UCML Microbat Monitoring Report 2020

Ulan Coal Mines Limited

DOCUMENT TRACKING

Project Name UCML Microbat Monitoring Report 2020

Project Number MUD20-17635

Project Manager Tom Kelly

Prepared by Tom Kelly, Dr Rod Armistead

Reviewed by Dr Frank Lemckert

Approved by Rachel Murray

Status Final

Version Number v3

Last saved on 29 March 2021

This report should be cited as ‘Eco Logical Australia 2021. UCML Microbat Monitoring Report 2020. Prepared for Ulan Coal Mines Limited.’

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This document has been prepared by Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd with support from Ulan Coal Mines Limited.

Disclaimer This document may only be used for the purpose for which it was commissioned and in accordance with the contract between Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd and Ulan Coal Mines Limited . The scope of services was defined in consultation with Ulan Coal Mines Limited , by time and budgetary constraints imposed by the client, and the availability of reports and other data on the subject area. Changes to available information, legislation and schedules are made on an ongoing basis and readers should obtain up to date information. Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for or in respect of any use of or reliance upon this report and its supporting material by any third party. Information provided is not intended to be a substitute for site specific assessment or legal advice in relation to any matter. Unauthorised use of this report in any form is prohibited.

Template 2.8.1

Contents

1. Introduction ...... 8 1.1 Background ...... 8 1.2 Purpose of this monitoring report ...... 8 1.3 Updates to 2020 monitoring program ...... 10

2. Methods ...... 12 2.1 Control sites ...... 12 2.2 Impact sites ...... 12 2.3 Acoustic call data analysis ...... 17 2.4 Survey limitations ...... 18 2.5 Weather conditions ...... 20

3. Results ...... 21 3.1 Control sites ...... 21 3.2 Impact sites ...... 23

4. Discussion ...... 29 4.1 Provision of threatened species habitat ...... 29 4.2 Targeted threatened cave-roosting microbat species activity ...... 30

4.2.1 Large-eared Pied Bat ...... 31 4.2.2 Large Bent-winged Bat ...... 32

5. Conclusion and Recommendations ...... 34 5.1 General conclusions and recommendations...... 34 5.2 Provision of threatened species habitat ...... 34 5.3 Targeted threatened cave-roosting microbat species activity ...... 34 References ...... 36

Appendix A Acoustic call data ...... 38 Appendix B Anabat call profiles ...... 43 Appendix C Harp trapping data ...... 51 Appendix D Photographs ...... 52

List of Figures

Figure 1: The northern portion of targeted cliffline monitoring sites monitored during 2020 ...... 15 Figure 2: The southern portion of targeted cliffline monitoring sites monitored during 2020 ...... 16

Figure 3: Monthly and cumulative rainfall totals for 2019, 2020 and long-term mean dating back to 1906 (UCML 2021; BOM 2021) ...... 20 Figure 4: Mean Large-eared Pied Bat call activity (calls per night) across all monitoring sites, 2013 – 2020 ...... 31 Figure 5: Mean Large-eared Pied Bat call activity across both control and impact sites, 2013 – 2020 ... 32 Figure 6: Mean Large Bent-winged Bat call activity (calls per night) across all monitoring sites, 2013 – 2020 ...... 32 Figure 7: Mean Large Bent-winged Bat call activity across both control and impact sites, 2013 – 2020 33 Figure 8: Call profile for Austronomus australis (White-striped Free-tailed Bat) recorded at UWLW7h at 2338 (23:38 p.m.) on 14 December 2020...... 43 Figure 9: Call profile for Chalinolobus dwyeri (Large-eared Pied Bat) recorded at UWLW7h at 2140 (9.40 p.m.) on 14 December 2020...... 43 Figure 10: Call profile for Chalinolobus gouldii (Gould’s Wattled Bat) recorded at BD6 at 2116 (9:16 p.m.) on 9 December 2020...... 44 Figure 11: Call profile for Chalinolobus morio (Chocolate Wattled Bat) recorded at BD6 at 2202 (10:02 p.m.) on 16 September 2020...... 44 Figure 12: Call profile for Miniopterus orianae oceanensis (Large Bent-winged Bat) recorded at BD6 at 0359 (3:59 a.m.) on 10 December 2020...... 45 Figure 13: Potential call profile for Nyctophilus corbeni (Corben’s Long-eared Bat) / Nyctophilus gouldii (Gould’s Long-eared Bat) / Nyctophilus geoffroyi (Lesser Long-eared Bat) recorded at UWLW7h at 0148 (1:48 a.m.) on 17 December 2020...... 45 Figure 14: Call profile for Ozimops species complex (this is a call profile that can most likely be attributed to Ozimops ridei (Ride’s Free-tailed Bat)) recorded at UWLW7h at 0352 (3:52 a.m.) on 15 December 2020...... 46 Figure 15: Call profile for Rhinolophus megaphyllus (Eastern Horseshoe Bat) recorded at UWLW7h at 0030 (12:30 a.m.) on 18 December 2020...... 46 Figure 16: Potential call profile for Saccolaimus flaviventris (Yellow-bellied Sheath-tailed Bat) (lower frequency call Fc =20 kHz) with Vespadelus vulturnus (Little Forest Bat) (higher frequency call at Fc = ~47 kHz) recorded on Impact Site UWLW5j at 0306 (3:06 a.m.) on 5 December 2020...... 47 Figure 17: Potential call profile for Scoteanax rueppellii (Greater Broad-nosed Bat) / Scotorepens balstoni (Inland Broad-nosed Bat) recorded on Control Site UG1 at 2047 (8:47 p.m.) on 12 December 2020. ... 47 Figure 18: Call profile for Scotorepens balstoni (Inland Broad-nosed Bat) recorded at UWLW4b at 2042 (8:42 p.m.) on 4 December 2020...... 48 Figure 19: Potential call profile for Scotorepens greyii (Little Broad-nosed Bat) recorded at UWLW4b at 2321 (11:21 p.m.) on 4 December 2020...... 48 Figure 20: Call profile for Vespadelus darlingtoni (Large Forest Bat) recorded at UWLW3a at 0330 (3:30 a.m.) on 4 December 2020...... 49 Figure 21: Potential call profile for Vespadelus regulus (Southern Forest Bat) or Vespadelus vulturnus (Little Forest Bat) recorded at Impact Site UWLW5j 0040 (12:40 a.m.) on 5 December 2020...... 49 Figure 22: Potential call profile for Vespadelus troughtoni (Eastern Cave Bat) / Vespadelus vulturnus (Little Forest Bat) recorded at UWLW3c at 2113 (9:13 p.m.) on 6 December 2020...... 50 Figure 23: Call profile for Vespadelus vulturnus (Little Forest Bat) recorded at UGLWW4a at 1933 (7:33 p.m.) on 9 December 2020...... 50 Figure 24: Previously banded Large-eared Pied Bat re-captured in 2020 at site BD6 ...... 52 Figure 25: Large-eared Pied Bat maternity roost cave located at site UGLWW3 ...... 52

List of Tables

Table 1: Statutory requirements of the BMP and their relevant methods of assessment and performance measures ...... 9 Table 2: Control sites monitored during 2020 ...... 12 Table 3: Impact sites monitored during 2020 ...... 13 Table 4: Correlations between current and previous nomenclature for the Free-tailed bats of NSW ... 18 Table 5: Microbat species recorded from all targeted cliffline microbat monitoring control sites during 2020 ...... 22 Table 6: Microbat species recorded from UGLWW3, UGLWW4, UGLWW5 and UWLW3 targeted cliffline microbat monitoring impact sites during 2020 ...... 24 Table 7: Microbat species recorded from UWLW4 and UWLW6 targeted cliffline microbat monitoring impact sites during 2020 ...... 25 Table 8: Microbat species recorded from UWLW5 targeted cliffline microbat monitoring impact sites during 2020 ...... 26 Table 9: Microbat species recorded from UWLW7 targeted cliffline microbat monitoring impact sites during 2020 ...... 27 Table 10: Threatened microbat species definitively recorded in Brokenback Conservation Area from 2011 to present and their respective TARP assessment ...... 29 Table 11: Threatened microbat species definitively recorded in Spring Gully Cliffline Management Areas from 2011 to present and their respective TARP assessment ...... 30 Table 12: Total Large-eared Pied Bat and Large Bent-winged Bat calls and call activity across all undermined impact sites, before and after undermining ...... 33 Table 13: Percent increases and declines recorded between survey years for both Large-eared Pied Bat and Large Bent-winged Bat at control and impact sites and all sites combined ...... 35 Table 14: Acoustic call data for Control sites ...... 38 Table 15: Acoustic call data for UGLWW3-5 and UWLW3 impact sites ...... 39 Table 16: Acoustic call data for UWLW4-5 impact sites ...... 40 Table 17: Acoustic call data for UWLW5-7 impact sites ...... 41 Table 18: Acoustic call data for UWLW7 impact sites ...... 42 Table 19: Microbat species captures from all targeted cliffline monitoring sites during 2020 ...... 51

Abbreviations

Abbreviation Description

BC Act Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016

BMP Biodiversity Management Plan

BOA Biodiversity Offset Area

ELA Eco Logical Australia

EP Extraction Plan

EPBC Act Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

GCAA Glencore Coal Assets Australia

ha Hectares

LGA Local Government Area

LW Longwall

MWRC Mid Western Regional Council

OPS Octaves per Second

PA Project Approval

UCML Ulan Coal Mines Limited

Executive Summary

Ulan Coal Mines Limited (UCML) is located in the central west of New South Wales, near the village of Ulan, within the Mid-Western Regional Council (MWRC) Local Government Area (LGA). Project Approval (PA) 08_0184 was issued on 15 November 2010 for continued operations at UCML and provided approval for the continued operations of the Ulan Surface Operations and the Ulan West and Ulan Underground mines.

UCML developed a Biodiversity Management Plan (BMP) and subsequently prepared Ulan West and Ulan Underground Extraction Plan BMPs, to satisfy the requirements of PA 08_0184, as well as Commonwealth Approvals EPBC Ref: 2009/5252 and EPBC Ref: 2015/7511.

