4 RESULTS 4.1 Fauna Habitat

Home , Amalosia, Humming frog, Malleefowl, Monk snake, Morethia adelaidensis, Reticulated velvet gecko

4 RESULTS

4.1 Fauna habitat The project area supports the following four broad fauna habitats:  Open shrubland with an understory of spinifex or tussock grasses (Plates 1-6);  Open eucalypt woodland over shrubs and chenopods of varying densities (Plates 7-10);  Dense shrubland (Plates 11 and 12); and  Mallee and shrubs of varying density (Plates 13 and 14).

As with most areas in the Goldfields the density of trees and shrubs varies appreciably across the project area. There are also multiple areas of existing mining and exploration activity, and disturbed areas (Plates 15-17).

Plate 1. Open shrubland with an understory of Plate 2. Open shrubland with an understory of spinifex or tussock grasses spinifex or tussock grasses

Plate 3. Open shrubland with an understory of Plate 4. Open shrubland with an understory of spinifex or tussock grasses spinifex or tussock grasses

Plate 5. Open shrubland with an understory of Plate 6. Open shrubland with an understory of spinifex or tussock grasses spinifex or tussock grasses

Plate 7. Open eucalypt woodland over shrubs and Plate 8. Open eucalypt woodland over shrubs and chenopods of varying densities chenopods of varying densities

Plate 9. Open eucalypt woodland over shrubs and Plate 10. Open eucalypt woodland over shrubs and chenopods of varying densities chenopods of varying densities

Plate 11. Dense shrubland Plate 12. Dense shrubland

Plate 13. Mallee and shrubs of varying density Plate 14. Mallee and shrubs of varying density

Plate 15. Mining activity and disturbed areas Plate 16. Mining activity and disturbed areas

Plate 17. Mining activity and disturbed areas Plate 18. Rabbit scats

The results of the rapid habitat assessment are provided in Appendix D. Images of the habitat at each of these assessment points provides a more comprehensive overview of the habitats in the project area and along the infrastructure corridors.

4.2 Malleefowl

The project area was searched for Malleefowl mounds and tracks. Six Malleefowl mounds were found (Table 2; Plates 19-24). There is an active mound (i.e. #5) just south of the project area, that could be impacted by mine related activities and there is a recently active mound in the project area. One Malleefowl was seen while searching the project area. Some of the inactive mounds already had sticks in the centre indicating that someone else has done searches previously.

Table 2. Malleefowl and their mounds (UTM Zone 51)

No Easting Northing Height (m) Width (m) Status 1 345168 6634038 0.5 6 Old, long unused 2 347152 6633637 0.5 3.5 Old, long unused 3 347115 6633275 0.5 4 Used in 2016 (old egg shell) Used in 2016 (old egg shell and some 4 347031 6633149 0.5 3.5 scratchings) 5 346232 6632527 0.75 4 Currently in use (footprints, egg shell, scats) 6 346638 6632759 0.75 5 Inactive Bird 345604 6633990

Plate 19. Malleefowl mound 1 Plate 20. Malleefowl mound 2

Plate 21. Malleefowl mound 3 Plate 22. Malleefowl mound 4

Plate 23. Malleefowl mound 5 Plate 24. Malleefowl mound 6

4.3 Bioregional vertebrate fauna

Appendix B provides a summary of the fauna survey data that are available near the project area. There are appreciable differences in the recorded fauna assemblages within and among fauna surveys shown in Appendix B. These differences are partially due to the low survey effort often deployed and they also reflect variations in soils and vegetation as well as temporal variations in the fauna assemblages.

Tables 3-7 provide a list of vertebrate species potentially found near the project area that have been compiled based on the fauna survey report results shown in Appendix B.

Table 3. Birds potentially found near the project area

Family Species Common Name Family Species Common Name Casuariidae Dromaius novaehollandiae Emu Phalacrocoracidae Phalacrocorax sulcirostris Little Black Cormorant Megapodiidae Leipoa ocellata Malleefowl Ardeidae Ixobrychus sinensis Yellow Bittern Anatidae Stictonetta naevosa Freckled Duck Nycticorax caledonicus Nankeen Night Heron Chenonetta jubata Australian Wood Duck Accipitridae Elanus axillaris Black-shouldered Kite Anas gracilis Grey Teal Lophoictinia isura Square-tailed Kite Anas superciliosa Pacific Black Duck Aquila audax Wedge-tailed Eagle Podicipedidae Poliocephalus poliocephalus Hoary-headed Grebe Falconidae Falco cenchroides Nankeen Kestrel Columbidae Phaps chalcoptera Common Bronzewing Falco berigora Brown Falcon Phaps elegans Brush Bronzewing Rallidae Fulica atra Eurasian Coot Ocyphaps lophotes Crested Pigeon Charadriidae Charadrius ruficapillus Red-capped Plover Podargidae Podargus strigoides Tawny Frogmouth Vanellus tricolor Banded Lapwing Caprimulgidae Eurostopodus argus Spotted Nightjar Scolopacidae Tringa glareola Wood Sandpiper Aegothelidae Aegotheles cristatus Australian Owlet-nightjar Cacatuidae Eolophus roseicapillus Galah Anhingidae Anhinga melanogaster Australasian Darter Nymphicus hollandicus Cockatiel Otididae Ardeotis australis Australian Bustard Psittacidae Glossopsitta porphyrocephala Purple-crowned Lorikeet

Family Species Common Name Family Species Common Name Polytelis anthopeplus Regent Parrot Epthianura aurifrons Orange Chat Platycercus icterotis Western Rosella Epthianura albifrons White-fronted Chat Barnardius zonarius Australian Ringneck Sugomel niger Black Honeyeater Psephotus varius Mulga Parrot Lichmera indistincta Brown Honeyeater Cuculidae Chalcites basalis Horsfield's Bronze-cuckoo Phylidonyris niger White-cheeked Honeyeater Chalcites osculans Black-eared Cuckoo Melithreptus brevirostris Brown-headed Honeyeater Chalcites lucidus Shining Bronze-cuckoo Pomatostomidae Pomatostomus superciliosus White-browed Babbler Cacomantis pallidus Pallid Cuckoo Psophodidae Cinclosoma castanotum Chestnut Quail-thrush Strigidae Ninox novaeseelandiae Southern Boobook Neosittidae Daphoenositta chrysoptera Varied Sittella Tytonidae Tyto alba Barn Owl Campephagidae Coracina maxima Ground Cuckoo-shrike Halcyonidae Todiramphus pyrrhopygius Red-backed Kingfisher Coracina novaehollandiae Black-faced Cuckoo-shrike Meropidae Merops ornatus Rainbow Bee-eater Lalage sueurii White-winged Triller Climacteridae Climacteris rufa Rufous Treecreeper Pachycephalidae Pachycephala inornata Gilbert's Whistler Ptilonorhynchidae Ptilonorhynchus maculatus Spotted Bowerbird Pachycephala pectoralis Golden Whistler Maluridae Malurus splendens Splendid Fairy-wren Pachycephala simplex Grey Whistler Malurus leucopterus White-winged Fairy-wren Pachycephala rufiventris Rufous Whistler Malurus pulcherrimus Blue-breasted Fairy-wren Colluricincla harmonica Grey Shrike-thrush Acanthizidae Sericornis frontalis White-browed Scrubwren Oreoica gutturalis Crested Bellbird Hylacola cauta Shy Heathwren Artamidae Artamus personatus Masked Woodswallow Calamanthus campestris Rufous Fieldwren Artamus cinereus Black-faced Woodswallow Pyrrholaemus brunneus Redthroat Artamus cyanopterus Dusky Woodswallow Smicrornis brevirostris Weebill Cracticus torquatus Grey Butcherbird Gerygone fusca Western Gerygone Cracticus nigrogularis Pied Butcherbird Gerygone fusca Western Gerygone Cracticus tibicen Australian Magpie Acanthiza robustirostris Slaty-backed Thornbill Strepera versicolor Grey Currawong Acanthiza chrysorrhoa Yellow-rumped Thornbill Rhipiduridae Rhipidura albiscapa Grey Fantail Acanthiza uropygialis Chestnut-rumped Thornbill Rhipidura leucophrys Willie Wagtail Acanthiza iredalei Slender-billed Thornbill Corvidae Corvus coronoides Australian Raven Acanthiza apicalis Inland Thornbill Corvus bennetti Little Crow Aphelocephala leucopsis Southern Whiteface Corvus orru Torresian Crow Aphelocephala leucopsis Southern Whiteface Monarchidae Grallina cyanoleuca Magpie-lark Pardalotidae Pardalotus punctatus Spotted Pardalote Petroicidae Microeca fascinans Jacky Winter Pardalotus rubricatus Red-browed Pardalote Petroica goodenovii Red-capped Robin Pardalotus striatus Striated Pardalote Melanodryas cucullata Hooded Robin Meliphagidae Certhionyx variegatus Pied Honeyeater Eopsaltria griseogularis Western Yellow Robin Lichenostomus virescens Singing Honeyeater Drymodes brunneopygia Southern Scrub-robin Lichenostomus leucotis White-eared Honeyeater Megaluridae Cincloramphus mathewsi Rufous Songlark Lichenostomus flavicollis Yellow-throated Cincloramphus cruralis Brown Songlark Honeyeater Timaliidae Zosterops lateralis Mauritius Olive White-eye Lichenostomus cratitius Purple-gaped Honeyeater Hirundinidae Cheramoeca leucosterna White-backed Swallow Lichenostomus ornatus Yellow-plumed Honeyeater Hirundo neoxena Welcome Swallow Lichenostomus plumulus Grey-fronted Honeyeater Petrochelidon ariel Fairy Martin Purnella albifrons White-fronted Honeyeater Hirundo nigricans Tree Martin Manorina flavigula Yellow-throated Miner Nectariniidae Dicaeum hirundinaceum Mistletoebird Acanthagenys rufogularis Spiny-cheeked Honeyeater Estrildidae Taeniopygia guttata Zebra Finch Anthochaera carunculata Red Wattlebird Motacillidae Anthus novaeseelandiae Australasian Pipit Epthianura tricolor Crimson Chat

Table 4. Amphibians potentially found near the project area

Family Species Common Name Family Species Common Name Hylidae Litoria moorei Motorbike Frog Neobatrachus sutor Shoemaker Frog Limnodynastidae Neobatrachus kunapalari Kunapalari Frog Neobatrachus wilsmorei Goldfields Bullfrog

Neobatrachus pelobatoides Humming Frog Myobatrachidae Pseudophryne occidentalis Orange-crowned Toadlet

Table 5. Mammals potentially found near the project area

Family Species Common Name Family Species Common Name Bovidae Capra hircus Goat Ningaui ridei Wongai Ningaui Bovidae Ovis aries Sheep Ningaui yvonneae Mallee Ningaui Canidae Canis familiaris Dog Pseudantechinus woolleyae Woolley's False Antechinus Canis lupus Dingo Sminthopsis crassicaudata Fat-tailed Dunnart Vulpes vulpes Red Fox Sminthopsis crassicaudata Fat-tailed Dunnart Felidae Felis catus Cat Sminthopsis dolichura Little Long-tailed Dunnart Molossidae Austronomus australis White-striped Free-tail Bat Sminthopsis gilberti Gilbert's Dunnart Mormopterus planiceps Southern Free-tail Bat Sminthopsis murina Common Dunnart

Vespertilionidae Chalinolobus gouldii Gould's Wattled Bat Sminthopsis ooldea Ooldea Dunnart Chalinolobus morio Chocolate Wattled Bat Myrmecobiidae Myrmecobius fasciatus Numbat Mormopterus sp. Free-tail Bat Sp. Burramyidae Cercartetus concinnus Southwestern Pygmy Possum Nyctophilus geoffroyi Lesser Long-eared Bat Macropodidae Macropus fuliginosus Western Grey Kangaroo Nyctophilus gouldi Gould's Long-eared Bat Macropus robustus Euro Nyctophilus major Greater Long-eared Bat Macropus rufus Red Kangaroo Scotorepens balstoni Inland Broad-nosed Bat Potoroidae Bettongia lesueur Burrowing Bettong Vespadelus baverstocki Inland Forest Bat Leporidae Oryctolagus cuniculus European Rabbit Vespadelus regulus Southern Forest Bat Tachyglossidae Tachyglossus aculeatus Short-beaked Echidna Dasyuridae Antechinomys laniger Kultarr Thylacomyidae Macrotis lagotis Bilby

Table 6. Reptiles potentially found near the project area

Family Species Common Name Family Species Common Name Agamidae Ctenophorus caudicinctus Ring-tailed Brachyurophis Half-girdlerd Snake Dragon semifasciata Ctenophorus cristatus Crested Dragon Demansia psammophis Yellow-faced Whipsnake Ctenophorus fordi Mallee Dragon Echiopsis curta Bardick Ctenophorus isolepis Crested Dragon Furina ornata Orange-naped Snake Ctenophorus maculatus Spotted Dragon Neelaps bimaculatus Black-naped Burrowing Snake Ctenophorus nuchalis Central Netted Dragon Parasuta gouldii Gould's Snake Ctenophorus reticulatus Western Netted Dragon Parasuta monachus Monk Snake Ctenophorus salinarum Saltpan Dragon Pseudechis australis Mulga Snake Ctenophorus scutulatus Lozenge-marked Dragon Pseudonaja affinis Dugite Diporiphora Mulga Dragon amphiboluroides Pseudonaja mengdeni Gwardar Moloch horridus Thorny Devil Pseudonaja modesta Ringed Brown Snake Pogona minor Dwarf Bearded Dragon Simoselaps bertholdi Jan's Banded Snake Tympanocryptis cephalus Pebble Dragon Suta fasciata Rosen's Snake Tympanocryptis lineata Lined Earless Dragon Suta suta Curl Snake Boidae Morelia spilota imbricata Carpet Python Gekkonidae Christinus marmoratus Marbled Gecko Carphodactylidae Nephrurus laevissimus Smooth Knob-tail Gehyra purpurascens Purplish Dtella Nephrurus vertebralis Midline Knob-tail Gehyra variegata Tree Dtella Underwoodisaurus milii Barking Gecko Hemidactylus frenatus Asian House Gecko Diplodactylidae Amalosia reticulata Reticulated Velvet Gecko Heteronotia binoei Bynoe's Prickly Gecko Crenadactylus ocellatus Clawless Gecko Rhynchoedura ornata Western Beaked Gecko Diplodactylus Fat-tailed Diplodactylus Pygopodidae Aprasia repens Sedgelands Worm-lizard conspicillatus Delma australis Marble-faced Delma Diplodactylus granariensis Wheat-belt Stone Gecko Delma butleri Unbanded Delma Diplodactylus pulcher Fine-faced Gecko Delma fraseri Fraser's Delma Hesperoedura reticulata Reticulated Velvet Gecko Lialis burtonis Burton's Snake-lizard Lucasium damaeum Beaded Gecko Pygopus lepidopodus Common Scaly-foot Lucasium maini Main's Ground Gecko Pygopus nigriceps Western Hooded Scaly- Oedura marmorata Marbled Velvet Gecko foot Strophurus assimilis Goldfields Spiny-tailed Scincidae Cryptoblepharus Buchanan's Snake-eyed Gecko buchananii Skink Strophurus elderi Jewelled Gecko Cryptoblepharus Peron's Snake-eyed Skink plagiocephalus Elapidae Acanthophis pyrrhus Desert Death Adder Ctenotus atlas Southern Mallee Ctenotus Brachyurophis fasciolata Narrow-banded Burrowing Snake Ctenotus australis Western Limestone Ctenotus

Family Species Common Name Family Species Common Name Ctenotus brooksi Wedgsnout Ctenotus Lerista picturata Southern Robust Slider Ctenotus leonhardii Leonhardi's Ctenotus Lerista timida Timid Slider Ctenotus schomburgkii Schomburgk's Ctenotus Liopholis inornata Desert Skink Ctenotus uber Spotted Ctenotus Liopholis striata Nocturnal Desert Skink Cyclodomorphus Common Slender Menetia greyii Common Dwarf Skink branchialis Bluetongue Morethia adelaidensis Saltbush Morethia Skink Cyclodomorphus melanops Spinifex Slender Bluetongue Morethia butleri Woodland Morethia Skink Egernia depressa Southern Pygmy Spiny- Morethia obscura Shrubland Morethia Skink tailed Skink Egernia formosa Goldfields Crevice-skink Tiliqua occipitalis Western Blue-tongued Lizard Egernia richardi Bright Crevice-skink Tiliqua rugosa Bobtail Egernia stokesii Western Spiny-tailed Typhlopidae Anilios australis Austral Blind Snake Skink Eremiascincus richardsonii Broad-banded Sand Anilios bicolor Dark-spined Blind Snake Swimmer Anilios bituberculatus Prong-snouted Blind Hemiergis initialis South-western Earless Snake Skink Anilios hamatus Pale-headed Blind Snake Hemiergis peronii Lowlands Earless Skink Anilios waitii Waite's Blind Snake Lampropholis guichenoti Pale-flecked Garden Skink Varanidae Varanus caudolineatus Stripe-tailed Monitor Lerista kingi King's Slider Varanus gouldii Gould's Goanna Lerista picturata Southern Robust Slider Varanus tristis Black-headed Monitor

Table 7. Fish potentially found near the project area Family Species Common Name

Cobitidae Carassius auratus Goldfish Terapontidae Leiopotherapon unicolor Spangled Perch

4.4 Conservation significant fauna

Conservation significant fauna are protected by the Commonwealth EPBC Act 1999, and this list includes species covered by international treaties such as the Japan-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement (JAMBA) and China- Australia Migratory Bird Agreement (CAMBA) and the Western Australia (WA) Wildlife Conservation Act 1950. The WA Wildlife Conservation Act 1950 provides for the publishing of the Wildlife Conservation (Specially Protected Fauna) Notice that lists species under multiple categories. In addition, DBCA maintains a list of fauna that require monitoring under four priorities based on the current knowledge of their distribution, abundance and threatening processes. The EPBC Act 1999 and Wildlife Conservation Act 1950 imply legislative requirements for the management of anthropogenic impacts to minimise the effects of disturbances on species and their habitats. Priority species have no statutory protection, other than the DBCA wishes to monitor potential impacts on these species. Environmental consultants and proponents of developments are encouraged to avoid and minimise impacts on these species. Definitions of the significant fauna under the WA Wildlife Conservation Act are provided in Appendix C.

