, despite being only 1.6% of the total area. Thisreflects the homogeneity of the habitats at a regional scale, rather than a particular value attributableto the UPBP area, specifically. Full inventories of species recorded in the UPBP area are present inAppendix A (flora) and Appendix B (fauna).Species communities were generally representative of western Cape York Peninsula, and most speciesare widespread across the bioregion. All species recorded in the current survey were already known tooccur in the Weipa region (Winter and Atherton 1985), with the exception of a few plant species thatare known from the broader Cape York region. These species are discussed further in Section 4.8.

4.4.1 Thoroughness of SurveysSpecies accumulation curves, which determine the rate at which new species are detected, were fittedto the data to investigate the completeness of surveys. For fauna, a systematic trap site was used asthe unit of sampling effort. A separate curve was fitted for AnaBat data. For flora, the unit of samplingeffort was ‘secondary assessment site’. In addition to the 30 secondary assessment sites sampled,nine 20-minute long targeted searches were included in the species accumulation curve. These twodatasets were combined for the purposes of the analysis as the time spent searching for species (i.e.,survey effort) in the secondary sites was generally equivalent to that in targeted searches.The shape of species accumulation curves is influenced by the order that samples (i.e., trap sites ortransects) appear along the x-axis (Ugland et al. 2003), so to overcome this problem the order of siteswas randomised, and the mean of five curves was calculated. These curves can be extrapolated todetermine the asymptote (the number of species predicted from infinite sampling).


Based on systematic fauna trap sites, it was conservatively estimated (from the upper 95% confidenceinterval of the asymptote) that the species richness of the site is 102 vertebrate species, which is wellbelow the 163 species recorded on-site using all available sampling techniques (including numerousincidental observations and targeted searches). Many of the recorded species are highly unlikely orunable to be detected using systematic fauna trap sites (e.g., shorebirds, bats and large nocturnalmammals and birds), and some habitats (mangroves, wetlands) were not sampled using systematictrap sites. It is important to appreciate that the asymptote calculated is the estimated number ofspecies on-site that can be detected at systematic trap sites. By excluding such species from the list,we are left with the total number of species recorded that could potentially have been detected atsystematic fauna trap sites. This richness (122 species) still exceeded the statistical predictions fromthe species accumulation curve. This implies that additional sampling via systematic trap sites, withinhabitats already sampled, is unlikely to contribute a significant number of new species to the tally.

Based on AnaBat sites, it was estimated that the number of bat species occurring within the UPBParea is 12 (the upper 95% confidence interval of the asymptote). This corresponds exactly with thenumber actually recorded, suggesting that survey effort was sufficient.Likewise, the flora species accumulation curve estimated the total diversity to be 316 species. Thiscorresponds closely to the observed 317 species of vascular plants, suggesting that sampling wasthorough.

Exponential decay functions fitted to species accumulation data tend to underestimate true speciesrichness, especially when based on limited survey effort. The predicted species richness shouldtherefore be viewed as a guide only. Nevertheless, both the flora and fauna accumulation curvessuggest that sampling has been relatively complete. However, by their nature, ecological surveys cannever exhaustively sample all species present, and low-density and cryptic species may be overlooked,in addition to species that utilise the site only occasionally. For this reason, species of conservationsignificance that were not recorded during current surveys, but which were deemed to potentiallyutilise the UPBP area are discussed in Section 4.6.