Microbat monitoring in 2020 was undertaken generally in accordance with the approved management plans. However, the monitoring methodology was modified during 2020 in order to increase survey effort and therefore the robustness of the resulting dataset. This annual report details the results of targeted cliffline monitoring of eight control sites and 29 impact sites across the UCML complex during December 2020, with monitoring undertaken to target the presence and activity of threatened cave- roosting microbat species Chalinolobus dwyeri (Large-eared Pied Bat) and Miniopterus orianae oceanensis (Large Bent-winged Bat).

A total of 19,023 call sequences were recorded across the eight control sites in which 11 microbat species were positively identified, and a further six species potentially identified. Both targeted and threatened cave-roosting microbat species were recorded at all control sites, with the exception of site BD9. A total of 19,838 call sequences were recorded across the 29 impact sites in which 12 microbat species were positively identified, with a further seven species potentially identified. Both targeted and threatened cave-roosting microbat species were recorded at impact sites, with the Large-eared Pied Bat recorded at 22 impact sites and the Large Bent-winged Bat was recorded at 23 impact sites.

Total Large-eared Pied Bat and Large Bent-winged Bat call activity (definite calls per night) recorded in 2020 was the highest recorded to date. Call activity at both control and impact sites was also calculated for these species, in order to undertake an assessment of the subsidence performance indicator. Large- eared Pied Bat call activity at both control and impact sites increased from 2019 to 2020, whilst Large Bent-winged Bat call activity increased at control sites and decreased at impact sites during the same period. With no decline in activity across the Application Area or Ulan Complex mined areas in 2020, the subsidence performance indicator for Large-eared Pied Bat was achieved. Large Bent-winged Bat call activity across the Application Area and complex mined areas, did decline >10% in 2020, however, this decline has not been recorded across two or more survey years and as such, the subsidence performance indicator for this species was also achieved.

It is recommended that the performance measure of >10% decline in activity be reconsidered as this threshold has proven substantially smaller than yearly fluctuations observed across control, impact and combined sites, both before and after undermining. It is also recommended that the Application Area over which the performance measure is applied be consistent across all UCML management plans and focus on the year in which sites were undermined, rather than the individual LW over which the site is located.

The Brokenback Conservation Area and Spring Gully Cliffline Management Area were established in part, to secure in perpetuity the habitat these areas provide for threatened microbat species. As such, UCML are required to monitor the persistence of threatened microbats in these two areas, with a Trigger Action Response Plan (TARP) in place should previously recorded threatened species not be recorded in subsequent monitoring. Large-eared Pied Bat and Large Bent-winged Bat have been recorded within Brokenback and Spring Gully sites for two or more consecutive years, with both of these species recorded within both areas during 2020 monitoring. As such, the Provision of Threatened Species Habitat for threatened microbats TARP is not triggered during 2020.

Given the successful implementation of the monitoring program in 2020 and the results detailed in this report, UCML is considered to be compliant with their relevant PA conditions.

1. Introduction

Eco Logical Australia (ELA) was engaged by Ulan Coal Mines Limited (UCML) to complete the 2020 microbat monitoring program. Microbat monitoring within the UCML complex dates back to the 1980s, with the monitoring program in its current form undertaken since 2011.

1.1 Background The Ulan Coal Mine is situated in the central west of New South Wales. It is located in the Mid Western Regional Council (MWRC) Local Government Area (LGA) near the village of Ulan, approximately 38 km north-northeast of Mudgee and 19 km northeast of Gulgong. UCML landholdings straddle the Great Dividing Range and are located at the headwaters of the Goulburn and Talbragar River Catchments. UCML operates the mine, comprising an open cut and two underground mines (Ulan West and Ulan Underground), as a joint venture, managed by Glencore Coal Assets Australia (GCAA).

The UCML Project Area comprises approximately 13,700 ha, made up of:

• Open Cut Mining Area – approximately 239 ha of approved open cut operations • Previous Open Cut Mining Area - approximately 475 ha of previously mined open cut areas, which is largely rehabilitated, though some final voids are retained to support future mining activities (i.e. water storage, tailings disposal, underground access etc.) • Surface Infrastructure Disturbance Area – 169 ha of disturbance approved for the construction of underground service infrastructure, such as transmission lines, pipes, mine dewatering pump sites and access roads • Residual Project Area – the remainder of the Project Area includes previously undermined land and land approved for future undermining, agricultural grazing land, irrigation pivots and large areas of remnant native vegetation • Biodiversity Offset, Conservation and Cliffline Management Areas, including: o Bobadeen Vegetation Offset Area, Bobadeen Vegetation Offset Corridor and Bobadeen East Vegetation Offset Area – 1,361 ha o Brokenback Conservation Area – 58 ha o Spring Gully Cliffline Management Area – 273 ha o Highett Rd Acacia ausfeldii Management Area – 21 ha

• Salinity Offset Area – 4,460 ha which overlaps parts of the Biodiversity Offset Areas and Residual Project Area. The 2020 Microbat Monitoring Report details the results of targeted cliffline monitoring of eight control sites and 29 impact sites undertaken across the UCML complex (Section 3). This report represents the tenth annual round of monitoring undertaken under the UCML biodiversity monitoring program.

1.2 Purpose of this monitoring report UCML developed a Biodiversity Management Plan (BMP) (UCML 2020) to satisfy the requirements of Condition 44, Schedule 3 of the Project Approval (PA 08_0184). The BMP was also developed to satisfy Condition 3 of the Commonwealth Approval EPBC Ref: 2009/5252 and Condition 4 of Commonwealth Approval EPBC Ref: 2015/7511. Condition 26, Schedule 3 of PA 08_0184 also requires the development of an Extraction Plan BMP for both Ulan West (UCML 2019) and Ulan Underground (UCML 2013) Longwall (LW) panels in order to outline the management strategies, controls and monitoring programs

Ulan West Extraction Plan (EP) (ULNCX-111515275-2783) addresses subsidence related risk for longwall panels 1-6. Application Areas are progressed as two longwall panels grouped. While the EP stipulates that performance measure triggers are to be assessed within the Application Area, the intent of this EP is to assess the trigger over the Extraction Area (LW1-6 mined areas).

Ulan Underground have extraction plans for longwall panels 23-29, West 1-5, and North 1 (Subsidence Management and Extraction Plan (SMP/EP), ULNCX-111515275-223) and longwall panels 30 and West 6-8 (Ulan Underground Extraction Plan Longwall 30 and W6-W8, ULNCX-111515275-3575). SMP/EP references the BMP performance measure trigger – a decline within mined areas. EP LW30 and LWW6- W8 in contrast assess the performance measure trigger within the defined Application Area (LW panels of the EP).

Table 1 below outlines the statutory requirements which underly the UCML targeted cliffline microbat monitoring program and the associated methodology and performance measures applicable to the monitoring undertaken in 2020. Analysis of triggers detailed in EP LW30 and LWW6-8 was not undertaken, as the respective Application Area is yet to be fully undermined. Analysis was limited to LWs previously mined for at least two years: across the complex, as outlined in the UCML BMP (ULNCX- 111515275-225) and SMP/EP; and Ulan West LW01-04, as outlined in the Ulan West EP LW1-6 (see Section 4.2).

Table 1: Statutory requirements of the BMP and their relevant methods of assessment and performance measures

Statutory Requirements Performance Measures Assessment Methodology Triggers for investigation

NSW Project Approval – PA 08_0184, Schedule 3

Condition 24: The proponent Negligible impact on Targeted threatened microbat Analysis of micro-bat shall ensure that the project threatened species, monitoring monitoring data identifies does not cause any populations habitat or decreasing activity levels exceedances of the ecological communities (>10% decline) of performance measure: Ref: Project Approval endangered micro-bat Negligible impact on Schedule 3, c24, Table 14 species during cliff line threatened species, monitoring within the populations habitat or Application Area (LW1-6) ecological communities over two or more monitoring periods, outside of seasonal variations. Ref: EP LW1-6 (ULNCX-111515275- 2783), s4.3

Analysis of micro-bat monitoring data identifies decreasing activity levels (>10% decline) of endangered micro-bat species during cliff line monitoring within the mined area over two or more monitoring periods,

Statutory Requirements Performance Measures Assessment Methodology Triggers for investigation outside of seasonal variations. Ref: BMP (ULNCX-111515275-225), s7.21.5

Condition 41A: The proponent None specified 2009 Environment Assessment No triggers established shall ensure that the offset and confirmatory ecological areas contain suitable habitat assessments, as documented for any significant and / or in Conservation Area threatened species identified in Agreements areas to be cleared, removed or disturbed

Commonwealth Approval - EPBC Ref: 2009/5252

Condition 5: To offset the None specified Targeted threatened microbat Annual microbat impacts on the Large-eared monitoring undertaken in monitoring undertaken. Pied Bat, the person taking the accordance with the BMP with A species of threatened action must, before respect to the Brokenback microbat previously commencement of operations Conservation Area and Spring identified within Spring (excluding first workings), Gully Cliff Line Management Gully Cliff Line obtain the Minister’s approval Area, specifically: Management Area or of an Offset Management Plan Acoustic call detection – 2 Brokenback Conservation for the Brokenback recording nights (4 recording Area for two or more Conservation Area and Spring nights undertaken in 2020) consecutive monitoring Gully Cliff Line Management Harp trapping – up to 3 trap years not detected in Area. The plan must include nights (4 trap nights these areas during details of: undertaken in 2020) subsequent monitoring e) the development and periods. Ref: BMP implementation of a monitoring (ULNCX-111515275-225), program s7.11.4

1.3 Updates to 2020 monitoring program A review of the microbat monitoring program (ELA 2020) was undertaken as it was identified in the 2019 monitoring report (Fly By Night 2020) that the survey effort and design of the existing monitoring program was likely insufficient to adequately assess whether mining operations were impacting upon threatened cave-roosting microbat species across the UCML complex. The review proposed the following changes to the monitoring program which were implemented in 2020:

• collection of additional acoustic call data at selected control and impact sites, • analysis of call activity of threatened cave-roosting microbat species; and • increased harp trapping survey effort at sites known or likely to be important to the local Large- eared Pied Bat (Chalinolobus dwyeri) population, in order to be more certain of population sizes and reproductive activity and to provide opportunities to locate females at other maternity roosts, should they move.