Five threatened species of fauna and five migratory species of birds were identified under the EPBC Act 1999 as potentially occurring in the project area or surrounds. There is one Schedule 5 and one Schedule 7 species as listed under the WA Wildlife Conservation Act 1950 and two species listed on the DBCA’s Threatened and Priority Fauna List that potentially occur in the project area or surrounds. The following is an assessment of the likelihood of each of the species listed in Table 7 being found in the project area. Species that are waders, shore birds or marine migratory have not been included in the list, although they were recorded in the search of the MNES online database, as there is no suitable habitat for these species in the project area.

Table 7. Assessment of the potential impact on conservation significant fauna that could occur in the bioregion

DBCA Status under Species Schedule / Commonwealth Comment on the potential impact on species Priority EPBC Act Critically Night Parrot (Pezoporus occidentalis) Endangered Highly unlikely to occur in the project area. Endangered Malleefowl (Leipoa ocellata) Vulnerable Vulnerable Recorded in the project area. Chuditch (Dasyurus geoffroii) Vulnerable Vulnerable Highly unlikely to occur in the project area. May infrequently be seen in the area; however, clearing Princess Parrot (Polytelis alexandrae) Priority 4 Vulnerable vegetation is unlikely to impact on this species. Mulgara (Dasycercus blythi / cristicauda) Priority 4 Vulnerable Not present in the project area. May infrequently be seen in the area; however, clearing Oriental Plover (Charadrius veredus) Migratory Migratory vegetation is unlikely to impact on this species. May infrequently be seen in the area; however, clearing Fork-tailed Swift (Apus pacificus) Migratory Migratory vegetation is unlikely to impact on this species. Highly unlikely to be seen in the project area, so the Grey Wagtail (Motacilla cinerea) Migratory Migratory potential for impact on this species is low.

May infrequently be seen in the area; however, clearing Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus) Schedule 7 vegetation is unlikely to impact on this species. Migratory / Recorded in the project area; however, clearing Rainbow Bee-eater (Merops ornatus) Sch. 5 vegetation is unlikely to impact on this species. Great Egret (Ardea alba) Migratory Migratory Not present in the project area. Cattle Egret (Ardea ibis) Migratory Migratory Not present in the project area.

Night Parrot (Pezoporus occidentalis) – Critically endangered under the WA Wildlife Conservation Act 1950 and endangered under the EPBC Act 1999

The Night Parrot was probably originally distributed over much of the semi-arid and arid Australia (Garnett et al. 2011, Threatened Species Scientific Committee 2016). Sightings in north-west Queensland in the early 1990s were in a broad cross section of the habitats available (Garnett et al. 1993). There have been recent sightings in the Pilbara in 1980, 2005 and 2017, central WA in 1979, north-eastern South Australia in 1979, western Queensland (including Pullen-Pullen-Mt Windsor-Diamantina population) in 1980, 1990, 1993, 2006 and 2013- 17 (Davis and Metcalf 2008, Garnett et al. 2011, Palaszxzuk and Miles 2017), Pilbara in 2017 (Jones 2017) and near Lake Eyre in 2017 (McCarthy 2017). Garnett et al. (2011) suggested that there were between 50-250 mature individuals in less than 5% of its previous range.

Wilson’s (1937) summary of observations provided information on the early records of Night Parrots’ preferred habitat and breeding sites. More recent information indicates its preferred habitat appears to be in Triodia grasslands, chenopod shrub lands, shrubby samphire and floristically diverse habitats dominated by large-seeded species (Threatened Species Scientific Committee 2016, McCarthy 2017, Murphy et al. 2017b). It nests under Triodia and has a runway and a tunnel entrance with an apron of dead Triodia sp. leaves, and it has clutches of two to four sub-elliptical, white eggs with a lustrous appearance (Murphy et al. 2017a). Breeding followed significant rains in March for the observations in Pullen-Pullen Reserve, but it is thought that breeding generally occurs between April and October (Murphy et al. 2017a).

As there are no recent Night Parrot records near the project area, and the habitat in the project area is not suitable for Night Parrots, it is highly unlikely that they are present in the project area.

Malleefowl (Leipoa ocellata) – Vulnerable under the WA Wildlife Conservation Act 1950 and the EPBC Act 1999

Malleefowl (Leipoa ocellata) is a member of the family of birds (Megapodiidae) that builds a nest mound in which it incubates its eggs. This relatively large, mostly terrestrial bird nests in the same general area year-after-year, and will often use the same nest mound (Frith 1962, Priddel and Wheeler 2003). Outside the breeding period, birds will range over several square kilometres (Booth 1987, Benshemesh 2007). Chicks are independent from hatching and disperse widely, moving up to 2km per day (Benshemesh 2007) and do not appear to respond to habitat boundaries.

Malleefowl have been found in mallee regions of southern Australia from approximately the 26th parallel of latitude southwards. Malleefowl are mostly found in semi-arid and arid shrub lands and low woodlands dominated by mallee in the more temperate areas (Frith 1962, Parsons et al. 2008). Malleefowl are now only found throughout these regions in fragmented patches of dense vegetation due to clearing of habitat for agriculture, increased fire frequency, competition with exotic herbivores (sheep, rabbits, cattle, goats) and kangaroos, predation by foxes and cats, inbreeding as a result of fragmentation and possibly hunting for food.

Malleefowl build large mounds of sand, gravel and vegetation that can be 3-5m wide and over 1m high. This is mostly done between autumn and spring as a combined effort of the pair intending to use the mound. Once completed, the male then spends most of his time tending the mound, whereas, the female spends most of her time foraging.

The Malleefowl’s wariness, cryptic habits and colouration make it difficult to reliably and accurately census their numbers. Brickhill (1985), Benshemesh and Emison (1996) and Priddel and Wheeler (2003) have all used the number of active mounds as a proxy of Malleefowl numbers. This is a relevant proxy, as it directly relates to the number of reproductively active birds, which is a good indicator of survival of the local population.

Parsons et al. (2008) reported the loss of Malleefowl was associated with areas that had the greatest loss of vegetation for agriculture, those cleared more than 70 years ago and areas with higher densities of sheep. Benshemesh (2007) and Birdlife International (2016) reported the following threats to Malleefowl:  Vegetation clearing, loss of habitat from grazing by introduced herbivores and raised salinity levels leading to habitat loss and fragmentation;  Predation by foxes and feral cats, as they both predate on chicks, and foxes are known to dig up mounds containing eggs;  Fires resulting in medium-term loss of foraging and breeding habitat;  Climate change resulting in reduced rainfall and a loss or reduction in the opportunity to successfully incubate eggs in decomposing vegetation in mounds; and  Vehicle impact, particularly on road side verges where birds feed on spilt grain.

Malleefowl and their eggs are vulnerable to predation by foxes, and newly hatched chicks are vulnerable to foxes, cats and raptors (Priddel and Wheeler 1990, Priddel and Wheeler 1997, Benshemesh and Burton 1999, Benshemesh 2007, Lewis and Hines 2014). It is highly likely that Malleefowl and their eggs are predated on by the abundance of foxes and cats at RNO.

Fires kill Malleefowl and remove the vegetation from Malleefowl habitat, displacing birds into other areas which are often unsuitable (Woinarski 1999, Benshemesh 2007). Fires occur predominantly during the breeding season, and even if the birds are not killed by fire, they will generally not return to an active mound in a burnt area that is exposed to predators, and where there is little protection from adjacent vegetation, with the consequence that the eggs are not successfully incubated.

Malleefowl were recorded in the project area, there is an active mound just outside the project area and two recently active mounds were recorded in the project area. Malleefowl are now scarce in the Goldfields as they have been heavily predated on by foxes, cats and wild dogs. They are now mostly found in dense shrubland, where adult birds and chicks can use the dense vegetation to evade predators.

Malleefowl have little road sense, and are prone to being hit on roads by vehicles as they are slow to move, so it could be anticipated that some would to be injured and killed attempting to cross the roads and tracks when the mining operations become active.

Princess Parrot (Polytelis alexandrae) - Vulnerable species under the EPBC Act 1999 and as a Priority 4 species with DBCA

Very little is known about the Princess Parrot, even the exact extent of its geographical distribution. The species is found mostly in the inland arid areas of Australia, and in Western Australia in the Gibson, Little Sandy and Great Victoria Deserts (Johnstone and Storr 1998a, Pavey et al. 2014). However, they occasionally occur in lightly wooded areas adjacent to the sandy deserts (e.g. see Moriarty 1972). It is thought to be nomadic within the central desert regions of Australia, occupying arid shrub lands, particularly those dominated by Mulga, Desert Oak and

spinifex. Due to the paucity of information on the species, accurate estimates of its population size are difficult, however, this species is probably threatened by habitat loss to agricultural practices and changes in fire regimes.

Dr S. Thompson sighted a single specimen of this parrot in a survey near the Wanjarri Nature Reserve in 2006. It is highly unlikely that Princess Parrots would be seen this far away from their normal habitat in the sandy deserts.

Oriental Plover (Charadrius veredus) - Migratory species under the EPBC Act 1999 and the WA Wildlife Conservation Act 1950

A migrant species with patchy distribution in Australia, the Oriental Plover is sparsely distributed across arid and semi-arid Australia, but avoids truly desert regions. Its preferred habitat is dry plains. The species is under threat because of habitat reduction due to agriculture and changing fire regimes. The Oriental Plover has not been recorded in the general area during any of the other regional surveys.

Terrestrial Ecosystems’ assessment is that the Oriental Plover is unlikely to be seen in the project area, due to a lack of previous records in the general area.

Fork-tailed Swift (Apus pacificus) - Migratory species under the EPBC Act 1999 and the WA Wildlife Conservation Act 1950

This species breeds in the northeast and mid-east Asia and winters in Australia and southern New Guinea. It is a visitor to most parts of Western Australia, beginning to arrive in the Kimberley in late September, in the Pilbara in November and in the southwest land division in mid-December, and leaving by late April. The Fork-tailed Swift is an almost exclusively aerial species, foraging and sleeping on the wing. It rarely comes to earth, usually only for breeding. It is common in the Kimberley, uncommon to moderately common near northwest, west and southeast coasts and rare to scarce elsewhere. It is rarely seen in the Goldfields.

Terrestrial Ecosystems’ assessment is that the Fork-tailed Swift may infrequently be seen in the project area. However, the proposed vegetation clearing is unlikely to significantly impact on this species as it will move away to other areas if it is disturbed.

Grey Wagtail (Motacilla cinerea) - Migratory species under the EPBC Act 1999 and the WA Wildlife Conservation Act 1950

The Grey Wagtail is a small yellow breasted bird with a grey back and head. Johnstone and Storr (2004) reported this migratory species as breeding in Palearctic from western Europe and north-west Africa to eastern Asia and wintering in Africa, south-east Asia, Indonesia, the Philippines, New Guinea and Australia. Its preferred habitat in Australia is banks and rocks in fast-running fresh water including rivers, streams and creeks where it feeds on insects. The Atlas of Living Australia records two sightings on the south-coast of Western Australia and none around the project area.

It is highly unlikely to be seen in the project area due to a lack of suitable habitat.

Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus) – Schedule 7 (e.g. otherwise specially protected) under the WA Wildlife Conservation Act 1950

The Peregrine Falcon is uncommon, although widespread throughout much of Australia excluding the extremely dry areas and has a wide and patchy distribution. It shows habitat preference for areas near cliffs along coastlines, rivers and ranges and within woodlands along watercourses and around lakes. Nesting sites include ledges along cliffs, granite outcrops and quarries, hollow trees near wetlands and old nests of other large bird species. There is no evidence to suggest any change in status in the last 50 years. The Peregrine Falcon has been recorded in other fauna surveys near the project area.

Terrestrial Ecosystems’ assessment is that the Peregrine Falcon may infrequently be seen in the project area, however, the proposed developments are unlikely to significantly impact on this species as it will move away to other areas if it is disturbed.

Rainbow Bee-eater (Merops ornatus) – Schedule 5 /migratory under the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950

The Rainbow Bee-eater is widespread during late spring and summer in the southern section of WA, particularly in sandy areas that have access to water. This species may be recorded in the project area, but any impacts are unlikely to be significant in a bioregional context, given its very large geographic distribution and abundance.

Terrestrial Ecosystems’ assessment is that the proposed clearing in the project area is unlikely to have a significant impact on this species and it will also readily move to other areas if it is disturbed.

4.5 Risk assessment

Fauna surveys to support Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) are part of the environmental risk assessment undertaken to consider what potential impacts a development might have on the biodiversity on a particular area and region. Potential impacts on fauna from the proposed development are identified and briefly described above. Tables 8, 9 and 10 provide a summary of the risk assessment associated with this project.

The assessment contained in Table 10 is supported by more detail discussion in sections above and the management recommendations below.

Table 8. Fauna impact risk assessment descriptors

Any risk assessment is a product of the likelihood of an impact occurring and the consequences of that impact. Likelihood and consequences are categorised and described below. These criteria do not fit all circumstances (e.g. adequacy of fauna survey data); however, they are useful in providing the reader with an appreciation of the level of likelihood and consequences of an event. The assessed risk level (likelihood x consequences) is then calculated as the overall risk for the development. This is followed by an assessment of the acceptability of the risk associated with each of the impacts. Disturbances and vegetation clearing have an impact on the fauna at multiple scales – site, local, landscape and regional. Each of these is considered in the risk assessment. This assessment should be considered in the context of the summary in Table 10.

Likelihood Level Description Criteria A Rare The environmental event may occur, or one or more conservation significant species may be present in exceptional circumstances. B Unlikely The environmental event could occur, or one or more conservation significant species could be present at some time. C Moderate The environmental event should occur, or one or more conservation significant species should be present at some time. D Likely The environmental event will probably occur, or one or more conservation significant species will be present in most circumstances. E Almost certain The environmental event is expected to occur, or one or more conservation significant species is expected be present in most circumstances. Consequences Level Description Criteria 1 Insignificant Insignificant impact on fauna of conservation significance or regional biodiversity, and the loss of individuals will be insignificant in the context of the availability of similar fauna or fauna assemblages in the area. 2 Minor Impact on fauna localised and no significant impact on species of conservation significance in the project area. Loss of species at the local scale. 3 Moderate An appreciable loss of fauna in a regional context or a limited impact on species of conservation significance in the project area. 4 Major Significant impact on conservation significant fauna or their habitat in the project area and/or regional biodiversity and/or a significant loss in the biodiversity at the landscape scale. 5 Catastrophic Loss of species at the regional scale and/or a significant loss of species categorised as ‘vulnerable’ or ‘endangered’ under the EPBC Act (1999) at a regional scale. Acceptability of Risk Level of risk Management Action Required Low No action required. Moderate Avoid if possible, routine management with internal audit and review of monitoring results annually. High Externally approved management plan to reduce risks, monitor major risks annually with external audit and review of management plan outcomes annually. May a referral to the Commonwealth under the EPBC Act 1999. Extreme Unacceptable, project should be redesigned or not proceed.