Figure 4-4 Species accumulation curves for flora (upper panel), bats (middle panel) and fauna attraps sites (lower panel). Exponential decay curves were fitted to each, and are shown as solidlines.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Cum

ulat

ive

tota

l of s

peci

esre

cord

ed

Number of fauna trap sites sampled

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 10 20 30 40

Cum

ulat

ive

tota

l of s

peci

esre

cord

ed

Number of flora sites sampled

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

-4 1 6 11 16 21 26Cum

ulat

ive

tota

l of s

peci

es re

cord

ed

Number of AnaBat sites sampled


4.5 CONFIRMED SPECIES OF NATIONAL AND/OR STATE SIGNIFICANCE

Thirteen species of national and/or state-level conservation significance were recorded within theUPBP area (Table 4-4). Three of these are listed as Vulnerable under the EPBC Act, two of which arelisted as Vulnerable and one as Near Threatened under the NC Act; one is Near Threatened under theNC Act; and nine are migratory species protected under the EPBC Act (refer to Appendix D).Few species of conservation significance utilise Eucalyptus tetrodonta woodlands as habitat, and noneare restricted to this habitat (Table 4-4). Habitats for significant species were primarily located alongthe coastline and in nearby vine forest and wetlands. Locations where these species were recordedare shown in Figure 4-5 and Figure 4-6.

Table 4-4 Species of conservation significance recorded within the UPBP area

Common Name Scientific Name Habitat

Status under theEPBC Act*

Stat

us u

nder

the

NC

Act†

Back

on

Trac

k

Migratory**

Thre

aten

ed

JAM

BA

CAM

BA

RO

KAM

BA

BON

N

Cooktown Orchid Dendrobium bigibbum Vine forest V V x

Chocolate Tea Tree Orchid Dendrobium johannis Vine forest V V

Palm Cockatoo Probosciger aterrimusmacgillivrayi

Vine forest and nearbyopen forest V NT

Rufous Owl Ninox rufa meesi Vine forest and nearbyopen forest NT

Eastern Great Egret Ardea modesta Coastline and swamps x x

Great Frigatebird Frigata minor Coastline and open water x x

Lesser Frigatebird Frigata ariel Coastline and open water x x x

Brown Booby Sula leucogaster Coastline and open water x x x

Common Tern Sterna hirundo Coastline and open water x x x

Rainbow Bee-eater Merops ornatus All areas x

Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus Coastline and mudflats x x x x

Eastern Osprey Pandion haliaetus Coastline x

Common Greenshank Tringa nebularia Coastline and mudflats x x x x*EPBC Act = Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.**JAMBA = Japan-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement; CAMBA = China-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement; ROKAMBA =Republic of Korea-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement; BONN = Bonn Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species ofWild Animals; x = protected under the relevant agreement.†Nature Conservation Act 1992; V = listed as Vulnerable; NT = listed as Near Threatened.


Data Source: Threatened Species, Verified Regional Ecosystems, Survey Area: METServe 2015; Localities, Regional Ecosystems, Watercourses : DNRM (C) The State of Queensland (Department of Natural Resources and Mines) 2015.All other data supplied by Oresome Australia, June 2015.


FIGURE 4.5

11/04/2016

Scale: 1:75,000 (A4)

Threatened and Near Threatened Flora and Fauna

S:\P

roje

cts\

MM

002_

Urqu

hart

Poin

t Eco

logy

\Map

Info

\Wor

kspa

ces\

MM

002_

Fig4

_5_T

hrea

tene

d_Sp

ecie

s_Co

mbi

ned_

A4.w

or





1 0 1 2

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK


Kilometres


Data Source: Migratory Species, Verified Regional Ecosystems, Survey Area: METServe 2015; Localities, Regional Ecosystems, Watercourses : DNRM (C) The State of Queensland (Department of Natural Resources and Mines) 2015.All other data supplied by Oresome Australia, June 2015.


FIGURE 4.6

11/04/2016

Scale: 1:75,000 (A4)

Migratory Fauna

S:\P

roje

cts\

MM

002_

Urqu

hart

Poin

t Eco

logy

\Map

Info

\Wor

kspa

ces\

MM

002_

Fig4

_6_M

igra

tory

_Spe

cies_

Com

bine

d_A4

.wor





1 0 1 2

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK

TR

ILU

CK


Kilometres

Documents

3.5 FAUNA SURVEYS - metallicaminerals.com.au · Melaleuca leucadendra. The swamp was completely dry at the time of survey. The trees present generally lacked hollows. A small amount