Collection of acoustic call data at both control and impact sites was continued to determine call activity rates of threatened cave-roosting microbat species Large-eared Pied Bat and Miniopterus orianae oceanensis (Large Bent-winged Bat). Analysis of acoustic call data for Rhinolophus megaphyllus (Eastern Horseshoe Bat) was deemed to be no longer necessary as this species is not listed under Commonwealth

© ECO LOGICAL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD 10 UCML Microbat Monitoring Report 2020 | Ulan Coal Mines Limited or State legislation and not considered under NSW Project Approval (PA 08_0184), nor Commonwealth Project Approvals (EPBC 2009/5252; EPBC 2015/7511).

A total of eight (8) control sites and 29 impact sites were monitored during 2020. The survey effort per site for the 8 control sites and 8 paired impact sites increased from two nights to four nights to provide a more robust dataset and reduce the variability recorded during previous monitoring. The remaining 21 established impact sites were monitored for two nights as has previously been the case, in order to maintain the program as planned. This survey design also provides the opportunity for the variability in mean calling activity at sites recorded for just two nights to be compared to results for microbat activity at sites sampled for four nights. The selected paired 8 impact sites are above longwall panels UWLW6 and UWLW7 which are yet to be undermined to allow more intensive pre-mining data to be collected.

Impact sites above longwall panels UWLW3, UGLWW3 and UGLWW4 which recorded declining microbat activity in 2019 were also monitored in 2020, despite these longwalls having been undermined >2 years ago and therefore, not requiring continued monitoring under the approved BMP.

Harp trapping of seven sites known or likely to be important to the local Large-eared Pied Bat population continued in 2020, with additional survey effort. These seven sites include four sites where evidence of breeding activity (captured lactating females or free-flying young) has been previously recorded. Harp trapping survey effort per site was increased from two to four nights, split over two periods of two consecutive nights separated by a week, in order to both maximise the chances of capturing lactating females or free-flying young and minimise the potential for adverse conditions to significantly affect the monitoring results. If breeding activity is confirmed before the fourth night, monitoring of that site may cease, in line with animal welfare considerations. The continued monitoring of these sites through harp trapping aims to confirm the ongoing presence of a breeding population within the UCML complex, as well the identification of the presence of ongoing or additional maternity roost caves.

The above mentioned breeding records of the Large-eared Pied Bat within the Project Area date from 2004, through to 2019 and have been recorded from a range of sites including sites which have been previously undermined (UGLWW3 and UGLWW4a) and sites within Biodiversity Offset Areas (SG7) managed and protected for the conservation of the species. Given the relative scarcity of confirmed breeding records for the species across its entire range, the continued monitoring of these sites, combined with the potential identification of additional maternity roost sites, aims to provide valuable data with regard to both the local and national population of the Large-eared Pied Bat.

2. Methods

2.1 Control sites A total of eight control sites underwent targeted cliffline monitoring during 2020. The control sites are located along non-mined clifflines, surrounded by remnant vegetation in the Brokenback Conservation Area, Spring Gully Cliffline Management Area and adjacent to Ulan Creek (Figures 1-2).

All eight sites underwent acoustic survey for a total of four nights, using Anabat recording devices (models SD2 and Anabat Swift, Titley Scientific). Acoustic survey provides an inventory of species present at sites, as well as an estimate of microbat activity, both of which are used to address the aims of this report (Section 1.3).

Five control sites where Large-eared Pied Bats had previously been captured were also surveyed using collapsible harp traps (2-bank harp trap, Austbat Faunatech) for two survey periods of two consecutive nights, for a total of four survey nights per site (Table 2). Harp trapping is used to provide an inventory of species present at sites and confirm the ongoing presence and breeding status of threatened cave- roosting microbat species at control sites. This method provides both quantitative and qualitative data to address the aims of this report detailed, as detailed above in Section 1.3.

Table 2: Control sites monitored during 2020

Site Easting Northing Location Survey Dates Method

BD6 753428 6436595 Brokenback 7-8/12/20 and 14-15/12/20 Acoustic bat detection, Conservation Area (Harp), 7-10/12/20 (Acoustic) Harp Trap/s

BD7 753052 6436594 Brokenback 7-10/12/20 Acoustic bat detection Conservation Area

BD8 752671 6436618 Brokenback 7-8/12/20 and 14-15/12/20 Acoustic bat detection, Conservation Area (Harp), 7-10/12/20 (Acoustic) Harp Trap/s

BD9 751864 6436925 Brokenback 7-10/12/20 Acoustic bat detection Conservation Area

SG5 761877 6432689 Spring Gully Cliffline 9-12/12/20 Acoustic bat detection Management Area

SG7 761320 6432855 Spring Gully Cliffline 9-10/12/20 and 16-17/12/20 Acoustic bat detection, Management Area (Harp), 9-12/12/20 (Acoustic) Harp Trap/s

SG8 761324 6432943 Spring Gully Cliffline 9-10/12/20 and 16-17/12/20 Acoustic bat detection, Management Area (Harp), 9-12/12/20 (Acoustic) Harp Trap/s

UG1 756847 6431191 Residual Project Area 9-10/12/20 and 16-17/12/20 Acoustic bat detection, – Ulan Creek (Harp), 9-12/12/20 (Acoustic) Harp Trap/s

2.2 Impact sites A total of 29 impact sites underwent targeted monitoring during 2020. The impact sites are located along clifflines, surrounded by remnant vegetation above Ulan Underground longwall panels LWW3- LWW5, all of which had been undermined at the time of the 2020 survey, and Ulan West longwall panels LW3-LW7, of which sites above LW3, LW4 and LW5 had been undermined at the time of the 2020 survey

(Figures 1-2). All sites underwent acoustic survey for a total of two nights, using Anabat recording devices (models SD2 and Anabat Swift, Titley Scientific), with the exception of three sites above UWLW6 and five sites above UWLW7 (Table 3). Two impact sites where Large-eared Pied Bats (including lactating females and free-flying young) had previously been captured (UGLWW3 and UGLWW4) were also surveyed using collapsible harp traps (2-bank harp trap, Austbat Faunatech) for two survey periods of two consecutive nights, for a total of four survey nights per site (Table 3). The continued monitoring of these sites aims to confirm the ongoing presence and breeding status of this species, and thus provides important quantitative and qualitative data regarding the local population of this threatened cave-roosting species.

Table 3: Impact sites monitored during 2020

Site Easting Northing Location Survey Dates Method

UGLWW3* 755431 6437443 Ulan Underground 7-8/12/20 (Acoustic and Acoustic bat detection, Longwall West 3 Harp) and 14-15/12/20 (Harp) Harp Trap/s

UGLWW4a 755205 6437865 Ulan Underground 7-8/12/20 (Acoustic and Acoustic bat detection, * Longwall West 4 Harp) and 14-15/12/20 (Harp) Harp Trap/s

UGLWW5a 756329 6438583 Ulan Underground 11-12/12/20 Acoustic bat detection * Longwall West 5

UGLWW5b 756310 6438327 Ulan Underground 11-12/12/20 Acoustic bat detection * Longwall West 5

UGLWW5c* 756115 6438101 Ulan Underground 11-12/12/20 Acoustic bat detection Longwall West 5

UWLW3a* 755840 6434284 Ulan West Longwall 3 2-3/12/20 Acoustic bat detection

UWLW3b* 755730 6434129 Ulan West Longwall 3 2-3/12/20 Acoustic bat detection

UWLW3c* 755663 6431667 Ulan West Longwall 3 4-5/12/20 Acoustic bat detection

UWLW4a* 755532 6433510 Ulan West Longwall 4 2-3/12/20 Acoustic bat detection

UWLW4b* 755276 6432114 Ulan West Longwall 4 4-5/12/20 Acoustic bat detection

UWLW5a* 755097 6433764 Ulan West Longwall 5 2-3/12/20 Acoustic bat detection

UWLW5b* 754881 6432899 Ulan West Longwall 5 2-3/12/20 Acoustic bat detection

UWLW5c* 754702 6432687 Ulan West Longwall 5 2-3/12/20 Acoustic bat detection

UWLW5d* 754881 6438584 Ulan West Longwall 5 4-5/12/20 Acoustic bat detection

UWLW5h* 754702 6432687 Ulan West Longwall 5 4-5/12/20 Acoustic bat detection

UWLW5j* 754728 6432751 Ulan West Longwall 5 4-5/12/20 Acoustic bat detection

UWLW5k* 754869 6433739 Ulan West Longwall 5 2-3/12/20 Acoustic bat detection

UWLW5m* 754983 6433786 Ulan West Longwall 5 2-3/12/20 Acoustic bat detection

UWLW6c 754581 6432440 Ulan West Longwall 6 4-5/12/20 Acoustic bat detection

UWLW6d 754507 6433372 Ulan West Longwall 6 4-5/12/20 Acoustic bat detection

UWLW6e 754429 6433323 Ulan West Longwall 6 4-5/12/20 Acoustic bat detection

UWLW6m 754509 6436519 Ulan West Longwall 6 14-18/12/2020 Acoustic bat detection

UWLW6o 754404 6436603 Ulan West Longwall 6 14-18/12/2020 Acoustic bat detection

UWLW6p 754403 6436297 Ulan West Longwall 6 14-18/12/2020 Acoustic bat detection

Site Easting Northing Location Survey Dates Method

UWLW7a 754202 6436095 Ulan West Longwall 7 14-18/12/2020 Acoustic bat detection

UWLW7b 754259 6436457 Ulan West Longwall 7 14-18/12/2020 Acoustic bat detection

UWLW7d 754179 6436616 Ulan West Longwall 7 14-18/12/2020 Acoustic bat detection

UWLW7e 754071 6436611 Ulan West Longwall 7 14-18/12/2020 Acoustic bat detection

UWLW7h 754346 6436576 Ulan West Longwall 7 14-18/12/2020 Acoustic bat detection *Site undermined at time of 2020 monitoring

Figure 1: The northern portion of targeted cliffline monitoring sites monitored during 2020

Figure 2: The southern portion of targeted cliffline monitoring sites monitored during 2020

2.3 Acoustic call data analysis The acoustic call data was recorded passively on either a Anabat Swift (34 sites) or Anabat SD2 (three sites) ultrasonic microbat detector. Microbat calls recorded on the Anabat Swift detectors were recorded as full-spectrum WAV sound files, whilst microbat calls on the Anabat SD detectors were recorded as zero crossing (ZC) files. These recorded files were analysed using the software program Anabat Insight (Version 1.9.2-0g2fd2328) (Titley Scientific). It should be noted that previous monitoring undertaken for UCML utilised for the most part, different models of Anabat detectors (Fly by Night 2020) which may be less sensitive than the Anabat Swift detectors primarily used in 2020, and as such, may have contributed to the increased number of calls recorded in 2020.