Table 9. Levels of acceptable risk

Likelihood Rare or very low (A) Unlikely or low (B) Moderate (C) Likely (D) Almost certain (E) Insignificant (1) Low Low Low Low Low Minor (2) Low Low Low Moderate Moderate Moderate (3) Low Moderate Moderate High High Major (4) Moderate Moderate High High Extreme

Consequences Catastrophic (5) Moderate High High Extreme Extreme

Table 10. A risk assessment of the impact of ground disturbance activity on fauna

Before Management

Inherent Risk Factor Potential Impact

Likelihood Consequence Significance Fauna survey Inadequate survey Unknown loss of fauna, fauna of conservation significance, and data data to adequately fauna assemblages, and an incomplete fauna assessment. B 2 Low assess the risks Inadequacy of Limits on the availability of comparative data reduced the comparative data capacity to assess the uniqueness of the fauna assemblages in the B 2 Low project area. Clearing Loss of fauna habitat Loss of terrestrial fauna in the project area. Likely that habitat E 3 High vegetation – local scale suitable for Malleefowl will be significantly impacted. Loss of fauna habitat Loss of some fauna in specific habitat types. This is difficult to

– landscape scale assess until the scale of mining activity is more fully understood. Loss of fauna habitat Loss of some fauna from the region. B 1 Low – regional scale Loss of a threatened Loss of an undetected threatened ecological fauna community. ecological fauna A 3 Low community Habitat fragmentation Fauna movement restricted resulting in the death of fauna and a D 2 Mod. loss of biodiversity. Loss of a unique Loss of an ecosystem containing fauna with high species richness, terrestrial fauna A 2 Low high abundance and numerous top of the food chain predators. ecosystem Death or loss of Malleefowl conservation Death or the reduced viability of the Malleefowl. E 3 High (Leipoa ocellata) significant fauna Peregrine Falcon Death or the reduced viability of the Peregrine Falcon. A 3 Low (Falco peregrinus) Fork-tailed Swift Death or the reduced viability of Fork-tailed Swift. A 2 Low (Apus pacificus) Princess Parrot Death or the reduced viability of the Princess Parrot A 2 Low (Polytelis alexandrae) Oriental Plover Death or the reduced viability of the Oriental Plover A 2 Low (Charadrius veredus) Rainbow Bee-eater Death or the reduced viability of the Rainbow Bee-eater A 2 Low (Merops ornatus) Human impacts Spread of weeds Changed vegetation and a resulting loss of fauna habitat. E 2 Mod. Road kills Animals being killed as they cross roads by vehicles E 2 Mod. Increase in feral and pest fauna, Increased predation on the native fauna D 2 Mod. specifically the dogs, foxes and cats

5 DISCUSSION

5.1 Adequacy of the fauna survey data for fauna habitats represented in the project area Fauna survey data provided by Bamford, et al. (1990), Chapman, et al. (1991), Hart and Associates (2000), McKenzie, et al (1992), Ninox (1999) and Thompson (2004) provide a good indication of the vertebrate fauna assemblage in the project. Thompson (2004) has provided in excess of 120,000 pit/funnel trap-nights of data in fauna habitats that are present in the project area, so the results of this survey alone are much more comprehensive than is typically undertaken for a Level 2 fauna assessment.

The EPA’s Technical Guidance Terrestrial Fauna Surveys (EPA 2016) and the Technical Guide – Terrestrial Vertebrate Fauna Surveys for Environmental Impact Assessment (EPA / DEC 2010) indicated that a Level 2 fauna assessment is required for a disturbance area in excess of 75ha in this bioregion. The project area is much larger than 75ha; but given the fauna survey data that are available nearby, the level of disturbance in the project area and the search for Malleefowl mounds, there is sufficient information on the fauna assemblages to enable potential impacts to be assessed and additional on-the-ground surveys are not required.

5.1.1 Amphibians Amphibians typically found in eucalypt woodlands in the Goldfields are listed in Table 4. All the Limnodynastidae species are burrowing frogs and only come to the surface to feed and breed after substantial rain. Pseudophryne occidentalis finds shelter under rocks and in crevices during the dry periods and enters temporary ponds to breed after major rainfall events. All species have a wide-spread distribution in the Goldfields and are abundant. There are no conservation significant amphibians in the Goldfields.

5.1.2 Reptiles

Reptile species richness in the project area will be comparable with similar eucalypt woodlands elsewhere in the bioregion. The list provided in Appendix A represents species likely to be found over a large area of diverse habitat types. Eucalypt woodlands would typically support up to 40 species of reptiles, but many of these would be in low abundance (see Table 6). Fauna habitats in the project area are likely to be similar to that in the adjacent areas, so the loss of reptiles during vegetation clearing is unlikely to be significant in a bioregional context.

5.1.3 Birds

The number of birds and bird species in the northern Goldfields fluctuates based on seasons and recent rainfall. The project area is likely to support a similar assemblage to that present in the adjacent areas. Birds of conservation significance potentially found in the area include the Malleefowl, Peregrine Falcon, Rainbow Bee-eater and Princess Parrot.

Malleefowl are present in the project area and are actively incubating eggs in a mound just outside the project area and there are two recently used mounds in the project area. Predation by feral cats, foxes and wild dogs has significantly reduced the abundance of Malleefowl in the Goldfields and there are a few remaining small populations, mostly in areas of dense shrubland, as the dense vegetation provides the adult birds with some protection from predators.

The Princess Parrot is nomadic and moves around the arid interior often in search of water and resources, and has not been recorded this far away from the sandy deserts, so it is unlikely to be recorded in the project area. The Peregrine Falcon will normally have a very large home range in the Goldfields, and clearing a small section of the project area, particularly when similar habitat exists in the adjacent areas, is unlikely to significantly impact on this species. The Rainbow Bee-eater is mostly migratory moving south in late spring to breed and returning further north in autumn. This species is abundant and has a large geographical range, so any impacts in the project area are unlikely to be significant in a bioregional context.

It is Terrestrial Ecosystems’ view that the proposed vegetation clearing for the development of a mine and associated infrastructure is unlikely to significantly impact on the avian fauna of the bioregion.

5.1.4 Mammals

The number of small terrestrial mammals potentially caught in the project area would be low due the sparsely vegetated habitat. Although, records of Numbats (Myrmecobius fasciatus), Burrowing Bettongs (Bettongia lesueur) and Bilbies (Macrotis lagotis) are shown in the Atlas of Living Australia and Western Australian Museum records (Appendix B), they are no longer present in this area, having been predated on by foxes, cats and dogs many years ago. None of the mammals potentially found in the project area are of conservation significance. The loss of small mammals during vegetation clearing is unlikely to be significant in a bioregional context.

It was noted during the site visit that there was evidence of rabbits (Plate 18) in the project area and surrounds.

5.1.5 Fish

Two species of fish are potentially in the waterways in the region. The goldfish has been introduced to numerous water holding facilities in the Goldfields and the Spangled Perch is a native fish that moves rapidly from pools of water that it inhabits during dry periods to new areas when heavy rains fall. Although, no ephemeral creeks or ponds were observed in the project area, both fish are potentially present as introduced species in water in the bottom of disused mine voids.

5.2 Biodiversity value of the project area

An ecological assessment of a site should consider its biodiversity value at the genetic, species and ecosystem levels, and its ecological functional value at the ecosystem level. There are inadequate data to assess the ecological value at the genetic level.

Fauna habitat types represented in the project area are abundant and in similar condition in adjacent areas. Therefore, the fauna assemblage that is present in the project area will also be present and abundant in the adjacent areas. The available fauna survey data (Appendix B) provides a good indication of the vertebrate fauna that are potentially in the project area.

5.2.1 Ecological functional value at the ecosystem level

Vertebrate species potentially in the project area are wide-ranging and have been recorded in various other fauna surveys in the bioregion (Appendix B). Much of the project area has been highly disturbed by previous mining or exploration activity, with the consequence that the project area will have a depleted vertebrate fauna assemblage. The most significant impact on vertebrate fauna in the project area and surrounds will have been feral cats, foxes and wild dogs. Goats have heavily grazed some areas, and this would have impacted the vertebrate fauna assemblages, but the recent increase in the wild dog population has reduced the abundance of feral goats.

5.2.2 Maintenance of threatened ecological communities

No threatened ecological communities were identified in or near the project area.

5.2.3 Condition of fauna habitat

There are two large mining pits in the project area that have water in the bottom (Figure 2) and there are multiple waste dumps, some of which have been poorly rehabilitated. There are substantial areas that have been explored, (i.e. clear drill lines, drill holes and bag farms) throughout the project area, particularly around the two mining pits.

The impact of this disturbance over many years will have reduced the vertebrate terrestrial fauna assemblages in the project area, however, the dense vegetation present in portions of the project area is still adequate to support a small population of nesting Malleefowl.

5.2.4 Ecological linkages

The project area does not provide an important ecological linkage or terrestrial fauna movement corridor, however, construction of a haul road as planned between Golden Cities and the Goldfields Highway near the Broad Arrow hotel would fragment a large area of habitat.

5.2.5 Abundance and distribution of similar habitat in the adjacent areas

The assessed project area is approximately 1,300ha. There is an abundance of similar habitat in adjacent areas and throughout the bioregion.

5.3 Great Western Woodlands

The Golden Cites project area is part of the Great Western Woodlands (Watson et al. 2008, pp. vi) that is being promoted by the Wilderness Society because the area contains the ‘largest and healthiest temperate woodland remaining on our planet’. The Wilderness Society argued that the fauna and flora diversity in the area has evolved with the landscape during an unbroken biological lineage stretching back 250 million years.

There is pressure from numerous conservation groups for the preservation of the Great Western Woodlands, and it is likely that the DBCA will progressively become more involved in the protection of this area.

6 POTENTIAL IMPACTS

6.1 Potential impacts on fauna Clearing of vegetation will potentially affect vertebrate fauna in the project area in numerous ways, including death/injury of fauna during vegetation clearing and impacts with vehicles and the loss of habitat.

Although there are anticipated short term impacts on the generic vertebrate fauna assemblage, they are not considered to result in significant impacts when considered in a bioregional context in the longer term, except for the potential impacts on Malleefowl.

The presence of a breeding population of Malleefowl in the project area means that there is a potential for them to be impacted by vegetation clearing, habitat fragmentation, increases in the abundance of feral and pest fauna and being killed by vehicles on the roads and tracks.

6.2 Direct impacts

6.2.1 Animal deaths during the clearing process and displacement of fauna

Clearing vegetation and activities associated with the mining development will result in the loss of small fauna that retreat to burrows, such as reptiles and mammals. Nocturnal species are unlikely to be active when most of the land clearing and construction work is taking place which will inevitably result in these individuals being killed or injured in their burrows or as they attempt to escape. Larger terrestrial animals and avian species will most often move to adjacent areas. These species will be required to establish new activity areas and home ranges, and this could result in the temporary displacement of resident species, however, this loss of fauna is unlikely to have a significant impact when considered in a bioregional context.

6.2.2 Reduction or loss of activity areas and closure of burrows

Clearing vegetation and associated construction activities are likely to destroy reptile and mammal burrows or foraging habitat that are currently in use, or could be used again. Clearing vegetation that forms part of the activity area of individuals has the potential to force these animals into adjacent areas. These areas may offer fewer resources placing individuals under survival pressure. It could also cause individuals to move into the territories of other individuals increasing competition for resources. Forced relocations could increase the possibility of predation.

6.3 Indirect impacts

In addition to the obvious impact of vegetation clearing there can be an equally significant or greater impact in the adjacent areas because of ‘edge effects’. Edge effects can lead to the disruption of ecological processes such as predation and dispersal, animal movements and can change assemblage structure. The consequence is that the impact area will always be much larger than the cleared area. Vehicle tracks also have the propensity to develop weed infestations which can impact on natural fauna habitats. Cleared corridors can also provide improved predator access to areas, enhance the invasion of pest species into areas and may act as inhibitors or disrupt fauna migration and movement patterns.

There are numerous potential threats associated with vegetation clearing and the construction of infrastructure that could have an impact on the vertebrate fauna in the project area. Some of these are discussed below.

6.3.1 Habitat fragmentation

In addition to vegetation clearing, infrastructure including tracks, has the potential to fragment habitat. Cleared linear tracks of land are ‘unnatural’ in much of the habitat. These linear structures that partition existing activity areas, isolate sections of established communities and may alter long and medium-term patterns of movement around established home ranges particularly for small mammals and reptiles. A reduction in the population

because of this infrastructure would be difficult to detect given our current knowledge of the spatial ecology for most of the small mammals known to be in the area.

As most of the tracks within the project area will be relatively narrow and in sparsely vegetated areas, the potential impact associated with habitat fragmentation is likely to be low.

6.3.2 Introduced fauna and weeds

An increase in habitat fragmentation and human activity is often associated with an increase in the abundance of introduced species such as the house mouse (Mus musculus), foxes (Vulpes vulpes), cat (Felis catus) and wild dogs (Canis lupus). This increase may be due to a decline in habitat health, increased road kills, poor disposal of waste and easier access to areas via tracks.

House mice, foxes, cats and wild dogs are known to be established in the area. In many situations they have become a ‘naturalised’ species in the Australian bush. Increases in fox, dog or cat numbers can have a detrimental impact on native fauna because they predate on and compete with native species, severely disrupting the natural balance. The cat is a particularly damaging predator on native fauna and any increase in their numbers could have a detrimental effect of local native fauna (Kinnear 1993, Bamford 1995); hence it is important to ensure that populations of the feral predators, such as cats under control.

There are reliable reports that the population of wild dogs has significantly increased in response to the abundance of feral goats that were present on numerous mining tenements. The goat population has now been significantly reduced, so the wild dogs will turn their attention to predating of station cattle and sheep and native animals.

Infrastructure known to support feral species, such as rubbish disposal sites and bins, should be managed to minimise increases in these populations.

Introduced plant species can successfully and rapidly invade areas of cleared native vegetation or otherwise disturbed by humans. Introduced plant species may replace native species that provide shelter or foraging areas for native fauna. Major changes to the structure of vegetation will alter the fauna habitat and consequently may influence fauna species composition. Preparing and implementing a weed management plan will largely reduce their threat to native fauna species.

6.3.3 Road fauna deaths

An increase in road fauna deaths is likely to occur where new roads / tracks are constructed or upgraded, in particular, affecting kangaroos, nocturnal birds and ground dwelling large carnivorous predators. Species such as goannas and raptors are attracted to carrion on road verges and therefore, there is an increased propensity for these species to be killed by vehicles.

6.3.4 Fire

Increased human activity is often associated with an altered fire regime which lead to a degradation of natural ecosystems. Fire has been identified as one of the threatening processes for some conservation significant species as a number of small mammal and bird species rely on long unburnt vegetation.

Large and widespread fires are unlikely to be a significant threat to native fauna species near the project area due to the sparseness of the vegetation.

6.3.5 Anthropogenic activity

Unnatural noises, vibrations, artificial light sources, and vehicle and human movement in an area may be sufficient to force individuals or fauna species to move from adjacent areas, or alter their activity periods. This form of disturbance is likely to occur during the vegetation clearing and when mining activity commences. The overall impact is likely to be confined to a relatively small area and is unlikely to be a significant impact.

6.3.6 Dust

Dust generated from shifting top soil and spoil and vehicle traffic can potentially degrade surrounding vegetation, reducing its ability to absorb sunlight and influencing photosynthetic rates. Degradation of these areas may potentially render habitat unsuitable for fauna. Dust suppression and management programs are an essential component of minimising impacts on fauna in areas adjacent to the mine. An effective dust management and monitoring program is required.