Call identifications were made by Dr Rod Armistead of ELA, using regional based guides to the echolocation calls of microbats in New South Wales (Pennay et al 2004); and south-east Queensland and north-east New South Wales (Reinhold et al 2001) and the accompanying reference library of over 200 calls from Sydney Basin, NSW (which is available at http://www.forest.nsw.gov.au/research/bats/default.asp). Species identification was guided by considering probability of occurrence based upon the general distribution information that is provided in Churchill (2008); Pennay et al. (2011), Van Dyck and Strahan (2008), Van Dyck et al. (2013) and on the Australian Bat Society web page (Australian Bat Society Inc (2018)).

A technical review of this report and a sample of the calls was performed by Alicia Scanlon also from ELA. Alicia has over 14 years of experience in the identification of ultrasonic call recordings.

To ensure reliable and accurate results the following protocols (adapted from Lloyd et al. 2006) were applied:

• Search phase calls are used preferentially when analysing the data because they contain more diagnostic features, rather than cruise phase calls or feeding buzzes (McKenzie et al. 2002). • Recorded calls containing less than three pulses are not analysed as they are often too short to confidently determine the identity of the species making the call (Law et al. 1999). These short sequences were either removed manually or were labelled as unidentifiable. • For those calls that are able to be used to identify the species making the call, two categories of confidence are used (Mills et al. 1996): o Definitely present – the quality and structure of the call profile is such that the identity of the bat species making the calls is not in doubt. o Potentially present – the quality and structure of the call profile is such that there is some / low probability of confusion with species that produce similar calls profiles. • Calls made by bats that cannot be used for identification purposes such as social calls, short and low-quality calls, cruise and approach phase calls were removed from the data. • Nyctophilus spp. (Long-eared bats) are difficult to identify or separate confidently to species level based upon their recorded calls. Therefore, we have made no attempt to identify any Nyctophilus spp. calls recorded during this survey to species level (Pennay et al. 2004). There are three potential Nyctophilus species that could occur in the UCML study area. Two are non- threatened species, N. geoffroyi (Lesser Long-eared Bat) and N. gouldi (Gould’s Long-eared Bat). Both of these species are relatively common and widely distributed across NSW and were captured in harp traps during the 2020 survey. However, the third species, N. corbeni (Corben’s

Long-eared Bat) is listed as vulnerable under the NSW Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (BC Act) and Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). This species was not recorded in harp traps during the 2020 survey but has been recorded in previous years. Where Nyctophilus spp. calls were recorded, we have included this threatened microbat species as potentially being present. • The Free-tailed Bats (previously referred to as the genus Mormopterus or Tadarida) have recently undergone taxonomic revision (Reardon et al. 2014) and now comprise four separate genus; Austronomus, Micronomus, Ozimops and Setirostris (Table 4). This report uses nomenclature for Free-tailed Bat species as referred to in Jackson and Groves (2015). The correlation between nomenclature used in this report and that used in NSW State legislation is presented in Table 4 below. Published reference calls for the genus Ozimops (Pennay et al. 2004) are believed to contain errors (Greg Ford pers comm.). All Free-tailed Bats in the new genus Ozimops potentially occurring within the survey area will therefore be referred to as Ozimops species complex. • Jackson & Groves (2015) list the Eastern Bent-winged Bat (Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis) under the new name of M. orianae oceanensis (Large Bent-winged Bat). ELA follows the NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (DPIE) nomenclature as it applies to the eastern form of the species which occurs in NSW as a distinct sub-species; M. o. oceanensis (Large Bent-winged Bat) (see https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/threatenedspeciesapp/profile.aspx?id=10534) (NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (formerly the Office Environment and Heritage). • Sequences not attributed to microbat echolocation calls (e.g. insect buzzes, wind, vehicle movements) were dismissed from the analysis.

Table 4: Correlations between current and previous nomenclature for the Free-tailed bats of NSW

Jackson and Groves 2015 Previously known as Common Name BC Act listing

Austronomus australis Tadarida australis White-striped Free-tailed Bat

Micronomus norfolkensis Mormopterus norfolkensis Eastern Coastal Free-tailed Bat Vulnerable

Ozimops petersi Mormopterus species 3 (small Inland Free-tailed Bat penis)

Ozimops planiceps Mormopterus species 4 (long penis Southern Free-tailed Bat eastern form)

Ozimops ridei Mormopterus species 2 Ride's Free-tailed Bat

2.4 Survey limitations Calls were only positively identified when the defining characteristics were present and there was no chance of confusion between species with overlapping and/or similar calls. In this survey, there were some call sequences that could not be positively identified to species level. Further, some species recorded in this survey can have call profiles that overlap with other species.

When overlap occurs, species with similar call profiles are assigned to multi-species groups of two or three potential species depending on the characteristics displayed in the recorded call sequences. The species recorded in this survey with overlapping call profiles are described below.

The calls of Chalinolobus gouldii (Gould’s Wattled Bat), Scotorepens balstoni (Inland Broad-nosed Bat) and the Ozimops species complex (Free-tailed Bats) can be difficult to separate. Calls were identified as Ozimops species complex when the call shape was flat (slope S1 of less than 100 OPS generally) and the frequency was between 24 – 36 kHz. Gould’s Wattled Bat was distinguished by a frequency of 27.5 – 32.5 kHz and alternation in call frequency between pulses. Inland Broad-nosed Bat calls have a slope of greater than 200 OPS, are non-alternating and fall between 29 and 34 kHz. When no distinguishing characteristics were present calls were assigned to multi-species groups.

In this geographic region, calls of Vespadelus troughtoni (Eastern Cave Bat), Large Bent-winged Bat, Vespadelus vulturnus (Little Forest Bat) and Chalinolobus morio (Chocolate Wattled Bat) overlap in the range 47 – 53 kHz. Chocolate Wattled Bat and Large Bent-winged Bat calls have a down-sweeping tail whereas Eastern Cave Bat and Little Forest Bat calls have an up-sweeping tail. Large Bent-winged Bat calls were distinguished by the following characteristics: a down-sweeping tail and the pulse shape and time between calls was variable (43 – 48.5 kHz). Chocolate Wattled Bats generally display a more even pulse shape and time between calls than the Large Bent-winged Bat and the calls are generally separated by higher characteristics frequencies (48.5 – 51 kHz). Calls of the Eastern Cave Bat (49 – 53.5 kHz) were separated from those of Little Forest Bat (42.5 -48 kHz) only at frequencies above 50 kHz. When no distinguishing characteristics were present calls were assigned to multi-species groups or characterized as unidentifiable.

The calls of Large Bent-winged Bat overlap in frequency with those of Vespadelus regulus (Southern Forest Bat) and Little Forest Bat between 44 and 48.5 kHz, and with Vespadelus darlingtoni (Large Forest Bat) at frequencies of 44 kHz. Large Bent-winged Bat calls were distinguished by the following characteristics: a down-sweeping tail and the pulse shape and time between calls was variable (43 – 48.5 kHz). Southern Forest Bat (45 – 46.5 kHz), Large Forest Bat (41 – 44 kHz) and Little Forest Bat calls (42.5 – 48 kHz) are curved, have a regular pulse shape and generally up-sweeping tails. Large Forest Bat calls often have a longer characteristic section than Little or Southern forest Bats. When no distinguishing characteristics were present, calls were assigned to multi-species groups.

Furthermore, calls produced by different bat species differ in fundamental ways related to the foraging mode and activity of each species. Calls of different species and the different types of calls produced by each species (cruise, search, social, approach, attack) are not equally recorded by ultrasonic detectors. Weather and climatic conditions affect the quality and quantity of recorded data as well as the availability of insect prey and therefore, the suitability of each site at a given time as foraging habitat.

The mean numbers of definite calls per night were used for comparisons in activity rather than total recorded calls. This approach was taken due to the uncertainty of some microbat species calls as detailed above, and because there were different lengths of monitoring for individual sites and using a mean of calls per night allows for reasonable comparisons of data, with length of monitoring removed as a factor.

2.5 Weather conditions Microbat monitoring was undertaken by ELA staff Amanda Sales, Elise Keane, Kate Maslen, Dr Frank Lemckert, Rebecca Croake, Dr Rod Armistead and Tom Kelly from 2 to 18 December 2020. Weather during the monitoring period varied, with minimum temperatures ranging from 6.1°C to 19.7°C, and maximum temperatures ranging from 21.5°C to 34.0°C. Rainfall was recorded during six of the seventeen (17) days in the survey period, with daily rainfall ranging from 0.2 mL to 27.6 mL. The 2020 surveys were undertaken following well-above mean rainfall in the preceding three and twelve months, which followed on from a prolonged drought period extending back to 2017 (Figure 3).

200.0 1200.0 180.0 1000.0 160.0 140.0 800.0 120.0 100.0 600.0 80.0 400.0

60.0 Cumulative Rainfall (mm)Cumulative Rainfall total month month total (mm)Rainfall 40.0 200.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Rainfall 2019 (mm) Rainfall 2020 (mm) Average Monthly (mm) Rainfall Cumulative 2019 (mm) Rainfall Cumulative 2020 (mm) Average Cumulative (mm)

Figure 3: Monthly and cumulative rainfall totals for 2019, 2020 and long-term mean dating back to 1906 (UCML 2021; BOM 2021)

3. Results

3.1 Control sites A total of 19,023 call sequences were recorded across the eight control sites. Of these, 14,628 (76.9%) were deemed useful, because the call profile was of sufficient quality and/or length to enable positive identification of a bat species. The remaining 4,395 (23.1%) call sequences were either too short or of low quality, thus preventing positive identification of a microbat species.

In total, 11 microbat species were definitively recorded across all control sites, with a further six species potentially recorded. Accounting for definitively recorded microbat species only, species richness ranged from one species at site BD9, to 11 species at sites SG5, SG7 and UG1 (Table 4). Total microbat activity (accounting for both definitive and potential calls) across the control sites varied from a minimum of 75 calls at site BD9, to 6617 calls at site SG7.

The targeted threatened cave-roosting microbat species, Large-eared Pied Bat and Large Bent-winged Bat were recorded via acoustic call detection at all control sites, with the exception of BD9. Additionally, the threatened hollow-roosting microbat species Saccolaimus flaviventris (Yellow-bellied Sheath-tailed Bat), listed as vulnerable under the BC Act, was definitively recorded at five control sites and potentially record at a further one site. The threatened hollow-roosting Corben’s Long-eared Bat, listed as vulnerable under both the BC Act and EPBC Act, was potentially recorded at four control sites, whilst the threatened hollow-roosting Scoteanax rueppellii (Greater Broad-nosed Bat), listed as vulnerable under the BC Act, was potentially recorded at sites SG7 and UG1.

Two of the five control sites that underwent harp trapping recorded microbats during 2020 monitoring. A total of 10 microbats from three individual species were captured at site BD6, whilst eight microbats from one species were captured at site UG1 (Appendix C). The threatened and targeted cave-roosting microbat species Large-eared Pied Bat, was recorded at both BD6 and UG1, with two individuals captured at site BD6, including one previously banded individual (pre-2019 - see Appendix D) and at least five individuals captured at site UG1, including two lactating females and one sub-adult female. The continued presence of a substantial quantity of Large-eared Pied Bats at these sites, including breeding and sub-adult individuals, is a positive indication regarding the habitat the UCML complex provides for this threatened cave-roosting species.

Table 5: Microbat species recorded from all targeted cliffline microbat monitoring control sites during 2020

Scientific Name Common Name BC EPBC BD6 BD7 BD8 BD9 SG5 SG7 SG8 UG1 Act Act

Austronomus australis White-striped Free-tailed Bat D D D D D D D D

Chalinolobus dwyeri Large-eared Pied Bat V V D, H D D - D D D D, H

Chalinolobus gouldii Gould's Wattled Bat D P D - D D D D

Chalinolobus morio Chocolate Wattled Bat P D D - D D D D

Miniopterus orianae oceanensis Large Bent-winged Bat V D D D - D D D D

Nyctophilus corbeni Corben’s Long-eared Bat V V P - P - P P - -

Nyctophilus geoffroyi Lesser Long-eared Bat P - P - P P - -

Nyctophilus gouldii Gould’s Long-eared Bat P, H - P - P P - -

Ozimops petersi Inland Free-tailed Bat P P P - P P P P

Ozimops ridei Ride's Free-tailed Bat P P P - P P P P

Ozimops planiceps South-eastern Free-tailed Bat P P P - P P P P

Rhinolophus megaphyllus Eastern Horseshoe Bat D D D - D D D D

Saccolaimus flaviventris Yellow-bellied Sheath-tailed Bat V D - P - D D D D

Scoteanax rueppellii Greater Broad-nosed Bat V - - - - - P - P

Scotorepens balstoni Inland Broad-nosed Bat D P D - D D - D

Vespadelus regulus Southern Forest Bat P P P - P P - D

Vespadelus vulturnus Little Forest Bat D, H P P - D D D D D = Definitely recorded via Anabat detector; P = Potentially recorded via Anabat detector; H = captured in Harp trap

3.2 Impact sites A total of 19,838 call sequences were recorded across the 29 impact sites. Of these, 15,399 (77.6%) were deemed useful, because the call profile was of sufficient quality and/or length to enable positive identification of a bat species. The remaining 4,439 (22.4%) call sequences were either too short or of low quality, thus preventing positive identification of the associated microbat species.

In total, twelve microbat species were definitively recorded across all impact sites, with a further seven species potentially recorded (Table 6 - Table 9). Accounting for definitively recorded microbat species only, species richness ranged from a minimum of one species at sites UWLW5h and UWLW7a, to a maximum of eleven species at site UWLW6m. Total microbat activity (accounting for both definitive and potential calls) across the impact sites varied from a minimum of 41 calls at site UGLWW5c, to 3,288 calls at site UWLW6p.

The targeted threatened cave-roosting microbat species, Large-eared Pied Bat and Large Bentwing Bat were recorded via acoustic call detection at 22 and 23 sites respectfully. High activity for both target species was recorded across a cluster of sites located along adjacent clifflines above UWLW6 (UWLW6m,o,p) and UWLW7 (UWLW7b,d,e,h) (Appendix A). Additionally, the threatened Yellow- bellied Sheath-tailed Bat was definitively recorded at five impact sites and potentially recorded at a further four sites, whilst the threatened Eastern Cave Bat was potentially recorded at five sites. The threatened Corben’s Long-eared Bat, listed as vulnerable under both the BC Act and EPBC Act, was also potentially recorded at a total of 19 impact sites.

Two impact sites, where the Large-eared Pied Bat had previously been recorded, UGLWW3 and UGLWW4a, were again subject to harp trapping during 2020. A total of 46 microbats from five individual species were captured at site UGLWW3, whilst one individual Rhinolophus megaphyllus (Eastern Horseshoe Bat) was captured at site UGLWW4a. The threatened targeted cave-roosting species, Large- eared Pied Bat was captured at site UGLWW3, which contains a known maternity roost for the species (see Appendix D), for the seventh consecutive monitoring year. A total of ten (10) individuals were captured at this site during 2020, which is the highest number recorded to date. Five lactating / post- lactating females and four sub-adult individuals were recorded, confirming continued breeding in the locality. The abundance of Large-eared Pied Bats and continued breeding activity recorded at the site in 2020, more than four years since undermining, is a positive result with regards to the important habitat the UCML complex continues to provide for this species.

Table 6: Microbat species recorded from UGLWW3, UGLWW4, UGLWW5 and UWLW3 targeted cliffline microbat monitoring impact sites during 2020

Scientific Name Common Name BC EPBC UGLWW3 UGLWW4a UGLWW5a UGLWW5b UGLWW5C UWLW3a UWLW3b UWLW3c Act Act

Austronomus australis White-striped Free-tailed Bat D D D D D D D D

Chalinolobus dwyeri Large-eared Pied Bat V V D, H D D - - D D D

Chalinolobus gouldii Gould's Wattled Bat D P D P - D - D

Chalinolobus morio Chocolate Wattled Bat P D P P - D - D

Miniopterus orianae oceanensis Large Bent-winged Bat V D D D D - D - D

Nyctophilus corbeni Corben’s Long-eared Bat V V - P P - - P - P

Nyctophilus geoffroyi Lesser Long-eared Bat H P P - - P - P

Nyctophilus gouldii Gould’s Long-eared Bat H P P - - P - P

Ozimops petersi Inland Free-tailed Bat P P P P - P - P

Ozimops ridei Ride's Free-tailed Bat P P P P - P - P

Ozimops planiceps South-eastern Free-tailed Bat P,H P P P - P - P

Rhinolophus megaphyllus Eastern Horseshoe Bat D D, H - - - - - D

Saccolaimus flaviventris Yellow-bellied Sheath-tailed Bat V - - D - - P - P

Scotorepens balstoni Inland Broad-nosed Bat P P P - - P - D

Scotorepens greyii Little Broad-nosed Bat - - P - - - - -

Vespadelus darlingtoni Large Forest Bat - - P - - D - -

Vespadelus regulus Southern Forest Bat P P P P - P - P

Vespadelus troughtoni Eastern Cave Bat V - P P - - - - P

Vespadelus vulturnus Little Forest Bat H P D D - P - D V= Vulnerable to extinction; D = Definitely recorded via Anabat detector; P = Potentially recorded via Anabat detector; H = captured in Harp trap

Table 7: Microbat species recorded from UWLW4 and UWLW6 targeted cliffline microbat monitoring impact sites during 2020

BC EPBC Species Name Common Name UWLW4a UWLW4b UWLW6c UWLW6d UWLW6e UWLW6m UWLW6o UWLW6p Act Act

Austronomus australis White-striped Free-tailed Bat D D D D D D D D

Chalinolobus dwyeri Large-eared Pied Bat V V D - D D P D D D

Chalinolobus gouldii Gould's Wattled Bat P D D P P D P D

Chalinolobus morio Chocolate Wattled Bat - D D P D - D P

Chalinolobus picatus Little Pie Bat V - - D - P -

Miniopterus orianae oceanensis Large Bent-winged Bat V D P D D D D D D

Nyctophilus corbeni Corben’s Long-eared Bat V V P P P P - P - P

Nyctophilus geoffroyi Lesser Long-eared Bat P P P P - P - P

Nyctophilus gouldii Gould’s Long-eared Bat P P P P - P - P

Ozimops petersi Inland Free-tailed Bat P P P P P P P P

Ozimops ridei Ride's Free-tailed Bat P P P P P P P P

Ozimops planiceps South-eastern Free-tailed Bat P P P P P P P P

Rhinolophus megaphyllus Eastern Horseshoe Bat - - D D - D - P Yellow-bellied Sheath-tailed Saccolaimus flaviventris - - - D - D - - Bat V

Scotorepens balstoni Inland Broad-nosed Bat P D P P - D D D

Scotorepens greyii Little Broad-nosed Bat ------

Vespadelus darlingtoni Large Forest Bat P P P - - - - -

BC EPBC Species Name Common Name UWLW4a UWLW4b UWLW6c UWLW6d UWLW6e UWLW6m UWLW6o UWLW6p Act Act

Vespadelus regulus Southern Forest Bat P P P P P P P P

Vespadelus troughtoni Eastern Cave Bat V - - P - - - - -

Vespadelus vulturnus Little Forest Bat P D D P P D P D V= Vulnerable to extinction; D = Definitely recorded via Anabat detector; P = Potentially recorded via Anabat detector

Table 8: Microbat species recorded from UWLW5 targeted cliffline microbat monitoring impact sites during 2020

BC EPBC Species Name Common Name UWLW5a UWLW5b UWLW5c UWLW5d UWLW5h UWLW5j UWLW5k UWLW5m Act Act