6.3.7 Uncapped drill holes

An ongoing potential risk to terrestrial fauna is the presence of uncapped drill holes within the project area. Small animals, particularly lizards and mammals, can become trapped in the drill holes and eventually die. Therefore drill holes that are open for periods of months or years can be particularly detrimental to small animal populations (Malnic 1997).

6.4 Native vegetation clearing principles

The Environmental Protection Act (1986) provides criteria to judge the potential impact of a development on clearing native vegetation on flora and fauna. These criteria have been listed below with a response to indicate how clearing of the vegetation in the project area might be judged against these principles as they relate to fauna and fauna assemblages (Table 10). Where possible, native vegetation should not be cleared if any of the following principles are compromised.

Table 10. Assessment of impact on fauna and fauna assemblages using the native vegetation clearing principles

Principle Response Although Malleefowl are present, clearing vegetation It comprises a high level of biological diversity. will not comprise a high level of biodiversity. It comprises the whole or a part of, or is necessary for the maintenance of, a Clearing the vegetation will not result in the loss of significant habitat for fauna indigenous to Western Australia. significant habitat for indigenous fauna. It includes, or is necessary for the continued existence of, rare flora. N/A It comprises the whole or a part of, or is necessary for the maintenance of, a The area does not contain a threatened ecological threatened ecological community. community. It is significant as a remnant of native vegetation in an area that has been The area is not a remnant and the vegetation clearing extensively cleared. will not create a remnant. It is growing in, or in association with, an environment associated with a The proposed vegetation clearing and mine are not in a watercourses or wetland. water course or wetland. The clearing of the vegetation is likely to cause appreciable land N/A degradation. The clearing of the vegetation is likely to have an impact on the Clearing of vegetation is unlikely to impact on the environmental values of any adjacent or nearby conservation area. environmental values of the bioregion. The clearing of the vegetation is likely to cause deterioration in the quality N/A of surface or underground water. The clearing of the vegetation is likely to cause, or exacerbate the incidence N/A of flooding.

6.5 Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1 In 2013, the Department of the Environment (2013) published Matters of National Environmental Significance; Significant impact guidelines 1.1. Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 to assist proponents who propose to take ‘an action’ to decide whether or not it should submit a referral to the Australian Government Department of the Environment and Energy for a decision on whether assessment or approval is required under the EPBC Act. An action will require the minister’s approval if that action has, will have or is likely to have, a significant impact on a matter of national environmental significance. An ‘action’ is broadly defined in the EPBC Act and includes, a project, development, undertaking, activity or series of activities, or alteration to any of these things (Department of the Environment 2013). A ‘significant impact’ is an impact which is important, notable, or of consequence, having regard to its context or intensity. Whether or not an action is likely to have a significant impact depends upon the sensitivity, value, and quality of the environment which is impacted, and upon the intensity, duration, magnitude and geographic extent of the impacts. All of these factors

should be considered when determining whether an action is likely to have a significant impact on matters of national environmental significance (Department of the Environment 2013).

The only species listed under the EPBC Act that may be impacted by any proposed action that is listed as a Matter of National Environmental Significance (MNES) is the Malleefowl, which is listed as Vulnerable. According to the Department of the Environment (2013), an action is likely to have a significant impact on a Vulnerable species if there is a real chance or possibility that it will: • lead to a long-term decrease in the size of an important population of a species; • reduce the area of occupancy of an important population; • fragment an existing important population into two or more populations; • adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species; • disrupt the breeding cycle of an important population; • modify, destroy, remove or isolate or decrease the availability or quality of habitat to the extent that the species is likely to decline; • result in invasive species that are harmful to a vulnerable species becoming established in the vulnerable species’ habitat; • introduce disease that may cause the species to decline, or; • interfere substantially with the recovery of the species.

For the purposes of this assessment an ‘important population’ is a population that is necessary for a species’ long- term survival and recovery. This may include populations identified as such in recovery plans, and/or that are: • key source populations either for breeding or dispersal; • populations that are necessary for maintaining genetic diversity, and/or; • populations that are near the limit of the species range.

Malleefowl are in low density and widely dispersed across the goldfields; therefore, any pair of birds that are actively nesting and producing young could be considered an important population.

At the time of preparing the report is was unknown which area(s) will be impacted by proposed mining and development activities, so for the purpose of this assessment any impacts in the proposed project area have been considered.

6.5.1 Lead to a long-term decrease in the size of an important population of a species

If a Malleefowl mound which is active or recently active is going to be impacted (i.e. development or land clearing within 250m), then that action is likely to lead to a long-term decrease in the size of an important population. The proposed action is likely to trigger a referral under this criterion.

6.5.2 Reduce the area of occupancy of an important population If habitat that has been identified as being suitable for Malleefowl is likely to be cleared, then it could reduce the area of occupancy of an important population. The proposed action is likely to trigger a referral under this criterion.

6.5.3 Fragment an existing important population into two or more populations If habitat that has been identified as being suitable for Malleefowl is likely to be cleared, then it could fragment an existing important population into two or more populations. The proposed action is likely to trigger a referral under this criterion.

6.5.4 Adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species The habitat identified as suitable for Malleefowl is patchy, but widespread across the goldfields. Clearing portions of this habitat for mining or other activities in the project area is not likely to adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of the species across its distribution.

6.5.5 Disrupt the breeding cycle of an important population If a Malleefowl mound which is active or recently active is going to be impacted (i.e. development or land clearing within 250m), then that action could disrupt the breeding cycle of an important population, forcing the birds to move to another less suitable location and establish a new breeding mound. The proposed action is likely to trigger a referral under this criterion.

6.5.6 Modify, destroy, remove or isolate or decrease the availability or quality of habitat to the extent that the species is likely to decline If a Malleefowl mound which is active or recently active is going to be impacted (i.e. development or land clearing within 250m) or habitat that was identified as being suitable for Malleefowl is likely to be cleared or fragmented it could remove, isolate or decrease the availability or quality of habitat to the extent to causing a decline in Malleefowl in a local context. It would not cause a decline in the Malleefowl population in a regional context.

6.5.7 Result in invasive species that are harmful to a vulnerable species becoming established in the vulnerable species’ habitat Foxes and cats, and possibly wild dogs are the primary predators of Malleefowl in the Goldfields. Breeding success is normally only achieved in areas of relatively dense undergrowth, as this provide protection for the adults and the chicks when they hatch. Clearing this vegetation could result in greater access of invasive species (foxes and cats), which could be harmful to Malleefowl. The proposed action is likely to trigger a referral under this criterion.

6.5.8 Introduce disease that may cause the species to decline Development of the project area is not likely to introduce a disease which may cause decline in the species.

6.5.9 Interfere substantially with the recovery of the species

Development of the project area is not likely to interfere substantially with the recovery of the species.

6.6 Referral under the EPBC Act

Although the active Malleefowl mound is outside the project area, there are recently active mounds in the project area. Adult birds and chicks will potentially be killed on the roads and tracks as a result of vehicle strikes. Depending on the final layout or design for vegetation clearing the proposed project could adversely impact on the Malleefowl according to the criteria identified by the Department of the Environment (2013). When final mine plan is confirmed, the criteria for determining the level of impact on a Vulnerable species should be reconsidered and if it is likely to adversely one of the criteria the project should be referred under the EPBC Act.

7 SUMMARY

The total area assessed was approximately 1,300 ha. The project area contains multiple fauna habitats that are typical of this part of the Goldfields.

The project area currently does not provide an important ecological linkage or fauna movement corridor, however, construction of a haul road as planned between Golden Cities and the Goldfields Highway near the Broad Arrow hotel would fragment a large area of habitat.

Clearing native vegetation is likely to result in the loss of small vertebrate fauna on-site that are unable to move away during the clearing process. The few larger animals, such as goannas, and most of the birds will move into adjacent areas once clearing commences. There is small breeding population of Malleefowl in the project area and adult birds and their chicks will potentially be injured or killed on the tracks and roads once mining activity commences.

Vegetation clearing will result in the loss of numerous small vertebrates in the project area and indirect impacts such as a reduction or loss of activity areas and closure of burrows, habitat fragmentation, increased presence of feral predators, road deaths and unnatural noises, vibrations, artificial light sources and vehicle and human movement in an area may force animals into adjacent areas. The consequence will be that some fauna will be lost, and others will shift into neighbouring areas. Migrants increase competition for resources, which may result in the subsequent loss of migrants or local individuals. Individuals shifted out of their established activity areas are also vulnerable to predation until they have become established in their new areas.

Impacts associated with clearing vegetation in the project area in a landscape or bioregional context on the vertebrate fauna are likely to be low, except for impacts on Malleefowl, as there are vast tracts of similar habitat in adjacent areas. Depending on the final layout or design for vegetation clearing the proposed project could potentially significantly impact on Malleefowl which is listed as Vulnerable under both Commonwealth and State Government legislation.

The implementation of the recommended management strategies will mitigate or minimise potential impacts on the vertebrate fauna in the project area.

8 RECOMMENDATIONS

8.1 Minimising habitat fragmentation and impacts of vegetation clearing

Recommendation 1: Where possible, utilise the existing access road from Broad Arrow to Golden Cities. If this is not possible, then align the new haul road as closely as possible to the existing road to minimise habitat fragmentation between the two areas.

8.2 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act

The presence of a breeding population of Malleefowl in and near the project area indicate that both adult birds and chicks are likely to be significantly impacted by vegetation clearing and vehicles moving along the roads and tracks. Given the potential impact on this threatened species, a referral under the EPBC Act is recommended.

Recommendation 2: The project is referred under the EPBC Act if, vegetation clearing or project development is likely to adversely impact Malleefowl according to the criteria identified in the Department of the Environment (2013) Significant Impact Guidelines.

8.3 Induction and awareness

All contractors and people involved in exploration or construction of the mine should be made aware of the possible presence and issues associated with terrestrial fauna in the area through the induction process.

Recommendation 3: An induction program that includes a component on managing fauna is a mandatory component of working on the Golden Cities project.

8.4 Minimising secondary impacts to the habitat

Pets and feral animals have the potential to impact on fauna. Pets should not be permitted on site and feral and pest fauna numbers monitored and controlled. All rubbish likely to attract animals should be suitably contained and disposed of so as not to encourage the feeding of fauna around the site.

Recommendation 4: Pets are not permitted on site.

Recommendation 5: All waste and rubbish be contained in bins and regularly removed from site or buried so it is unavailable to pest species.

Recommendation 6: Feeding of native fauna should be actively discouraged.

Recommendation 7: A feral and pest animal management program is implemented to reduce the predation risk on Malleefowl (and other fauna) in the project area. This program should concentrate on reducing the impacts of cats and foxes.

8.5 Uncapped drill holes

Uncapped drill holes can pose a serious threat to small animals, including ground dwelling reptiles, frogs and small mammals. A log of all on-site drill holes should be maintained detailing when they were capped, how and by whom. All drill holes should be temporarily capped on completion of drilling and permanently capped or closed as soon as possible after exploration activities have ceased.

Recommendation 8: A log of all on-site drill holes be maintained detailing when they were capped, how and by whom.

8.6 Road fauna deaths

Increased activity will result in increased traffic and a consequential increase in the fauna deaths on tracks. Limiting vehicle speed on mine roads can reduce collisions with fauna, particularly larger animals such as kangaroos and emus. Dead animals on the road also have the propensity to attract raptors, goannas and even cattle, which are then likely to be killed.

Recommendation 9: Speed limits are implemented and enforced on-site. These should be determined based on the quality and condition of the roads, but be a maximum of 80km/h, particularly around areas known to support Malleefowl.

Recommendation 10: Signage is erected to indicate the maximum travelling speeds and the possible presence of wildlife crossing roads.

8.7 Dust

Dust generated from mining activity and vehicles can potentially degrade surrounding vegetation, reducing its ability to absorb sunlight and influencing photosynthetic rates. Degradation of these areas will potentially render habitat unsuitable for fauna. Dust suppression and management programs are an essential component of minimising mining impacts on fauna in areas adjacent to the mine.

Recommendation 11: The impact of dust on adjacent vegetation and fauna habitat is managed and monitored against appropriate KPIs.

8.8 Vertebrate fauna management plan

Fauna management plans describe the procedures and protocols that must be implemented to avoid, mitigate and minimise impacts on fauna during the vegetation clearing, infrastructure development and operational stages of a project. Such plans deal with the method of vegetation clearing, reducing fauna deaths on the roads, the impacts of artificial light spill, vibration, dust, feral species management, monitoring and recording conservation species, monitoring impacts on fauna in adjacent areas, staff inductions, etc.

Recommendation 12: A vertebrate fauna management plan is prepared and implemented for the Golden Cities project.

8.9 Malleefowl management plan

A Malleefowl management plan should be prepared if Malleefowl habitat or Malleefowl mounds are likely to be impacted by the proposed disturbance. This plan should describe the procedures and protocols that must be implemented to avoid, mitigate and minimise impacts on Malleefowl fauna during the vegetation clearing, infrastructure development and operational stages of a project. The plan will identify appropriate buffer distances around mounds, detail periods when vegetation clearing can occur, describe monitoring procedures, describe feral and pest animal management programs and other mechanisms to reduce impacts on the species.

Recommendation 13: A Malleefowl management plan is prepared and implemented for the Golden Cities project if this species is likely to be impacted.

9 REFERENCES Bamford, M. J. 1995. Predation by feral cats upon lizards. Western Australian Naturalist 20:191-196. Bamford, M. J., S. J. J. F. Davies, and P. G. Ladd. 1990. Biological Survey of the Kangaroo Hills and Calooli Timber Reserves, Coolgardie, Western Australia. Benshemesh, J. 2007. National Recovery Plan for Malleefowl. South Australia. Benshemesh, J., and P. Burton. 1999. Fox predation on Malleefowl three years after the spread of RCD in Victoria. Unpublished report for Parks Victoria and Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Mildura. Benshemesh, J. S., and W. B. Emison. 1996. Surveying breeding densities of Malleefowl using an airborne thermal scanner. Wildlife Research 23:121-141. BirdLife International. 2016. Leipoa ocellata. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T22678646A92782728. Booth, D. T. 1987. Home range and hatchling success of Malleefowl, Leipoa ocellata Gould (Megapodiidae), in Murray Mallee near Renmark, S.A. Australian Wildlife Research 14:95-104. Brickhill, J. 1985. An aerial survey of nests of Malleefowl Leipoa ocellata Gould (Megapodiidae) in central New South Wales. Australian Wildlife Research 12:257-261. Bureau of Meteorology. 2017. Climatic averages for Kalgoorlie. Chapman, A., I. Kealley, D. McMillan, P. McMillan, and G. Rolland. 1991. Biological surveys of four Goldfields Reserves. Landnote 1/91:1-26. Cowan, M. 2003. Murchison 1 (MUR1 - East Murchison subregion). Pages 466-479 in N. L. McKenzie, J. E. May, and S. McKenna, editors. Bioregional Summary of the 2002 Biodiversity Audit for Western Australia. Department of Conservation and Land Management, Perth. Davis, R. A., and B. M. Metcalf. 2008. The Night Parrot (Pezoporus occidentalis) in northern Western Australia: a recent sighting from the Pilbara region. Emu 108:223-236. Department of the Environment. 2013. Matters of National Environmental Significance Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Canberra. Environmental Protection Authority. 2016. Statement of Environmental Principles, Factors and Objectives,. Perth. Environmental Protection Authority and Department of Environment and Conservation (Eds Hyder, B. M., Dell, J. and Cowan, M.A.),. 2010. Technical Guide - Terrestrial Vertebrate Fauna Surveys for Environmental Impact Assessment. Environmental Protection Authority, Perth. Frith, H. J. 1962. The Mallee Fowl. Angus and Robertson, Sydney. Garnett, S., G. Crowley, R. Duncan, N. Baker, and P. Doherty. 1993. Notes on live Night Parrot sightings in north- western Queensland. Emu 93:292-296. Garnett, S. T., J. K. Szabo, and G. Dutson. 2011. The Action Plan for Australian Birds 2010. CSIRO, Collingwood, Melbourne. Hart Simpson and Associates. 2000. Anaconda Nickel Ltd, Cawse Expansion Project, Fauna Survey. Perth. Johnstone, R., and G. Storr. 1998a. Handbook of Western Australian Birds. Volume 1 - Non-Passerines (Emu to Dollarbird). Johnstone, R. E., and G. M. Storr. 1998b. Handbook of Western Australian Birds. Volume 1 - Non-Passerines (Emu to Dollarbird). Western Australian Museum, Perth. Johnstone, R. E., and G. M. Storr. 2004. Handbook of Western Australian Birds, Volume II Passerines (Blue- winged Pitta to Goldfinch). Western Australian Museum, Perth. Jones, A. 2017. Night parrot sighting in Western Australia shocks birdwatching world. ABC News. Kinnear, J. 1993. Masterly marauders: the cat and the fox. Landscope 8:20-28. Lewis, M., and M. Hines. 2014. Malleefowl activity at nesting sites increase fox and other feral animal visitation rates Pages 242-247 in M. G. Bannerman and S. J. J. F. Davies, editors. Proceedings of the 5th National Malleefowl Forum 2014 Dubbo, NSW. Malnic, J. 1997. Uncapped drill holes are silent killers. Australia's Mining Monthly March:16. McCarthy, M. 2017. Night parrot feather discovery proves Australia's most elusive bird is alive in South Australia. ABC News. McKenzie, N. L., J. K. Rolfe, and W. K. Youngson. 1992. IV Vertebrate fauna. Records of the Western Australian Museum, Supplement, No 41:37-64. Moriarty, T. K. 1972. Birds of Wanjarri, W.A. (27o25'S, 120o40'E). The Emu 72:1-7. Murphy, S. A., J. J. Austin, R. K. Murphy, J. Silcock, L. Joseph, S. T. Garnett, N. P. Leseberg, J. E. M. Watson, and A. H. Burbidge. 2017a. Observations on breeding Night Parrots (Pezoporus occidentalis) in western Queensland. Emu 117:107-113. Murphy, S. A., J. Silcock, R. Murphy, J. Reid, and J. J. Austin. 2017b. Movements and habitat use of the night parrot Pezoporus occidentalis in south-western Queensland. Austral Ecology. Ninox Wildlife Consulting. 1999. Fauna Survey for the White Foil Gold Project. Perth.