Austronomus australis White-striped Free-tailed Bat D D D D D D D

Chalinolobus dwyeri Large-eared Pied Bat V V D D - D - D D D

Chalinolobus gouldii Gould's Wattled Bat D D P - - D D

Chalinolobus morio Chocolate Wattled Bat D D D D - D D

Miniopterus orianae oceanensis Large Bent-winged Bat V D D D D - D D D

Nyctophilus corbeni Corben’s Long-eared Bat V V - P P P - P - P

Nyctophilus geoffroyi Lesser Long-eared Bat - P P P - P - P

Nyctophilus gouldii Gould’s Long-eared Bat - P P P - P - P

Ozimops petersi Inland Free-tailed Bat P P P P - P P P

Ozimops ridei Ride's Free-tailed Bat P P P P - P P P

Ozimops planiceps South-eastern Free-tailed Bat P P P P - P P P

Rhinolophus megaphyllus Eastern Horseshoe Bat D D D - - D D D

Yellow-bellied Sheath-tailed V Saccolaimus flaviventris D - P - - D - - Bat

Scotorepens balstoni Inland Broad-nosed Bat D D - D - D - -

Scotorepens greyii Little Broad-nosed Bat ------P -

BC EPBC Species Name Common Name UWLW5a UWLW5b UWLW5c UWLW5d UWLW5h UWLW5j UWLW5k UWLW5m Act Act

Vespadelus darlingtoni Large Forest Bat P P - P - P P P

Vespadelus regulus Southern Forest Bat P P P P - P P P

Vespadelus vulturnus Little Forest Bat D D D D - P D D V= Vulnerable to extinction; D = Definitely recorded via Anabat detector; P = Potentially recorded via Anabat detector

Table 9: Microbat species recorded from UWLW7 targeted cliffline microbat monitoring impact sites during 2020

EPBC Species Name Common Name BC Act UWLW7a UWLW7b UWLW7d UWLW7e UWLW7h Act Austronomus australis White-striped Free-tailed Bat D D D D D

Chalinolobus dwyeri Large-eared Pied Bat V V P D D D D

Chalinolobus gouldii Gould's Wattled Bat - D D D D

Chalinolobus morio Chocolate Wattled Bat - D - D D

Miniopterus orianae oceanensis Large Bent-winged Bat V - D D D D

Nyctophilus corbeni Corben’s Long-eared Bat V V - P P P P

Nyctophilus geoffroyi Lesser Long-eared Bat - P P P P

Nyctophilus gouldii Gould’s Long-eared Bat - P P P P

Ozimops petersi Inland Free-tailed Bat - P P P P

Ozimops ridei Ride's Free-tailed Bat - P P P P

Ozimops planiceps South-eastern Free-tailed Bat - P P P P

Rhinolophus megaphyllus Eastern Horseshoe Bat - D D D D

Saccolaimus flaviventris Yellow-bellied Sheath-tailed Bat V - - P - -

Scotorepens balstoni Inland Broad-nosed Bat - D D P D

EPBC Species Name Common Name BC Act UWLW7a UWLW7b UWLW7d UWLW7e UWLW7h Act

Vespadelus regulus Southern Forest Bat - P P P P

Vespadelus troughtoni Eastern Cave Bat V - - - - P

Vespadelus vulturnus Little Forest Bat - D P P V= Vulnerable to extinction; D = Definitely recorded via Anabat detector; P = Potentially recorded via Anabat detector

4. Discussion

The UCML BMP (UCML 2020) and Ulan West and Ulan Underground Extraction Plan BMPs (UCML 2013 and UCML 2019) collectively outline the monitoring requirements and performance criteria to be achieved with regards to the management of threatened microbat species. The following section provides a summary of progress against each monitoring requirement and/or performance criteria relevant to the 2020 UCML microbat monitoring program.

4.1 Provision of threatened species habitat Section 7.11.4 of the BMP (UCML 2020) outlines the following Trigger Action Response Plan (TARP) for the Provision of Threatened Species Habitat for threatened microbats:

• A species of threatened microbat previously identified within Spring Gully Cliff Line Management Area or Brokenback Conservation Area for two or more consecutive monitoring years, is not detected in these areas during subsequent monitoring periods.

If this is found to have occurred, the proposed action is to investigate whether a lack of habitat may be a potential factor in the species not being detected. Table 10 below lists the threatened microbat species recorded within Brokenback Conservation Area, whilst Table 11 lists the threatened microbat species recorded within Spring Gully Cliffline Management Area during previous monitoring periods and whether they require investigation under the TARP. Sites within Brokenback and Spring Gully were not monitored in 2016 and as such, if a species was recorded in both 2015 and 2017, this is considered to constitute consecutive monitoring years.

As demonstrated below in Table 10 and Table 11, only two threatened species, Large-eared Pied Bat and Large Bent-winged Bat, have been recorded within Brokenback and Spring Gully sites for two or more consecutive years, with both of these species recorded within both BOAs during 2020 monitoring. As such, the Provision of Threatened Species Habitat for threatened microbats TARP is not triggered.

Table 10: Threatened microbat species definitively recorded in Brokenback Conservation Area from 2011 to present and their respective TARP assessment

Species BC EPBC 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2017 2018 2019 2020 TARP Act Act triggered

Yellow-bellied Sheath- V - - - - D - D - D No tailed Bat

Large-eared Pied Bat V V D,H D,H D,H D,H D D,H D D D,H No

Little Pied Bat V ------D - No

Large Bent-winged Bat V D D,H D D D D D D D No

Corben’s Long-eared V V ------No Bat

V= Vulnerable to extinction; D = Definitely recorded via Anabat detector; H = captured in Harp trap

Table 11: Threatened microbat species definitively recorded in Spring Gully Cliffline Management Areas from 2011 to present and their respective TARP assessment

Species BC EPBC 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2017 2018 2019 2020 TARP Act Act triggered

Yellow-bellied V ------D D No Sheath-tailed Bat

Large-eared Pied Bat V V D D D D,H D D,H D D,H D,H No

Little Pied Bat V ------D - No

Large Bent-winged V D D - D D D D - D No Bat

Corben’s Long-eared V V ------No Bat

V= Vulnerable to extinction; D = Definitely recorded via Anabat detector; H = captured in Harp trap

4.2 Targeted threatened cave-roosting microbat species activity The call activity of the targeted threatened cave-roosting microbat species, Large-eared Pied Bat and Large Bent-winged Bat is assessed in order to identify any potential impacts on these species resulting from mining induced subsidence.

Section 4.3 of Ulan West EP LW1-6 (UCML 2019) outlines the following performance indicator for this assessment: • Analysis of micro-bat monitoring data identifies decreasing activity levels (>10% decline) of endangered micro-bat species during cliff line monitoring within the Application Area (LW1-6) over two or more monitoring periods, outside of seasonal variations.

Section 7.21.5 of the BMP (UCML 2020) outlines the following performance indicator for this assessment: • Analysis of micro-bat monitoring data identifies decreasing activity levels (>10% decline) of endangered micro-bat species during cliff line monitoring within the mined area over two or more monitoring periods, outside of seasonal variations.

These performance measures have been assessed for sites above longwalls UWLW3 and UWLW4 (Application Area; UCML 2019); and the combined sites above UGLWW3, UGLWW4, UWLW3 and UWLW4 respectively (mined area; UCML 2020), following the completion of monitoring at these sites for at least two years before and after undermining. Only Definite calls from the two target species have been used for the analysis.

Whilst additional longwalls were also monitored in 2020, there is insufficient data at present (less than two years before and after undermining) for these sites to be included as part of the assessment of the above performance indicator. This includes the LWs 5 and 6 for Ulan West LW1-6 EP and Ulan Underground LW30 and LWW6-8 EP.

4.2.1 Large-eared Pied Bat Large-eared Pied Bat mean call activity (calls per night) across all available survey years for both impact and control sites combined, has been calculated and is presented in Figure 4. The Large-eared Pied Bat call activity recorded in 2020 was 34.8 calls per night, representing the highest call activity recorded to date. Large-eared Pied Bat call activity per night recorded in 2020 is a substantial increase on that recorded in 2019 and halts the gradual decline in call activity for this species, observed since 2015.

15 Mean activity Mean call

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Figure 4: Mean Large-eared Pied Bat call activity (calls per night) across all monitoring sites, 2013 – 2020

Mean Large-eared Pied Bat call activity was calculated separately for both control and impact sites across all available survey years and sites, and is presented below in Figure 5. Consistent with increases displayed above for combined call activity, 2020 recorded an increased call activity for both control and impact sites. Control sites recorded an increase of 467.5%, whilst impact sites increased by 410% compared to 2019. With no decline in activity recorded across mined areas in 2020, the subsidence performance indicator for the Large-eared Pied bat detailed in the BMP (UCML 2020) has been achieved.

Large-eared Pied Bat mean call activity across the Ulan West LW1-6 Application Area increased from 0.5 to 0.8 calls per night, representing a 60% increase. Given this increased call activity, the performance indicator detailed in the Ulan West EP (UCML 2019) has been achieved for the Large-eared Pied Bat.

50 45 40 35 30 25 20

Mean activity Mean call 15 10 5 0 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Control Sites Impact Sites

Figure 5: Mean Large-eared Pied Bat call activity across both control and impact sites, 2013 – 2020

4.2.2 Large Bent-winged Bat Large Bent-winged Bat mean call activity per night across all available survey years for both impact and control sites combined is presented in Figure 6. The call activity recorded in 2020 was 12.0 calls per night, representing the highest call activity for this species recorded to date and surpassing the 9.3 calls per night recorded in 2019.

14.0

12.0

10.0

8.0

6.0

Meancall activity 4.0

2.0

0.0

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Figure 6: Mean Large Bent-winged Bat call activity (calls per night) across all monitoring sites, 2013 – 2020

Mean Large Bent-winged Bat call activity was calculated separately for both control and impact sites across all available survey years and sites, and is presented below in Figure 7. Control sites recorded an increase of 37.9%, whilst impact sites decreased by 38.5% compared to 2019. Similarly, Large Bent- winged Bat mean call activity across the Ulan West LW1-6 Application Area decreased from 12.7 to 7.7 calls per night, representing a 39% decrease. Whilst a >10% decline in activity was recorded across both

© ECO LOGICAL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD 32 UCML Microbat Monitoring Report 2020 | Ulan Coal Mines Limited mined areas and the Ulan West LW1-6 Application between 2019 and 2020, the decline has not been observed over two or more monitoring periods and as such, the subsidence performance indicators detailed in both the BMP (UCML 2020) and Ulan West EP (UCML 2019) for the Large Bent-winged Bat has been achieved.

14.0

12.0

10.0

8.0

6.0

Meancall activity 4.0

2.0

0.0 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Control Sites Impact Sites

Figure 7: Mean Large Bent-winged Bat call activity across both control and impact sites, 2013 – 2020

Call activity for Large-eared Pied Bat and Large Bent-winged Bat at impact sites above longwalls UGLWW3, UGLWW4, UWLW3 and UWLW4 both before and after undermining is presented below in Table 12. Large-eared Pied Bat shows a minor (1.5%) decrease in call activity after undermining, whilst Large Bent-winged Bat increased call activity by 34.9% after undermining. Whilst a minor decrease has been observed for Large-eared Pied Bat after undermining, this level of decrease is not indicative of significant declines in the population of the species at these undermined sites, nor across the broader UCML complex, as demonstrated above in Section 3.2 and Section 4.2.1.

Table 12: Total Large-eared Pied Bat and Large Bent-winged Bat calls and call activity across all undermined impact sites, before and after undermining

Large-eared Pied Bat Large Bent-winged Bat

Before After Before After

Total calls 197 277 135 260

Total survey nights 42 60 42 60

Call activity per night 4.69 4.62 3.21 4.33

5. Conclusion and Recommendations

5.1 General conclusions and recommendations Targeted cliffline microbat monitoring was undertaken across the UCML complex in 2020, utilising both acoustic call detection and harp trapping. Monitoring specifically targeted two threatened cave- roosting microbat species known to occur within the UCML complex, Large-eared Pied Bat and Large Bent-winged Bat, with both species recorded in relative abundance across both control and impact monitoring sites. Given the successful implementation of the monitoring program in 2020 and the results detailed in this report, UCML is considered to be compliant with their relevant project approval conditions.

It is recommended that cliffline inspection data maintained by UCML is cross-referenced with adjacent monitoring sites to identify any subsidence occurring along clifflines at which monitoring sites are located. This will provide useful reference information should changes in microbat habitat and/or activity be observed through the microbat monitoring program. Impact sites yet to be undermined and located along adjacent clifflines above UWLW6 and UWLW7, recorded particularly high activity of both target cave-roosting microbat species. Further inspection of these clifflines may be worthwhile to try and locate roost locations.

5.2 Provision of threatened species habitat A total of three threatened microbat species were definitively recorded within Brokenback Conservation Area during 2020, with three threatened microbat species also definitively recorded within Spring Gully Cliffline Management Area in 2020. The target species Large-eared Pied Bat and Large Bent-winged Bat have been recorded within Brokenback and Spring Gully sites for two or more consecutive years, with both of these species recorded within both BOAs during 2020 monitoring. As such, the Provision of Threatened Species Habitat for threatened microbats TARP is not triggered during 2020.

5.3 Targeted threatened cave-roosting microbat species activity Call activity (calls per night) were calculated for Large-eared Pied Bat and Large Bent-winged Bat during 2020 for the assessment of the microbat subsidence performance indicator. Large-eared Pied Bat call activity at both control and impact sites increased from 2019 to 2020, whilst Large Bent-winged Bat call activity increased at control sites and decreased at impact sites from 2019 to 2020. With no decline in activity across the Application Area or Complex mined area in 2020, the subsidence performance indicator for Large-eared Pied Bat was achieved. Large Bent-winged Bat call activity across the Application Area and Complex mined area, did decline >10%, however, this decline has not been recorded across two or more survey years and as such, the subsidence performance indicator was achieved during 2020.

The percentage increases and declines recorded between all survey years for the two target threatened cave-roosting microbat species is presented below in Table 13 for both control and impact sites, as well as all sites combined. Given the performance indicator for negligible impact on target threatened cave- roosting microbat species is a >10% decline, the range of declines recorded across control, impact and these sites combined, has been examined. For the Large-eared Pied Bat, percent declines range from

5% to 89% with a mean decline of 54%, whilst for the Large Bent-winged Bat, percent declines range from 25% to 86% with a mean decline of 60%. Given the scale of these declines, the performance indicator of >10% decline is clearly not appropriate and given the overall fluctuations observed across all sites and years, it is difficult to determine what an appropriate percent decline trigger would be. This is consistent with previous analysis of ecological data, which have concluded that the inherent variability in species / community responses to environmental processes, limits the ability to predict accurate thresholds (Lindenmayer and Luck 2005).

It is therefore recommended that a new performance indicator for threatened cave-roosting microbats be developed. There are a range of statistical analyses which can be considered to assess the performance measure of negligible impact. Potential analyses include Mann-Kendall Tests and Ranking Analysis which determine increasing or declining trends, rather than percentage declines which have proven to be highly variable. These analyses can be undertaken with greater confidence given the revised monitoring program collects a greater quantity of replicate data from both control and impact sites, before and after undermining. Statistical analysis would still be undertaken two years post- undermining to account for temporal variation.

Table 13: Percent increases and declines recorded between survey years for both Large-eared Pied Bat and Large Bent- winged Bat at control and impact sites and all sites combined

Large-eared Pied Bat Large Bent-winged Bat

Control Impact Combined Control Impact Combined Mean Standard Deviation

2013-14 -88 3 -87 200 -70 108 11.0 119.3

2014-15 813 -56 449 36 1800 112 525.7 701.7

2015-16 - 480 -61 - -86 -85 39.4 246.8

2016-17* -89 3 -24 -51 450 325 133.0 238.8

2017-18 111 -70 -5 -25 -70 -53 -18.7 68.5

2018-19 -19 -63 -30 428 600 481 232.8 301.5

2019-20 467 410 625 38 -38 16 253.0 281.4

Mean 199.2 101.0 123.9 104.3 369.4 129.1

Standard 365.9 237.7 288.0 181.0 691.1 206.0 Deviation *Control sites were not monitored in 2016, so 2016-17 equates to comparison between 2015-17

Another aspect of the performance measure assessment which requires revision going forward is the Application Area over which the performance measure is assessed. As detailed in Section 1.2, the Application Area varies between the Ulan West LW1-6 EP, Ulan Underground LW30 and LWW6-8 EP and the UCML BMP. It is recommended that a single Application Area, comprising all undermined sites monitored for two years post-undermining, apply to all management plans. This will be particularly necessary going forward with Ulan West LWs (including UWLW6 and UWLW7) to be undermined over an 18 – 24 month period and as such, the undermining status of sites across the same LW and monitored in the same year may not be uniform. To account for this going forward, it is proposed that sites will be assessed as an Application Area based upon their year of undermining, rather than the LW over which they are located.

References Australian Bat Society Inc 2018. Bat fact sheets. Available online: http://ausbats.org.au/about- bats/4551313477. Accessed: February 2020.

Bureau of Meteorology 2021. Ulan Water Daily Weather Observations. Available online: http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_display_type=dailyDataFile. Accessed: February 2021.

Churchill 2008. Australian Bats. Second edition. Allen & Unwin, Sydney.

Fly By Night Bat Surveys Pty Ltd 2020. Microbat Monitoring of the Ulan Coal Mine Lease during 2019. A report to Ulan Coal Mines Limited.

Jackson, C and Groves, S 2015. Taxonomy of Australian Mammals. CSIRO Publishing.

Law, B., Anderson J., and Chidel, M 1999. Bat communities in a fragmented forest landscape on the south-west slopes of New South Wales, Australia. Biological Conservation 88, 333-345.

Lindenmayer, D and Luck, G 2005. Synthesis: Thresholds in conservation and management. Biological Conservation, 124: 351–354.

Lloyd, A., Law, B., and Goldingay, R 2006. Bat activity on riparian zones and upper slopes in Australian timber production forests and the effectiveness of riparian buffers. Biological Conservation 129, 207- 220.

McKenzie, N., Start, J., and Bullen, R 2002. Foraging ecology and organisation of a desert bat fauna. Australian Journal of Zoology 50, 529-548.

Mills, D., Norton, T., Parnaby, H., Cunningham, R., and Nix, H 1996. Designing surveys for microchiropteran bats in complex forest landscapes - a pilot study from south-east Australia. Special issue: Conservation of biological diversity in temperate and boreal forest ecosystems 85, 149-161.

Pennay, M., Law, B., and Reinhold, L 2004. Bat calls of New South Wales: Region based guide to echolocation calls of Microchiropteran bats. NSW Department of Environment and Conservation, Hurstville.

Pennay, M., Law. B., and Lunney, D 2011. Review of the distribution and status of the bat fauna of New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory. In The Biology and Conservation of Australasian Bats. Edited by Bradley Law, Peggy Eby, Daniel Lunney and Lindy Lumsden. Royal Society of NSW, Mosman, NSW, Australia.

Reardon, T., McKenzie, N., Cooper, S., Appleton, B., Carthew, S., and Adams, M 2014. A molecular and morphological investigation of species boundaries and phylogenetic relationships in Australian free- tailed bats Mormopterus (Chiroptera: Molossidae). Australian Journal of Zoology 62: 109 – 136.

Reinhold, L., Law, B., Ford, G., and Pennay, M. (2001). Key to the bat calls of south-east Queensland and north-east New South Wales. Queensland, DNR.

Ulan Coal Mines Limited 2013. Subsidence Management and Extraction Plan Biodiversity Management Plan Ulan Underground LW 27-29 and W4-W5 Version 7.0. Document Number: ULN SD PLN EXT 0026 – Biodiversity Management Plan. Glencore Coal Assets Australia.

Ulan Coal Mines Limited 2019. Ulan West Extraction Plan Appendix C: Biodiversity Management Plan Longwalls 1 to 6 Version 6.0. Document Number: ULNCX-111515275-2783. Glencore Coal Assets Australia.

Ulan Coal Mines Limited 2020. Biodiversity Management Plan (Draft) Version 5.4. Glencore Coal Assets Australia.