Palaszxzuk, A., and S. Miles. 2017. New night parrot community discovered in central west Queensland. Parsons, B. C., J. C. Short, and J. D. Roberts. 2008. Contraction in the range of Malleefowl (Leipoa ocellata) in Western Australia: a comparative assessment using presence-only and presence-absence datasets. Emu 108:221-231. Pavey, C. R., C. E. M. Nano, J. R. Cole, P. J. McDonald, P. Nunn, A. Silcocks, and R. H. Clarke. 2014. The breeding and foraging ecology and abundance of the Princess Parrot (Polytelis alexandrae) during a population irruption. Emu:NULL. Priddel, D., and I. Wheeler. 1997. Efficacy of fox control in reducing the mortality of released captive-reared Malleefowl, Leipoa ocellata. Wildlife Research 24:469-482. Priddel, D., and R. Wheeler. 1990. Survival of Malleefowl Leipoa ocellata chicks in the absence of ground- dwelling predators. Emu 90:81-87. Priddel, D., and R. Wheeler. 2003. Nesting activity and demography of an isolated population of malleefowl (Leipoa ocellata). Wildlife Research 30:451-464. Storr, G., L. Smith, and R. Johnstone. 1983. Lizards of Western Australia. II: Dragons and Monitors. Western Australian Museum, Perth, Western Australia. Storr, G., L. Smith, and R. Johnstone. 1990. Lizards of Western Australia. III: Geckos and Pygopods. Western Australian Museum, Perth. Storr, G., L. Smith, and R. Johnstone. 1999. Lizards of Western Australia. I: Skinks. Western Australian Museum, Perth. Storr, G., L. Smith, and R. Johnstone. 2002. Snakes of Western Australia. Western Australian Museum, Perth. Thompson, S. A., and G. G. Thompson. 2004. Adequacy of rehabilitation monitoring practices in the Western Australian mining industry. Ecological Management and Restoration 5:30-33. Thompson, S. A., and G. G. Thompson. 2010. Terrestrial Vertebrate Fauna Assessments for Ecological Impact Assessment. Terrestrial Ecosystems, Perth. Threatened Species Scientific Committee. 2016. Conservation Advice Pezoporus occidentalis night parrot. Canberra. Tyler, M. J., L. A. Smith, and R. E. Johnstone. 2000. Frogs of Western Australia. Western Australian Museum, Perth. Van Dyck, S., and R. Strahan. 2008. The Mammals of Australia. Reed New Holland, Sydney. Watson, A., S. Judd, J. Watson, A. Lam, and D. Mackenzie. 2008. The Extraordinary Nature of the Great Western Woodlands. Perth. Wilson, H. 1937. Notes on the Night Parrot, with references to recent occurrences. Emu 37:79-87. Woinarski, J. C. Z. 1999. Fire and Australian birds: a review. Pages 57-112 in A. M. Gill, J. C. Z. Woinarski, and A. York, editors. Australia's biodiversity - responses to Fire: plants, birds and invertebrates. Biodiversity Technical Paper No.1. Environment Australia, Canberra.

Figures

PINPOINT CARTOGRAPHICS (08) 9562 7136 2017-0057-f01.dgn Drawn: G.Thompson WA Location PERTH 0 SCALE 1:250000atA4(MGA) Indian Ocean Geraldton Karratha Bunbury 2.5 Albany Port Hedland AUSTRALIA N Date: 8Jan2018 WESTERN 5 Kalgoorlie Broome Derby 7.5 10km REGIONAL LOCATION GOLDEN CITIES LEVEL 1FAUNAASSESSMENT Norton GoldFields LOCATION SITE Figure 1 Job: 2017-0057 PINPOINT CARTOGRAPHICS (08) 9562 7136 2017-0057-f02a.dgn

N 19 20 0 0.5 1 1.5 2km 12 18 21 13 22 23 14 24 25 SCALE 1 : 50 000 at A4 (MGA) 17 27 26 29 16 15 30 Legend 28 6 635 000mN 119 32 31 118 120 Project Area Boundary 117 121 122 8 33 124 129 126 128 Fauna Habitat Assessment 39 116 123 125 Site Location 5 115 130 11 53 38 127 131 9 49 47 34 Mallefowl Mound Location 10 46 40 4 48 54 43 41 35 Malleefowl Sighting 6 50 60 44 37 56 42 2 7 51 36 52 61 57 45 3 55 1 63 160 58 162 133 62 59 132 159 135 134 161 136 137 138 140 139 142 141 144 143 146 148 145 150 147 149 152 158 154 151 153 6 630 000mN 156 155

157 350 000mE350 000mE 345 000mE345 000mE

Norton Gold Fields LEVEL 1 FAUNA ASSESSMENT GOLDEN CITIES Figure 2a PROJECT AREA, FAUNA HABITAT ASSESSMENT

340 000mE340 000mE LOCATIONS, MALLEEFOWL MOUNDS AND A Drawn: G. Thompson Date: 9 Jan 2018 MALLEEFOWL SIGHTING Job: 2017-0057 PINPOINT CARTOGRAPHICS (08) 9562 7136 2017-0057-f02b.dgn

N 0 0.5 1 1.5 2km

SCALE 1 : 50 000 at A4 (MGA)

Legend Project Area Boundary 114 109 102 Fauna Habitat Assessment 112 107 106 105 104 100 99 113 Site Location 101 98 108 103 97 6 625 000mN 111 110 96 Mallefowl Mound Location 95 94 Malleefowl Sighting 93 92 91 90 88 89 87 86

85 84 83

82 81 80 79 77 78 75 76 72 73 74 71 68 70 69 64 65 66 67

6 620 000mN 340 000mE340 000mE 335 000mE335 000mE

Norton Gold Fields LEVEL 1 FAUNA ASSESSMENT GOLDEN CITIES Figure 2b PROJECT AREA, FAUNA HABITAT ASSESSMENT

330 000mE330 000mE LOCATIONS, MALLEEFOWL MOUNDS AND A Drawn: G. Thompson Date: 8 Jan 2018 MALLEEFOWL SIGHTING Job: 2017-0057 PINPOINT CARTOGRAPHICS (08) 9562 7136 2017-0057-f03.dgn

N 0 0.5 1 1.5 2km

SCALE 1 : 50 000 at A4 (MGA)

Legend 6 635 000mN Project Area Boundary

Malleefowl Habitat

6 630 000mN 350 000mE350 000mE 345 000mE345 000mE

Norton Gold Fields LEVEL 1 FAUNA ASSESSMENT GOLDEN CITIES Figure 3

340 000mE340 000mE MALLEEFOWL HABITAT Drawn: G. Thompson Date: 9 Jan 2018 Job: 2017-0057

Appendix A Results of the EPBC Act Protected Matters Search Vertebrate fauna assessment – Golden Cities mining project

EPBC Act Protected Matters Report

This report provides general guidance on matters of national environmental significance and other matters protected by the EPBC Act in the area you have selected.

Information on the coverage of this report and qualifications on data supporting this report are contained in the caveat at the end of the report.

Information is available about Environment Assessments and the EPBC Act including significance guidelines, forms and application process details.

Report created: 10/01/18 22:59:24

Summary Details Matters of NES Other Matters Protected by the EPBC Act Extra Information Caveat Acknowledgements

This map may contain data which are ©Commonwealth of Australia (Geoscience Australia), ©PSMA 2010

Coordinates Buffer: 50.0Km Summary

Matters of National Environmental Significance

This part of the report summarises the matters of national environmental significance that may occur in, or may relate to, the area you nominated. Further information is available in the detail part of the report, which can be accessed by scrolling or following the links below. If you are proposing to undertake an activity that may have a significant impact on one or more matters of national environmental significance then you should consider the Administrative Guidelines on Significance.

World Heritage Properties: None National Heritage Places: 1 Wetlands of International Importance: None Great Barrier Reef Marine Park: None Commonwealth Marine Area: None Listed Threatened Ecological Communities: None Listed Threatened Species: 8 Listed Migratory Species: 7

Other Matters Protected by the EPBC Act

This part of the report summarises other matters protected under the Act that may relate to the area you nominated. Approval may be required for a proposed activity that significantly affects the environment on Commonwealth land, when the action is outside the Commonwealth land, or the environment anywhere when the action is taken on Commonwealth land. Approval may also be required for the Commonwealth or Commonwealth agencies proposing to take an action that is likely to have a significant impact on the environment anywhere.

The EPBC Act protects the environment on Commonwealth land, the environment from the actions taken on Commonwealth land, and the environment from actions taken by Commonwealth agencies. As heritage values of a place are part of the 'environment', these aspects of the EPBC Act protect the Commonwealth Heritage values of a Commonwealth Heritage place. Information on the new heritage laws can be found at http://www.environment.gov.au/heritage

A permit may be required for activities in or on a Commonwealth area that may affect a member of a listed threatened species or ecological community, a member of a listed migratory species, whales and other cetaceans, or a member of a listed marine species.

Commonwealth Land: 4 Commonwealth Heritage Places: None Listed Marine Species: 11 Whales and Other Cetaceans: None Critical Habitats: None Commonwealth Reserves Terrestrial: None Commonwealth Reserves Marine: None

Extra Information

This part of the report provides information that may also be relevant to the area you have nominated.

State and Territory Reserves: 6 Regional Forest Agreements: None Invasive Species: 15 Nationally Important Wetlands: None Key Ecological Features (Marine) None Details

Matters of National Environmental Significance National Heritage Properties [ Resource Information ] Name State Status Historic Goldfields Water Supply Scheme, Western Australia WA Listed place

Listed Threatened Species [ Resource Information ] Name Status Type of Presence Birds Calidris ferruginea Curlew Sandpiper [856] Critically Endangered Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Leipoa ocellata Malleefowl [934] Vulnerable Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Pezoporus occidentalis Night Parrot [59350] Endangered Species or species habitat may occur within area

Polytelis alexandrae Princess Parrot, Alexandra's Parrot [758] Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within area

Insects Ogyris subterrestris petrina Arid Bronze Azure [77743] Critically Endangered Species or species habitat may occur within area

Mammals Dasyurus geoffroii Chuditch, Western Quoll [330] Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within area

Plants Gastrolobium graniticum Granite Poison [14872] Endangered Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Thelymitra stellata Star Sun-orchid [7060] Endangered Species or species habitat may occur within area

Listed Migratory Species [ Resource Information ] * Species is listed under a different scientific name on the EPBC Act - Threatened Species list. Name Threatened Type of Presence Migratory Marine Birds Apus pacificus Fork-tailed Swift [678] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Migratory Terrestrial Species Name Threatened Type of Presence Motacilla cinerea Grey Wagtail [642] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Migratory Wetlands Species Actitis hypoleucos Common Sandpiper [59309] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Calidris acuminata Sharp-tailed Sandpiper [874] Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Calidris ferruginea Curlew Sandpiper [856] Critically Endangered Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Calidris melanotos Pectoral Sandpiper [858] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Tringa nebularia Common Greenshank, Greenshank [832] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Other Matters Protected by the EPBC Act Commonwealth Land [ Resource Information ] The Commonwealth area listed below may indicate the presence of Commonwealth land in this vicinity. Due to the unreliability of the data source, all proposals should be checked as to whether it impacts on a Commonwealth area, before making a definitive decision. Contact the State or Territory government land department for further information. Name Commonwealth Land - Defence - AIRTC KALGOORLIE Defence - KALGOORLIE RIFLE RANGE Defence - KALGOORLIE TRAINING DEPOT

Listed Marine Species [ Resource Information ] * Species is listed under a different scientific name on the EPBC Act - Threatened Species list. Name Threatened Type of Presence Birds Actitis hypoleucos Common Sandpiper [59309] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Apus pacificus Fork-tailed Swift [678] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Ardea alba Great Egret, White Egret [59541] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Ardea ibis Cattle Egret [59542] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Calidris acuminata Sharp-tailed Sandpiper [874] Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Calidris ferruginea Curlew Sandpiper [856] Critically Endangered Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Calidris melanotos Pectoral Sandpiper [858] Species or species Name Threatened Type of Presence habitat may occur within area Merops ornatus Rainbow Bee-eater [670] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Motacilla cinerea Grey Wagtail [642] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Thinornis rubricollis Hooded Plover [59510] Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Tringa nebularia Common Greenshank, Greenshank [832] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Extra Information State and Territory Reserves [ Resource Information ] Name State Bullock Holes Timber Reserve WA Credo WA Goongarrie WA Kalgoorlie Arboretum WA Kurrawang WA Lakeside Timber Reserve WA

Invasive Species [ Resource Information ] Weeds reported here are the 20 species of national significance (WoNS), along with other introduced plants that are considered by the States and Territories to pose a particularly significant threat to biodiversity. The following feral animals are reported: Goat, Red Fox, Cat, Rabbit, Pig, Water Buffalo and Cane Toad. Maps from Landscape Health Project, National Land and Water Resouces Audit, 2001.

Name Status Type of Presence Birds Columba livia Rock Pigeon, Rock Dove, Domestic Pigeon [803] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Streptopelia chinensis Spotted Turtle-Dove [780] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Streptopelia senegalensis Laughing Turtle-dove, Laughing Dove [781] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Mammals Camelus dromedarius Dromedary, Camel [7] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Capra hircus Goat [2] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Equus asinus Donkey, Ass [4] Species or species Name Status Type of Presence habitat likely to occur within area Equus caballus Horse [5] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Felis catus Cat, House Cat, Domestic Cat [19] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Mus musculus House Mouse [120] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Oryctolagus cuniculus Rabbit, European Rabbit [128] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Vulpes vulpes Red Fox, Fox [18] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Plants Carrichtera annua Ward's Weed [9511] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Cenchrus ciliaris Buffel-grass, Black Buffel-grass [20213] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Lycium ferocissimum African Boxthorn, Boxthorn [19235] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Reptiles Hemidactylus frenatus Asian House Gecko [1708] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Caveat The information presented in this report has been provided by a range of data sources as acknowledged at the end of the report.

This report is designed to assist in identifying the locations of places which may be relevant in determining obligations under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. It holds mapped locations of World and National Heritage properties, Wetlands of International and National Importance, Commonwealth and State/Territory reserves, listed threatened, migratory and marine species and listed threatened ecological communities. Mapping of Commonwealth land is not complete at this stage. Maps have been collated from a range of sources at various resolutions.