Ulan Coal Mines Limited 2021. Ulan Coal weather station meteorological data. Glencore Coal Assets Australia.

Van Dyck, S and Strahan R 2008 . Mammals of Australia. Third Edition. Reed New Holland, Sydney.

Van Dyck, S., Gynther, I., and Baker, A 2013. Field Companion to the Mammals of Australia. New Reed New Holland. Sydney.

Appendix A Acoustic call data

Table 14: Acoustic call data for Control sites

Control Sites

Species Name Common Name Number of calls recorded

BD6 BD7 BD8 BD9 SG5 SG7 SG8 UG1

Definite 5 3 44 0 133 993 117 162

Chalinolobus dwyeri* Large-eared Pied Bat Potential 1 0 5 0 41 263 14 2

Total 6 3 49 0 174 1256 131 164

Definite 69 15 16 0 70 244 2 4 Miniopterus orianae Large Bent-winged Potential 424 146 139 0 759 736 47 187 oceanensis* Bat Total 493 161 155 0 829 980 49 191

Definite1 1027 112 100 65 209 244 91 76

Other species Potential2 1254 62 279 - 2510 2948 882 127

Total3 2281 174 379 65 2719 3192 973 203

Total calls used to identify bats to at least 2780 339 583 65 3722 5428 1153 558 genus level * threatened and targeted cave-roosting species, 1includes all definite calls for all of the other species not listed in rows above, 2 includes all low quality or ‘in combination’ calls from all the other species listed in the rows above. 3 total of other species definite, potential and in combination calls.

Table 15: Acoustic call data for UGLWW3-5 and UWLW3 impact sites

Impact sites Definite / Species Name Common Name Number of calls recorded Potential

UGLWW3 UGLWW4a UGLWW5a UGLWW5b UGLWW5c UWLW3a UWLW3b UWLW3c

Definite 52 12 3 0 0 0 1 4 Chalinolobus Large-eared Pied Potential 87 8 1 0 0 1 0 1 dwyeri* Bat Total 139 20 4 0 0 1 1 5

Definite 1 1 23 67 0 6 0 0 Miniopterus orianae Large Bent-winged Potential 36 147 536 87 0 60 0 135 oceanensis* Bat Total 37 148 559 154 0 66 0 135

Definite1 9 155 16 97 28 24 173 55

Other species Potential2 13 76 80 82 0 92 2 231

Total3 22 231 76 179 28 116 175 268

Total calls used to identify bats to at 198 399 659 333 41 183 176 408 least genus level * threatened and targeted cave-roosting species, 1includes all definite calls for all of the other species not listed in rows above, 2 includes all low quality or ‘in combination’ calls from all the other species listed in the rows above. 3 total of other species definite, potential and in combination calls.

Table 16: Acoustic call data for UWLW4-5 impact sites

Impact sites Definite / Species Name Common Name Number of calls recorded Potential

UWLW4a UWLW4a UWLW5a UWLW5b UWLW5c UWLW5d UWLW5j UWLW5k

Definite 3 0 3 5 0 9 49 5 Chalinolobus Large-eared Pied Potential 0 0 1 6 0 2 1 1 dwyeri* Bat Total 3 0 4 11 0 11 50 6

Definite 54 54 23 3 13 0 16 3 Miniopterus orianae Large Bent-winged Potential 95 95 536 91 172 0 42 117 oceanensis* Bat Total 149 149 559 94 185 24 58 120

Definite1 6 81 16 57 42 30 56 31

Other species Potential2 75 191 80 192 85 36 224 67

Total3 81 272 96 249 127 66 280 98

Total calls used to identify bats to at 233 454 659 354 312 77 388 224 least genus level * threatened and targeted cave-roosting species, 1includes all definite calls for all of the other species not listed in rows above, 2 includes all low quality or ‘in combination’ calls from all the other species listed in the rows above. 3 total of other species definite, potential and in combination calls.

Table 17: Acoustic call data for UWLW5-7 impact sites

Impact sites Definite / Species Name Common Name Number of calls recorded Potential

UWLW5m UWLW6c UWLW6d UWLW6e UWLW6m UWLW6o UWLW6p UWLW7a

Definite 135 3 5 0 174 36 915 13 Chalinolobus Large-eared Pied Potential 14 0 1 1 7 3 116 0 dwyeri* Bat Total 149 0 5 1 181 39 1031 13

Definite 13 4 2 4 33 7 80 0 Miniopterus orianae Large Bent-winged Potential 567 72 128 86 756 353 500 0 oceanensis* Bat Total 580 76 130 90 734 190 580 0

Definite1 316 33 10 2 44 67 204 95

Other species Potential2 230 92 73 16 44 30 489 0

Total3 546 125 83 18 88 97 693 95

Total calls used to identify bats to at 1275 204 218 109 1183 503 2376 95 least genus level

* threatened and targeted cave-roosting species, 1includes all definite calls for all of the other species not listed in rows above, 2 includes all low quality or ‘in combination’ calls from all the other species listed in the rows above. 3 total of other species definite, potential and in combination calls.

Table 18: Acoustic call data for UWLW7 impact sites

Impact sites

Species Name Common Name Number of calls recorded

UWLW7b UWLW7d UWLW7e UWLW7h

Definite 193 146 62 454 Chalinolobus Large-eared Pied Potential 9 6 8 16 dwyeri*1 Bat Total 202 152 70 470

Definite 43 4 421 18 Miniopterus orianae Large Bent-winged Potential 481 104 155 382 oceanensis* Bat Total 524 108 576 400

Definite1 272 54 113 81

Other species Potential2 391 187 116 148

Total3 663 241 229 229

Total calls used to identify bats to at 1479 501 880 1414 least genus level * threatened and targeted cave-roosting species, 1includes all definite calls for all of the other species not listed in rows above, 2 includes all low quality or ‘in combination’ calls from all the other species listed in the rows above. 3 total of other species definite, potential and in combination calls.

Appendix B Anabat call profiles

Figure 8: Call profile for Austronomus australis (White-striped Free-tailed Bat) recorded at UWLW7h at 2338 (23:38 p.m.) on 14 December 2020.

Figure 9: Call profile for Chalinolobus dwyeri (Large-eared Pied Bat) recorded at UWLW7h at 2140 (9.40 p.m.) on 14 December 2020.

Figure 10: Call profile for Chalinolobus gouldii (Gould’s Wattled Bat) recorded at BD6 at 2116 (9:16 p.m.) on 9 December 2020.

Figure 11: Call profile for Chalinolobus morio (Chocolate Wattled Bat) recorded at BD6 at 2202 (10:02 p.m.) on 16 September 2020.

Figure 12: Call profile for Miniopterus orianae oceanensis (Large Bent-winged Bat) recorded at BD6 at 0359 (3:59 a.m.) on 10 December 2020.

Figure 13: Potential call profile for Nyctophilus corbeni (Corben’s Long-eared Bat) / Nyctophilus gouldii (Gould’s Long-eared Bat) / Nyctophilus geoffroyi (Lesser Long-eared Bat) recorded at UWLW7h at 0148 (1:48 a.m.) on 17 December 2020.

Figure 14: Call profile for Ozimops species complex (this is a call profile that can most likely be attributed to Ozimops ridei (Ride’s Free-tailed Bat)) recorded at UWLW7h at 0352 (3:52 a.m.) on 15 December 2020.

Figure 15: Call profile for Rhinolophus megaphyllus (Eastern Horseshoe Bat) recorded at UWLW7h at 0030 (12:30 a.m.) on 18 December 2020.

Figure 16: Potential call profile for Saccolaimus flaviventris (Yellow-bellied Sheath-tailed Bat) (lower frequency call Fc =20 kHz) with Vespadelus vulturnus (Little Forest Bat) (higher frequency call at Fc = ~47 kHz) recorded on Impact Site UWLW5j at 0306 (3:06 a.m.) on 5 December 2020.

Figure 17: Potential call profile for Scoteanax rueppellii (Greater Broad-nosed Bat) / Scotorepens balstoni (Inland Broad- nosed Bat) recorded on Control Site UG1 at 2047 (8:47 p.m.) on 12 December 2020.

Figure 18: Call profile for Scotorepens balstoni (Inland Broad-nosed Bat) recorded at UWLW4b at 2042 (8:42 p.m.) on 4 December 2020.

Figure 19: Potential call profile for Scotorepens greyii (Little Broad-nosed Bat) recorded at UWLW4b at 2321 (11:21 p.m.) on 4 December 2020.

Figure 20: Call profile for Vespadelus darlingtoni (Large Forest Bat) recorded at UWLW3a at 0330 (3:30 a.m.) on 4 December 2020.

Figure 21: Potential call profile for Vespadelus regulus (Southern Forest Bat) or Vespadelus vulturnus (Little Forest Bat) recorded at Impact Site UWLW5j 0040 (12:40 a.m.) on 5 December 2020.

Figure 22: Potential call profile for Vespadelus troughtoni (Eastern Cave Bat) / Vespadelus vulturnus (Little Forest Bat) recorded at UWLW3c at 2113 (9:13 p.m.) on 6 December 2020.

Figure 23: Call profile for Vespadelus vulturnus (Little Forest Bat) recorded at UGLWW4a at 1933 (7:33 p.m.) on 9 December 2020.

Appendix C Harp trapping data

Table 19: Microbat species captures from all targeted cliffline monitoring sites during 2020

Control Sites Impact Sites

Scientific Name Common Name BC Act EPBC Act BD6 BD8 SG7 SG8 UG1 UGLWW3 UGLWW4a

Chalinolobus dwyeri Large-eared Pied Bat V V 3 - - - 8 10 -

Nyctophilus geoffroyi Lesser Long-eared Bat - - - - - 6 -

Nyctophilus gouldii Gould’s Long-eared Bat 2 - - - - 25 -

Ozimops planiceps South-eastern Free-tailed Bat - - - - - 1 -

Rhinolophus megaphyllus Eastern Horseshoe Bat ------1

Vespadelus vulturnus Little Forest Bat 5 - - - - 4 - V = Vulnerable to extinction

Appendix D Photographs

Figure 24: Previously banded Large-eared Pied Bat re-captured in 2020 at site BD6

Figure 25: Large-eared Pied Bat maternity roost cave located at site UGLWW3