Not all species listed under the EPBC Act have been mapped (see below) and therefore a report is a general guide only. Where available data supports mapping, the type of presence that can be determined from the data is indicated in general terms. People using this information in making a referral may need to consider the qualifications below and may need to seek and consider other information sources.

For threatened ecological communities where the distribution is well known, maps are derived from recovery plans, State vegetation maps, remote sensing imagery and other sources. Where threatened ecological community distributions are less well known, existing vegetation maps and point location data are used to produce indicative distribution maps.

Threatened, migratory and marine species distributions have been derived through a variety of methods. Where distributions are well known and if time permits, maps are derived using either thematic spatial data (i.e. vegetation, soils, geology, elevation, aspect, terrain, etc) together with point locations and described habitat; or environmental modelling (MAXENT or BIOCLIM habitat modelling) using point locations and environmental data layers.

Where very little information is available for species or large number of maps are required in a short time-frame, maps are derived either from 0.04 or 0.02 decimal degree cells; by an automated process using polygon capture techniques (static two kilometre grid cells, alpha-hull and convex hull); or captured manually or by using topographic features (national park boundaries, islands, etc). In the early stages of the distribution mapping process (1999-early 2000s) distributions were defined by degree blocks, 100K or 250K map sheets to rapidly create distribution maps. More reliable distribution mapping methods are used to update these distributions as time permits.

Only selected species covered by the following provisions of the EPBC Act have been mapped: - migratory and - marine The following species and ecological communities have not been mapped and do not appear in reports produced from this database:

- threatened species listed as extinct or considered as vagrants - some species and ecological communities that have only recently been listed - some terrestrial species that overfly the Commonwealth marine area - migratory species that are very widespread, vagrant, or only occur in small numbers The following groups have been mapped, but may not cover the complete distribution of the species: - non-threatened seabirds which have only been mapped for recorded breeding sites - seals which have only been mapped for breeding sites near the Australian continent Such breeding sites may be important for the protection of the Commonwealth Marine environment.

Coordinates

-30.41379 121.40533 Acknowledgements This database has been compiled from a range of data sources. The department acknowledges the following custodians who have contributed valuable data and advice: -Office of Environment and Heritage, New South Wales -Department of Environment and Primary Industries, Victoria -Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, Tasmania -Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources, South Australia -Department of Land and Resource Management, Northern Territory -Department of Environmental and Heritage Protection, Queensland -Department of Parks and Wildlife, Western Australia -Environment and Planning Directorate, ACT -Birdlife Australia -Australian Bird and Bat Banding Scheme -Australian National Wildlife Collection -Natural history museums of Australia -Museum Victoria -Australian Museum -South Australian Museum -Queensland Museum -Online Zoological Collections of Australian Museums -Queensland Herbarium -National Herbarium of NSW -Royal Botanic Gardens and National Herbarium of Victoria -Tasmanian Herbarium -State Herbarium of South Australia -Northern Territory Herbarium -Western Australian Herbarium -Australian National Herbarium, Canberra -University of New England -Ocean Biogeographic Information System -Australian Government, Department of Defence Forestry Corporation, NSW -Geoscience Australia -CSIRO -Australian Tropical Herbarium, Cairns -eBird Australia -Australian Government – Australian Antarctic Data Centre -Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory -Australian Government National Environmental Science Program -Australian Institute of Marine Science -Reef Life Survey Australia -American Museum of Natural History -Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery, Inveresk, Tasmania -Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery, Hobart, Tasmania -Other groups and individuals

The Department is extremely grateful to the many organisations and individuals who provided expert advice and information on numerous draft distributions.

Please feel free to provide feedback via the Contact Us page.

Appendix B Vertebrate Fauna Recorded in Biological Surveys in the Region Vertebrate fauna assessment – Golden Cities mining project

Appendix B(1). Vertebrate fauna assessments – Golden Cities Surveys A B C D E F

Family Species Common Name Unknown 9 Site 1 Site 10 Site 2 Site 5 Site 6 Site 12 Site 3 Site 8 Site 7 Site 11 Site 13 Site White Foil KurrawangNR#6 KurrawangNR#4 KurrawangNR#7 KurrawangNR#2 KurrawangNR#1 KurrawangNR#3 KurrawangNR#5 3 Site 9 Site 1 Site 8 Site Fish Cobitidae Carassius auratus Goldfish X Terapontidae Leiopotherapon unicolor Spangled Perch X Amphibians Hylidae Litoria moorei Motorbike Frog X 1 Limnodynastidae Neobatrachus kunapalari Kunapalari Frog X 10 1 8 1 1 1 1 Neobatrachus pelobatoides Humming Frog X 2 Neobatrachus sutor Shoemaker Frog X 1 Neobatrachus wilsmorei Goldfields Bullfrog X 2 Myobatrachidae Pseudophryne occidentalis Orange-crowned Toadlet X 32 Reptiles Agamidae Ctenophorus caudicinctus Ring-tailed Dragon X Ctenophorus cristatus Crested Dragon X 16 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ctenophorus fordi Mallee Dragon X 16 1 7 Ctenophorus isolepis Crested Dragon X 8 Ctenophorus maculatus Spotted Dragon X Ctenophorus nuchalis Central Netted Dragon X Ctenophorus pictus Painted Dragon X Ctenophorus reticulatus Western Netted Dragon X 29 1 1 Ctenophorus salinarum Saltpan Dragon X 10 Ctenophorus scutulatus Lozenge-marked Dragon X 12 1 4 Diporiphora amphiboluroides Mulga Dragon X 1 Moloch horridus Thorny Devil X 12 1 1 1 1 Pogona minor Dwarf Bearded Dragon X 20 1 2 1 Tympanocryptis cephalus Pebble Dragon X 1 Tympanocryptis lineata Lined Earless Dragon X 1 Boidae Morelia spilota imbricata Carpet Python X 3 Carphodactylidae Nephrurus laevissimus Smooth Knob-tail X 1 Nephrurus vertebralis Midline Knob-tail X 1 Underwoodisaurus milii Barking Gecko X 35 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 Diplodactylidae Amalosia reticulata Reticulated Velvet Gecko X 3 1 1 Crenadactylus ocellatus Clawless Gecko X Diplodactylus conspicillatus Fat-tailed Diplodactylus X Diplodactylus granariensis Wheat-belt Stone Gecko X 24 1 3 1 1 1 1 3 4 1 Diplodactylus pulcher Fine-faced Gecko X 16 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 Hesperoedura reticulata Reticulated Velvet Gecko X Lucasium damaeum Beaded Gecko X 3 Surveys A B C D E F

Family Species Common Name Unknown 9 Site 1 Site 10 Site 2 Site 5 Site 6 Site 12 Site 3 Site 8 Site 7 Site 11 Site 13 Site White Foil KurrawangNR#6 KurrawangNR#4 KurrawangNR#7 KurrawangNR#2 KurrawangNR#1 KurrawangNR#3 KurrawangNR#5 3 Site 9 Site 1 Site 8 Site Lucasium maini Main's Ground Gecko X 21 2 1 1 6 1 Oedura marmorata Marbled Velvet Gecko X Strophurus assimilis Goldfields Spiny-tailed Gecko X 4 5 2 5 Strophurus elderi Jewelled Gecko X 5 Elapidae Acanthophis pyrrhus Desert Death Adder X 1 Brachyurophis fasciolata Narrow-banded Burrowing Snake X 1 Brachyurophis semifasciata Half-girdlerd Snake X 4 1 Demansia psammophis Yellow-faced Whipsnake X 1 1 1 1 Echiopsis curta Bardick X 1 Furina ornata Orange-naped Snake X 1 Neelaps bimaculatus Black-naped Burrowing Snake X 5 Parasuta gouldii Gould's Snake X 6 Parasuta monachus Monk Snake X 17 Pseudechis australis Mulga Snake X 5 1 Pseudonaja affinis Dugite X 1 Pseudonaja mengdeni Gwardar X 32 Pseudonaja modesta Ringed Brown Snake X 15 Simoselaps bertholdi Jan's Banded Snake X 14 1 1 Suta fasciata Rosen's Snake X 9 Suta suta Curl Snake X Gekkonidae Christinus marmoratus Marbled Gecko X Gehyra purpurascens Purplish Dtella X 3 1 1 2 Gehyra variegata Tree Dtella X 24 1 2 1 1 1 1 Hemidactylus frenatus Asian House Gecko X 3 Heteronotia binoei Bynoe's Prickly Gecko X 67 1 1 1 Rhynchoedura ornata Western Beaked Gecko X 7 1 Pygopodidae Aprasia repens Sedgelands Worm-lizard X Delma australis Marble-faced Delma X 6 1 1 1 Delma butleri Unbanded Delma X 5 Lialis burtonis Burton's Snake-lizard X 2 1 Pygopus lepidopodus Common Scaly-foot X 1 1 Pygopus nigriceps Western Hooded Scaly-foot X 4 Scincidae Cryptoblepharus buchananii Buchanan's Snake-eyed Skink X 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ctenotus atlas Southern Mallee Ctenotus X 10 1 1 7 Ctenotus australis Western Limestone Ctenotus X Ctenotus brooksi Wedgsnout Ctenotus X Ctenotus leonhardii Leonhardi's Ctenotus X 7 Ctenotus schomburgkii Schomburgk's Ctenotus X 2 1 1 7 Surveys A B C D E F

Family Species Common Name Unknown 9 Site 1 Site 10 Site 2 Site 5 Site 6 Site 12 Site 3 Site 8 Site 7 Site 11 Site 13 Site White Foil KurrawangNR#6 KurrawangNR#4 KurrawangNR#7 KurrawangNR#2 KurrawangNR#1 KurrawangNR#3 KurrawangNR#5 3 Site 9 Site 1 Site 8 Site Ctenotus uber Spotted Ctenotus X 15 1 1 1 Cyclodomorphus branchialis Common Slender Bluetongue 1 Cyclodomorphus melanops Spinifex Slender Bluetongue X 6 Egernia depressa Pygmy Spiny-tailed Skink X 10 1 1 Scincidae Egernia formosa Goldfields Crevice-skink X 12 Egernia richardi Bright Crevice-skink X Egernia stokesii Western Spiny-tailed Skink X 1 Eremiascincus richardsonii Broad-banded Sand Swimmer X 3 1 Hemiergis initialis South-western Earless Skink X 19 Hemiergis peronii Lowlands Earless Skink X 1 Lampropholis guichenoti Pale-flecked Garden Skink X Lerista kingi King's Slider X Lerista muelleri Wood Mulch-slider X 33 Lerista picturata Southern Robust Slider X 10 1 1 1 Lerista timida Timid Slider X Liopholis inornata Desert Skink X 7 1 1 1 Liopholis striata Nocturnal Desert Skink X 2 Menetia greyii Common Dwarf Skink X 19 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 Morethia adelaidensis Saltbush Morethia Skink X 12 Morethia butleri Woodland Morethia Skink X 9 Morethia obscura Shrubland Morethia Skink X 2 Tiliqua occipitalis Western Blue-tongued Lizard X 1 2 1 Tiliqua rugosa Bobtail X 5 1 1 1 3 1 Typhlopidae Anilios australis Austral Blind Snake X 18 1 1 Anilios bicolor Dark-spined Blind Snake 6 Anilios bituberculatus Prong-snouted Blind Snake X 26 Anilios hamatus Pale-headed Blind Snake 1 Anilios waitii Waite's Blind Snake 2 Varanidae Varanus caudolineatus Stripe-tailed Monitor X 8 1 Varanus gouldii Gould's Goanna X 8 2 1 1 1 1 1 Varanus tristis Black-headed Monitor X 3 3 Chelidae Chelodina colliei Oblong Turtle X Birds Casuariidae Dromaius novaehollandiae Emu 2 2 1 1 1 Megapodiidae Leipoa ocellata Malleefowl 1 Columbidae Phaps chalcoptera Common Bronzewing 5 2 2 1 Phaps elegans Brush Bronzewing 2 Ocyphaps lophotes Crested Pigeon 2 1 1 Surveys A B C D E F

Family Species Common Name Unknown 9 Site 1 Site 10 Site 2 Site 5 Site 6 Site 12 Site 3 Site 8 Site 7 Site 11 Site 13 Site White Foil KurrawangNR#6 KurrawangNR#4 KurrawangNR#7 KurrawangNR#2 KurrawangNR#1 KurrawangNR#3 KurrawangNR#5 3 Site 9 Site 1 Site 8 Site Podargidae Podargus strigoides Tawny Frogmouth 2 1 1 1 Caprimulgidae Eurostopodus argus Spotted Nightjar 1 Aegothelidae Aegotheles cristatus Australian Owlet-nightjar 1 Accipitridae Lophoictinia isura Square-tailed Kite 2 1 1 1 Aquila audax Wedge-tailed Eagle 1 Falconidae Falco cenchroides Nankeen Kestrel 1 1 Falco berigora Brown Falcon 1 1 1 Charadriidae Vanellus tricolor Banded Lapwing 1 Cacatuidae Eolophus roseicapillus Galah 1 1 1 Psittacidae Glossopsitta porphyrocephala Purple-crowned Lorikeet 10 31 4 13 6 Polytelis anthopeplus Regent Parrot 2 8 1 1 1 Barnardius zonarius Australian Ringneck 6 2 6 2 6 3 31 3 1 Psephotus varius Mulga Parrot 5 1 Cuculidae Chalcites osculans Black-eared Cuckoo 1 1 3 1 2 1 Chalcites lucidus Shining Bronze-cuckoo 1 Cacomantis pallidus Pallid Cuckoo 2 1 1 Strigidae Ninox novaeseelandiae Southern Boobook 1 Meropidae Merops ornatus Rainbow Bee-eater 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 Climacteridae Climacteris rufa Rufous Treecreeper X 26 4 Ptilonorhynchidae Ptilonorhynchus maculatus Spotted Bowerbird 1 Maluridae Malurus splendens Splendid Fairy-wren X 5 1 Malurus pulcherrimus Blue-breasted Fairy-wren X 2 5 1 Acanthizidae Sericornis frontalis White-browed Scrubwren X Hylacola cauta Shy Heathwren X 2 Calamanthus campestris Rufous Fieldwren X Pyrrholaemus brunneus Redthroat X 6 9 11 1 5 6 1 Smicrornis brevirostris Weebill 24 19 1 30 23 8 40 57 1 1 1 1 1 Smicrornis brevirostris Weebill X Gerygone fusca Western Gerygone X 1 Acanthiza robustirostris Slaty-backed Thornbill X Acanthiza chrysorrhoa Yellow-rumped Thornbill X 2 5 5 1 1 1 Acanthiza uropygialis Chestnut-rumped Thornbill X 35 45 41 1 1 23 8 1 1 1 Acanthiza iredalei Slender-billed Thornbill X Acanthiza apicalis Inland Thornbill X 2 4 2 3 6 5 1 1 Aphelocephala leucopsis Southern Whiteface X 1 Pardalotidae Pardalotus punctatus Spotted Pardalote X Pardalotus rubricatus Red-browed Pardalote X Pardalotus striatus Striated Pardalote X 1 1 5 2 1 1 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 Surveys A B C D E F

Family Species Common Name Unknown 9 Site 1 Site 10 Site 2 Site 5 Site 6 Site 12 Site 3 Site 8 Site 7 Site 11 Site 13 Site White Foil KurrawangNR#6 KurrawangNR#4 KurrawangNR#7 KurrawangNR#2 KurrawangNR#1 KurrawangNR#3 KurrawangNR#5 3 Site 9 Site 1 Site 8 Site Meliphagidae Certhionyx variegatus Pied Honeyeater X Lichenostomus virescens Singing Honeyeater X 1 Lichenostomus leucotis White-eared Honeyeater X 4 4 6 3 16 2 3 1 14 1 1 Lichenostomus cratitius Purple-gaped Honeyeater X Lichenostomus ornatus Yellow-plumed Honeyeater X 19 2 1 30 6 52 94 14 16 1 1 1 1 1 Lichenostomus plumulus Grey-fronted Honeyeater Purnella albifrons White-fronted Honeyeater X 5 25 8 6 28 21 12 28 1 Manorina flavigula Yellow-throated Miner X 8 11 2 6 8 1 1 1 1 Acanthagenys rufogularis Spiny-cheeked Honeyeater X 2 7 1 3 4 5 2 4 1 1 1 Anthochaera carunculata Red Wattlebird X 4 1 3 8 3 2 14 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 Epthianura tricolor Crimson Chat X Epthianura aurifrons Orange Chat X Epthianura albifrons White-fronted Chat X Sugomel niger Black Honeyeater X Lichmera indistincta Brown Honeyeater X 2 1 1 5 1 1 Phylidonyris niger White-cheeked Honeyeater X Melithreptus brevirostris Brown-headed Honeyeater X 2 1 4 1 5 4 Pomatostomidae Pomatostomus superciliosus White-browed Babbler X 6 15 1 Psophodidae Cinclosoma castanotum Chestnut Quail-thrush X 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 Neosittidae Daphoenositta chrysoptera Varied Sittella X 7 Campephagidae Coracina maxima Ground Cuckoo-shrike 1 Coracina novaehollandiae Black-faced Cuckoo-shrike X 3 1 6 7 2 2 1 1 1 Lalage sueurii White-winged Triller X 1 Pachycephalidae Pachycephala inornata Gilbert's Whistler X 1 1 Pachycephala pectoralis Golden Whistler 1 1 Pachycephala simplex Grey Whistler 1 Pachycephala rufiventris Rufous Whistler X 2 Colluricincla harmonica Grey Shrike-thrush X 1 3 3 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 Oreoica gutturalis Crested Bellbird X 2 2 2 6 2 5 4 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 Artamidae Artamus personatus Masked Woodswallow X Artamus cinereus Black-faced Woodswallow X 1 1 1 Artamus cyanopterus Dusky Woodswallow X 2 6 Cracticus torquatus Grey Butcherbird X 1 3 2 4 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 Cracticus nigrogularis Pied Butcherbird X 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Cracticus tibicen Australian Magpie X 2 2 1 1 1 1 Strepera versicolor Grey Currawong 2 4 1 4 1 2 3 3 5 1 1 1 Rhipiduridae Rhipidura albiscapa Grey Fantail X Rhipidura leucophrys Willie Wagtail X 1 4 1 Surveys A B C D E F

Family Species Common Name Unknown 9 Site 1 Site 10 Site 2 Site 5 Site 6 Site 12 Site 3 Site 8 Site 7 Site 11 Site 13 Site White Foil KurrawangNR#6 KurrawangNR#4 KurrawangNR#7 KurrawangNR#2 KurrawangNR#1 KurrawangNR#3 KurrawangNR#5 3 Site 9 Site 1 Site 8 Site Corvidae Corvus coronoides Australian Raven X 6 1 4 1 1 8 1 3 1 Corvus bennetti Little Crow X 1 1 3 1 1 1 Corvus orru Torresian Crow X Monarchidae Grallina cyanoleuca Magpie-lark X 1 1 Petroicidae Microeca fascinans Jacky Winter X 11 1 1 Petroica goodenovii Red-capped Robin X 8 16 1 1 Eopsaltria griseogularis Western Yellow Robin X 2 Drymodes brunneopygia Southern Scrub-robin X Megaluridae Cincloramphus mathewsi Rufous Songlark X Cincloramphus cruralis Brown Songlark Timaliidae Zosterops lateralis Mauritius Olive White-eye X Hirundinidae Cheramoeca leucosterna White-backed Swallow X 1 Hirundo neoxena Welcome Swallow X 2 Petrochelidon ariel Fairy Martin X Hirundo nigricans Tree Martin X Nectariniidae Dicaeum hirundinaceum Mistletoebird X 1 1 Estrildidae Taeniopygia guttata Zebra Finch X Motacillidae Anthus novaeseelandiae Australasian Pipit X 1 Mammals Bovidae Capra hircus Goat 1 Bovidae Ovis aries Sheep 1 Canidae Canis lupus Dingo X 3 Vulpes vulpes Red Fox 1 Felidae Felis catus House Cat X 1 Molossidae Austronomus australis White-striped Free-tail Bat X 6 Mormopterus planiceps Southern Free-tail Bat X 18 Vespertilionidae Chalinolobus gouldii Gould's Wattled Bat X 17 Chalinolobus morio Chocolate Wattled Bat X 35 Nyctophilus geoffroyi Lesser Long-eared Bat 5 Nyctophilus geoffroyi Lesser Long-eared Bat X Nyctophilus major Greater Long-eared Bat 1 Scotorepens balstoni Inland Broad-nosed Bat X 4 Vespadelus baverstocki Inland Forest Bat X 1 Vespadelus regulus Southern Forest Bat X 8 Dasyuridae Antechinomys laniger Kultarr X 1 Ningaui ridei Wongai Ningaui X 2 1 2 Ningaui yvonneae Mallee Ningaui X 8 1 Pseudantechinus woolleyae Woolley's False Antechinus X 1 Surveys A B C D E F

Appendix B(2). Vertebrate fauna assessments – Golden Cities Surveys A B

Undist

Spinifex ArrowGolden Trans GimletSouthUndist RoseTrans SalmonGums GimletSouthTrans PalaceRehab Davyhurst ArrowGolden Undist Palace Security Crossroads GimletSouthRehab ArrowGolden Rehab PalaceTrans RoseRehab RoseUndist GullyWendy Rehab GullyWendy Trans GullyWendy Undist Floodplains KK4 KK1 KK2 KK11

Fish Limnodynastidae Neobatrachus kunapalari Kunapalari Frog 1 1 Limnodynastidae Neobatrachus sutor Shoemaker Frog 9 6 30 5 3 6 5 10 19 25 22 12 7 2 2 1 9 1 8 Limnodynastidae Neobatrachus wilsmorei Goldfields Bullfrog 1 Myobatrachidae Pseudophryne occidentalis Orange-crowned Toadlet 5 84 1 147 1 1 1 95 4 158 2 2 2 2 Reptile Agamidae Ctenophorus caudicinctus Ring-tailed Dragon Ctenophorus cristatus Crested Dragon 1 5 3 1 3 1 10 1 1 1 2 4 1 3 Ctenophorus reticulatus Western Netted Dragon 13 2 3 1 3 4 19 30 6 12 18 1 1 3 3 5 Ctenophorus scutulatus Lozenge-marked Dragon 2 2 3 2 5 2 1 13 8 Diporiphora amphiboluroides Mulga Dragon 7 Moloch horridus Thorny Devil 1 5 1 1 17 1 Pogona minor Dwarf Bearded Dragon 1 Pogona minor Dwarf Bearded Dragon 13 9 3 2 2 4 20 11 14 3 14 21 12 10 8 18 2 14 4 24 2 Tympanocryptis cephalus Pebble Dragon 7 1 2 1 1 Carphodactylidae Nephrurus laevissimus Smooth Knob-tail 1 Nephrurus vertebralis Midline Knob-tail 1 Underwoodisaurus milii Barking Gecko 11 75 18 68 31 231 20 16 22 22 2 83 97 47 98 10 37 33 28 10 2 Diplodactylidae Amalosia reticulata Reticulated Velvet Gecko 1 4 1 Diplodactylus granariensis Wheat-belt Stone Gecko 77 6 71 36 18 8 2 74 13 62 8 29 22 2 2 34 68 33 38 76 1 1 2 4 Diplodactylus pulcher Fine-faced Gecko 53 2 21 3 8 1 1 86 78 88 123 80 6 3 4 100 1 3 46 12 1 2 Lucasium maini Main's Ground Gecko 9 1 60 346 1 9 6 39 1 9 2 69 1 1 1 3 5 Strophurus assimilis Goldfields Spiny-tailed Gecko 44 4 7 1 3 1 19 1 3 8 1 1 14 15 112 Elapidae Brachyurophis semifasciata Half-girdlerd Snake 9 6 7 6 5 2 1 Demansia psammophis Yellow-faced Whipsnake 1 4 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 Parasuta gouldii Gould's Snake 1 Parasuta monachus Monk Snake 2 4 2 7 3 9 3 11 4 2 1 3 1 3 1 6 1 Pseudechis australis Mulga Snake 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 Pseudonaja mengdeni Gwardar 1 1 1 1 1 Pseudonaja modesta Ringed Brown Snake 1 1 2 2 1 1 Simoselaps bertholdi Jan's Banded Snake 2 4 8 2 1 1 2 1 Suta fasciata Rosen's Snake 3 2 1 1 Gekkonidae Gehyra purpurascens Purplish Dtella 1 1 1 1 1 9 6 6 Surveys A B

Undist

Gehyra variegata Tree Dtella 23 37 13 14 27 2 38 28 45 39 6 18 1 1 3 37 3 1 12 2 1 3 2 Heteronotia binoei Bynoe's Prickly Gecko 24 53 9 27 10 21 19 16 12 28 25 1 29 43 42 34 13 42 27 8 1 2 6 6 Rhynchoedura ornata Western Beaked Gecko 4 3 5 23 20 41 1 106 9 1 Pygopodidae Delma australis Marble-faced Delma 8 3 1 4 2 9 1 2 6 1 Delma butleri Unbanded Delma 4 2 2 Delma fraseri Fraser's Delma 1 1 Lialis burtonis Burton's Snake-lizard 5 2 3 2 Pygopus lepidopodus Common Scaly-foot 2 2 3 2 1 Pygopus nigriceps Western Hooded Scaly-foot Scincidae Cryptoblepharus buchananii Buchanan's Snake-eyed Skink 12 3 10 1 5 3 1 7 4 Ctenotus atlas Southern Mallee Ctenotus 16 1 1 2 104 6 Ctenotus schomburgkii Schomburgk's Ctenotus 2 2 1 Ctenotus uber Spotted Ctenotus 7 Ctenotus uber Spotted Ctenotus 46 2 13 6 29 48 5 44 27 1 3 2 1 25 Cyclodomorphus melanops Spinifex Slender Bluetongue 1 Cyclodomorphus melanops Spinifex Slender Bluetongue 24 2 2 1 1 6 2 2 2 24 Egernia depressa Southern Pygmy Spiny-tailed Skink 15 68 1 3 1 57 2 3 27 3 2 2 3 Egernia formosa Goldfields Crevice-skink 1 4 8 2 8 1 14 1 Eremiascincus richardsonii Broad-banded Sand Swimmer 3 4 6 2 1 5 4 6 2 1 1 1 Hemiergis initialis South-western Earless Skink 12 5 1 4 1 Lerista picturata Southern Robust Slider 14 18 20 18 17 5 1 5 20 2 1 Liopholis inornata Desert Skink 4 8 2 71 2 1 1 1 Liopholis striata Nocturnal Desert Skink 2 9 1 Menetia greyii Common Dwarf Skink 6 3 11 3 4 19 6 23 17 4 2 4 12 18 1 1 Morethia adelaidensis Saltbush Morethia Skink 1 Morethia butleri Woodland Morethia Skink 4 1 4 7 3 14 6 4 17 1 2 Morethia obscura Shrubland Morethia Skink Tiliqua occipitalis Western Blue-tongued Lizard 5 1 2 3 4 Tiliqua rugosa Bobtail 2 3 1 1 3 2 1 1 3 2 1 1 3 2 7 Typhlopidae Anilios australis Austral Blind Snake 14 14 7 2 8 7 7 1 3 1 2 1 6 Anilios bicolor Dark-spined Blind Snake 1 1 1 Anilios bituberculatus Prong-snouted Blind Snake 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 Anilios hamatus Pale-headed Blind Snake 9 5 24 2 10 2 2 10 18 7 2 13 4 1 6 1 1 9 Anilios sp. Anilios Cape Range Pop 1 Surveys A B

Undist

Varanidae Varanus caudolineatus Stripe-tailed Monitor 1 15 11 11 1 17 9 2 1 9 1 Varanus gouldii Gould's Goanna 6 2 9 3 8 1 3 10 9 3 2 2 1 4 1 3 7 2 1 1 1 2 Varanus tristis Black-headed Monitor 3 1 1 3 5 Birds Casuariidae Dromaius novaehollandiae Emu 14 11 Anatidae Anas gracilis Grey Teal 10 Columbidae Phaps chalcoptera Common Bronzewing 4 3 Ocyphaps lophotes Crested Pigeon 2 Podargidae Podargus strigoides Tawny Frogmouth 1 Accipitridae Aquila audax Wedge-tailed Eagle 2 Falconidae Falco berigora Brown Falcon 1 Cacatuidae Eolophus roseicapillus Galah 10 Nymphicus hollandicus Cockatiel 15 Psittacidae Glossopsitta porphyrocephala Purple-crowned Lorikeet 3 6 Barnardius zonarius Australian Ringneck 11 63 16 Psephotus varius Mulga Parrot 7 1 Cuculidae Chalcites basalis Horsfield's Bronze-cuckoo 1 2 1 Cacomantis pallidus Pallid Cuckoo 1 4 1 Strigidae Ninox novaeseelandiae Southern Boobook 1 Halcyonidae Todiramphus pyrrhopygius Red-backed Kingfisher 2 Meropidae Merops ornatus Rainbow Bee-eater 19 10 Climacteridae Climacteris rufa Rufous Treecreeper 4 Maluridae Malurus leucopterus White-winged Fairy-wren 10 Acanthizidae Pyrrholaemus brunneus Redthroat 2 1 Smicrornis brevirostris Weebill 1 12 155 77 Acanthiza chrysorrhoa Yellow-rumped Thornbill 4 Acanthiza uropygialis Chestnut-rumped Thornbill 33 2 25 Acanthiza apicalis Inland Thornbill 14 Pardalotidae Pardalotus striatus Striated Pardalote 56 9 Meliphagidae Lichenostomus virescens Singing Honeyeater 9 15 Lichenostomus leucotis White-eared Honeyeater 3 Lichenostomus ornatus Yellow-plumed Honeyeater 30 8 Purnella albifrons White-fronted Honeyeater 17 11 19 Manorina flavigula Yellow-throated Miner 52 86 36 Surveys A B

Undist

Acanthagenys rufogularis Spiny-cheeked Honeyeater 20 10 14 Anthochaera carunculata Red Wattlebird 31 Lichmera indistincta Brown Honeyeater 30 Melithreptus brevirostris Brown-headed Honeyeater 5 Pomatostomidae Pomatostomus superciliosus White-browed Babbler 1 5 28 Neosittidae Daphoenositta chrysoptera Varied Sittella 15 Campephagidae Coracina maxima Ground Cuckoo-shrike 4 Coracina novaehollandiae Black-faced Cuckoo-shrike 6 13 9 Lalage sueurii White-winged Triller 2 Pachycephalidae Colluricincla harmonica Grey Shrike-thrush 1 1 Oreoica gutturalis Crested Bellbird 5 5 Artamidae Artamus cinereus Black-faced Woodswallow 1 7 Artamus cyanopterus Dusky Woodswallow 3 Cracticus torquatus Grey Butcherbird 5 3 Cracticus nigrogularis Pied Butcherbird 9 2 Cracticus tibicen Australian Magpie 30 4 Strepera versicolor Grey Currawong 2 7 7 Rhipiduridae Rhipidura leucophrys Willie Wagtail 1 2 Monarchidae Grallina cyanoleuca Magpie-lark 6 Petroicidae Microeca fascinans Jacky Winter 1 11 6 Petroica goodenovii Red-capped Robin 5 5 6 Melanodryas cucullata Hooded Robin 1 Hirundinidae Hirundo neoxena Welcome Swallow 4 Hirundo nigricans Tree Martin 4 Motacillidae Anthus novaeseelandiae Australasian Pipit 1 1 4 4 1 Mammals Canidae Vulpes vulpes Red Fox 1 Molossidae Austronomus australis White-striped Free-tail Bat 5 17 1 Mormopterus planiceps Southern Free-tail Bat 11 8 Vespertilionidae Chalinolobus morio Chocolate Wattled Bat 1 3 Nyctophilus geoffroyi Lesser Long-eared Bat 1 2 Nyctophilus gouldi Gould's Long-eared Bat 10 42 Nyctophilus major Greater Long-eared Bat 1 Scotorepens balstoni Inland Broad-nosed Bat 2 11 Surveys A B

Undist

Vespadelus regulus Southern Forest Bat 1 5 Dasyuridae Antechinomys laniger Kultarr 1 1 1 Ningaui ridei Wongai Ningaui 1 2 Ningaui sp. Ningaui Sp. 35 3 2 2 22 1 4 2 17 Ningaui yvonneae Mallee Ningaui 1 Pseudantechinus woolleyae Woolley's False Antechinus 1 Sminthopsis crassicaudata Fat-tailed Dunnart 2 11 2 63 5 14 67 15 12 4 26 32 27 57 143 28 121 100 24 108 1 2 5 1 Sminthopsis crassicaudata Fat-tailed Dunnart Sminthopsis dolichura Little Long-tailed Dunnart 63 16 15 5 34 4 2 47 25 36 46 11 2 17 4 2 28 7 4 32 2 7 1 3 4 Sminthopsis sp. Dunnart Sp. 2 Burramyidae Cercartetus concinnus Southwestern Pygmy Possum 23 11 62 11 15 23 9 37 32 20 8 17 27 3 8 20 22 9 6 16 2 8 1 Macropodidae Macropus fuliginosus Western Grey Kangaroo 8 2 6 Macropus robustus Euro 2 Macropus rufus Red Kangaroo 1 15 8 Leporidae Oryctolagus cuniculus European Rabbit 1 1 1 1 Muridae Mus musculus House Mouse 26 36 25 33 6 62 49 19 2 24 10 18 128 24 47 56 22 181 88 13 31 1 13 4 Notomys mitchellii Mitchell's Hopping Mouse 1 1 Pseudomys albocinereus Ash-grey Mouse 1 Pseudomys bolami Bolam's Mouse 9 39 13 19 30 11 49 3 13 1 8 20 35 4 25 24 5 4 9 2 Pseudomys hermannsburgensis Sandy Inland Mouse 8 9 5 9 3 9 3 4 2 5 7 14 2 1 5 2 A Thompson B DEC (1992) Kurnalpi-Kalgoorlie

Appendix C Definitions of Significant Fauna under the WA Wildlife Conservation Act 1950 Vertebrate fauna assessment – Golden Cities mining project

APPENDIX C DEFINITIONS OF SIGNIFICANT FAUNA UNDER THE EPBC ACT AND THE WESTERN AUSTRALIAN WILDLIFE CONSERVATION ACT 1950 Published as Specially Protected under the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950, and listed under Schedules 1 to 4 of the Wildlife Conservation (Specially Protected Fauna) Notice for Threatened Fauna and Wildlife Conservation (Rare Flora) Notice for Threatened Flora (which may also be referred to as Declared Rare Flora).

Threatened fauna is that subset of ‘Specially Protected Fauna’ declared to be ‘likely to become extinct’ pursuant to section 14(4) of the Wildlife Conservation Act.

Threatened flora is flora that has been declared to be ‘likely to become extinct or is rare, or otherwise in need of special protection’, pursuant to section 23F(2) of the Wildlife Conservation Act.

The assessment of the conservation status of these species is based on their national extent and ranked according to their level of threat using IUCN Red List categories and criteria as detailed below.

CR Critically endangered species

Threatened species considered to be facing an extremely high risk of extinction in the wild. Published as Specially Protected under the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950, in Schedule 1 of the Wildlife Conservation (Specially Protected Fauna) Notice for Threatened Fauna and Wildlife Conservation (Rare Flora) Notice for Threatened Flora.

EN Endangered species

Threatened species considered to be facing a very high risk of extinction in the wild. Published as Specially Protected under the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950, in Schedule 2 of the Wildlife Conservation (Specially Protected Fauna) Notice for Threatened Fauna and Wildlife Conservation (Rare Flora) Notice for Threatened Flora.

VU Vulnerable species

Threatened species considered to be facing a high risk of extinction in the wild. Published as Specially Protected under the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950, in Schedule 3 of the Wildlife Conservation (Specially Protected Fauna) Notice for Threatened Fauna and Wildlife Conservation (Rare Flora) Notice for Threatened Flora.

EX Presumed extinct species

Species which have been adequately searched for and there is no reasonable doubt that the last individual has died. Published as Specially Protected under the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950, in Schedule 4 of the Wildlife Conservation (Specially Protected Fauna) Notice for Presumed Extinct Fauna and Wildlife Conservation (Rare Flora) Notice for Presumed Extinct Flora.

IA Migratory birds protected under an international agreement

Birds that are subject to an agreement between the government of Australia and the governments of Japan (JAMBA), China (CAMBA) and The Republic of Korea (ROKAMBA), and the Bonn Convention, relating to the protection of migratory birds. Published as Specially Protected under the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950, in Schedule 5 of the Wildlife Conservation (Specially Protected Fauna) Notice.

CD Conservation dependent fauna

Fauna of special conservation need being species dependent on ongoing conservation intervention to prevent it becoming eligible for listing as threatened. Published as Specially Protected under the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950, in Schedule 6 of the Wildlife Conservation (Specially Protected Fauna) Notice.

OS Other specially protected fauna

Fauna otherwise in need of special protection to ensure their conservation. Published as Specially Protected under the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950, in Schedule 7 of the Wildlife Conservation (Specially Protected Fauna) Notice.

Priority species Possibly threatened species that do not meet survey criteria, or are otherwise data deficient, are added to the Priority Fauna or Priority Flora Lists under Priorities 1, 2 or 3. These three categories are ranked in order of priority for survey and evaluation of conservation status so that consideration can be given to their declaration as threatened flora or fauna.

Species that are adequately known, are rare but not threatened, or meet criteria for near threatened, or that have been recently removed from the threatened species or other specially protected fauna lists for other than taxonomic reasons, are placed in Priority 4. These species require regular monitoring.

Assessment of Priority codes is based on the Western Australian distribution of the species, unless the distribution in WA is part of a contiguous population extending into adjacent States, as defined by the known spread of locations.

P1 Priority 1: Poorly-known species

Species that are known from one or a few locations (generally five or less) which are potentially at risk. All occurrences are either: very small; or on lands not managed for conservation, e.g. agricultural or pastoral lands, urban areas, road and rail reserves, gravel reserves and active mineral leases; or otherwise under threat of habitat destruction or degradation. Species may be included if they are comparatively well known from one or more locations but do not meet adequacy of survey requirements and appear to be under immediate threat from known threatening processes. Such species are in urgent need of further survey.

P2 Priority 2: Poorly-known species

Species that are known from one or a few locations (generally five or less), some of which are on lands managed primarily for nature conservation, e.g. national parks, conservation parks, nature reserves and other lands with secure tenure being managed for conservation. Species may be included if they are comparatively well known from one or more locations but do not meet adequacy of survey requirements and appear to be under threat from known threatening processes. Such species are in urgent need of further survey.

P3 Priority 3: Poorly-known species

Species that are known from several locations, and the species does not appear to be under imminent threat, or from few but widespread locations with either large population size or significant remaining areas of apparently suitable habitat, much of it not under imminent threat. Species may be included if they are comparatively well known from several locations but do not meet adequacy of survey requirements and known threatening processes exist that could affect them. Such species are in need of further survey.

P4 Priority 4: Rare, Near Threatened and other species in need of monitoring

(a) Rare. Species that are considered to have been adequately surveyed, or for which sufficient knowledge is available, and that are considered not currently threatened or in need of special protection, but could be if present circumstances change. These species are usually represented on conservation lands.

(b) Near Threatened. Species that are considered to have been adequately surveyed and that are close to qualifying for Vulnerable, but are not listed as Conservation Dependent.

(c) Species that have been removed from the list of threatened species during the past five years for reasons other than taxonomy.

Appendix D Fauna habitat assessment results Vertebrate fauna assessment – Golden Cities mining project

Date: 21-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 1 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 344817 mE Northing: 6633079 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Open shrubland with an understory of spinifex or tussock grasses

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 21-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 2 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 344819 mE Northing: 6633240 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Eucalypt woodland over shrubs and chenopods of varying densities

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 21-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 3 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 345024 mE Northing: 6632940 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Open shrubland with an understory of spinifex or tussock grasses

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 21-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 4 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 345175 mE Northing: 6633742 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Dense shrubland

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 21-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 5 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 345203 mE Northing: 6634163 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Dense shrubland

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Cobbles

Date: 21-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 6 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 345343 mE Northing: 6633579 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Eucalypt woodland over shrubs and chenopods of varying densities

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 21-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 7 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 345368 mE Northing: 6633259 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Open shrubland with an understory of spinifex or tussock grasses

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 21-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 8 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 345203 mE Northing: 6634546 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Dense shrubland

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 21-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 9 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 345493 mE Northing: 6633995 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Mallee and shrubs of varying density

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 21-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 10 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 345732 mE Northing: 6634008 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Mallee and shrubs of varying density

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 21-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 11 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 345798 mE Northing: 6634113 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Mallee and shrubs of varying density

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 21-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 12 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 347061 mE Northing: 6635580 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Dense shrubland

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 21-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 13 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 345818 mE Northing: 6635456 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Dense shrubland

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 21-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 14 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 346795 mE Northing: 6635363 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Dense shrubland

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 21-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 15 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 346532 mE Northing: 6635302 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Mallee and shrubs of varying density

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 21-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 16 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 346430 mE Northing: 6635262 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Eucalypt woodland over shrubs and chenopods of varying densities

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 21-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 17 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 346300 mE Northing: 6635260 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Open shrubland with an understory of spinifex or tussock grasses

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 21-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 18 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 347587 mE Northing: 6635600 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Open shrubland with an understory of spinifex or tussock grasses

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 21-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 19 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 347828 mE Northing: 6635604 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Open shrubland with an understory of spinifex or tussock grasses

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 21-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 20 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 348193 mE Northing: 6635631 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Open shrubland with an understory of spinifex or tussock grasses

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 21-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 21 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 347938 mE Northing: 6635510 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Open shrubland with an understory of spinifex or tussock grasses

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 21-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 22 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 347210 mE Northing: 6635361 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Eucalypt woodland over shrubs and chenopods of varying densities

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 21-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 23 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 347462 mE Northing: 6635342 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Mallee and shrubs of varying density

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 21-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 24 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 347843 mE Northing: 6635340 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Open shrubland with an understory of spinifex or tussock grasses

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 21-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 25 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 348154 mE Northing: 6635311 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Eucalypt woodland over shrubs and chenopods of varying densities

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 21-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 26 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 347505 mE Northing: 6635193 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Eucalypt woodland over shrubs and chenopods of varying densities

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 21-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 27 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 347375 mE Northing: 6635198 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Open shrubland with an understory of spinifex or tussock grasses

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 21-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 28 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 347335 mE Northing: 6635076 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Open shrubland with an understory of spinifex or tussock grasses

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 21-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 29 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 347795 mE Northing: 6635114 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Open shrubland with an understory of spinifex or tussock grasses

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 21-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 30 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 348110 mE Northing: 6635089 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Disturbed

Habitat Structure: Open shrubland with an understory of spinifex or tussock grasses

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 21-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 31 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 347906 mE Northing: 6634982 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Open shrubland with an understory of spinifex or tussock grasses

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 21-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 32 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 347603 mE Northing: 6634980 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Open shrubland with an understory of spinifex or tussock grasses

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 21-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 33 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 348333 mE Northing: 6634558 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Open shrubland with an understory of spinifex or tussock grasses

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 22-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 34 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 348302 mE Northing: 6634121 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Eucalypt woodland over shrubs and chenopods of varying densities

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 22-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 35 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 348291 mE Northing: 6633723 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Open shrubland with an understory of spinifex or tussock grasses

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 22-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 36 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 348297 mE Northing: 6633271 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Open shrubland with an understory of spinifex or tussock grasses

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 22-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 37 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 348120 mE Northing: 6633605 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Open shrubland with an understory of spinifex or tussock grasses

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 22-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 38 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 348128 mE Northing: 6634096 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Open shrubland with an understory of spinifex or tussock grasses

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 22-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 39 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 348138 mE Northing: 6634379 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Open shrubland with an understory of spinifex or tussock grasses

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 22-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 40 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 347955 mE Northing: 6633893 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Disturbed

Habitat Structure: Open shrubland with an understory of spinifex or tussock grasses

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 22-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 41 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 347913 mE Northing: 6633737 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Eucalypt woodland over shrubs and chenopods of varying densities

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 22-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 42 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 347906 mE Northing: 6633352 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Eucalypt woodland over shrubs and chenopods of varying densities

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 22-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 43 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 347785 mE Northing: 6633786 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Eucalypt woodland over shrubs and chenopods of varying densities

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 22-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 44 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 347653 mE Northing: 6633590 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Open shrubland with an understory of spinifex or tussock grasses

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 22-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 45 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 347656 mE Northing: 6633369 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Open shrubland with an understory of spinifex or tussock grasses

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 22-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 46 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 347499 mE Northing: 6633872 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Eucalypt woodland over shrubs and chenopods of varying densities

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 22-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 47 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 347410 mE Northing: 6634029 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Eucalypt woodland over shrubs and chenopods of varying densities

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 22-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 48 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 347254 mE Northing: 6633869 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Dense shrubland

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 22-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 49 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 347172 mE Northing: 6634001 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Dense shrubland

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 22-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 50 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 347196 mE Northing: 6633529 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Dense shrubland

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 22-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 51 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 347001 mE Northing: 6633507 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Dense shrubland

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 22-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 52 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 347012 mE Northing: 6633234 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Dense shrubland

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 22-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 53 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 346849 mE Northing: 6634081 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Disturbed

Habitat Structure: Open shrubland with an understory of spinifex or tussock grasses

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 22-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 54 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 346821 mE Northing: 6633642 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Open shrubland with an understory of spinifex or tussock grasses

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 22-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 55 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 346765 mE Northing: 6632991 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Open shrubland with an understory of spinifex or tussock grasses

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 22-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 56 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 346749 mE Northing: 6633491 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Open shrubland with an understory of spinifex or tussock grasses

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 22-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 57 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 346383 mE Northing: 6633062 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Open shrubland with an understory of spinifex or tussock grasses

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 22-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 58 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 346342 mE Northing: 6632874 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Open shrubland with an understory of spinifex or tussock grasses

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 22-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 59 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 346264 mE Northing: 6632708 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Dense shrubland

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 22-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 60 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 346116 mE Northing: 6633443 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Eucalypt woodland over shrubs and chenopods of varying densities

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 22-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 61 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 345993 mE Northing: 6633102 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Eucalypt woodland over shrubs and chenopods of varying densities

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 22-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 62 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 345485 mE Northing: 6632673 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Open shrubland with an understory of spinifex or tussock grasses

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 22-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 63 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 345452 mE Northing: 6632836 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Eucalypt woodland over shrubs and chenopods of varying densities

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 64 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 333090 mE Northing: 6621295 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Dense shrubland

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles/Cobbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 65 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 332808 mE Northing: 6621174 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Eucalypt woodland over shrubs and chenopods of varying densities

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 66 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 332443 mE Northing: 6621130 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Eucalypt woodland over shrubs and chenopods of varying densities

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles/Cobbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 67 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 332296 mE Northing: 6621016 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Open shrubland with an understory of spinifex or tussock grasses

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 68 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 331959 mE Northing: 6621231 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Open shrubland with an understory of spinifex or tussock grasses

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles/Cobbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 69 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 332307 mE Northing: 6621116 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Open shrubland with an understory of spinifex or tussock grasses

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles/Cobbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 70 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 332659 mE Northing: 6621174 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Undulating Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Open shrubland with an understory of spinifex or tussock grasses

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 71 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 332859 mE Northing: 6621324 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Eucalypt woodland over shrubs and chenopods of varying densities

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 72 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 333440 mE Northing: 6621568 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Eucalypt woodland over shrubs and chenopods of varying densities

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 73 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 333981 mE Northing: 6621569 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Eucalypt woodland over shrubs and chenopods of varying densities

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 74 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 334416 mE Northing: 6621628 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Eucalypt woodland over shrubs and chenopods of varying densities

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 75 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 334857 mE Northing: 6621705 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Eucalypt woodland over shrubs and chenopods of varying densities

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 76 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 335363 mE Northing: 6621769 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Open shrubland with an understory of spinifex or tussock grasses

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 77 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 335864 mE Northing: 6621862 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Eucalypt woodland over shrubs and chenopods of varying densities

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 78 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 336218 mE Northing: 6621892 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Chenopod shrubland

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 79 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 336659 mE Northing: 6621944 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Eucalypt woodland over shrubs and chenopods of varying densities

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 80 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 336960 mE Northing: 6622043 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Eucalypt woodland over shrubs and chenopods of varying densities

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 81 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 337390 mE Northing: 6622296 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Eucalypt woodland over shrubs and chenopods of varying densities

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 82 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 337772 mE Northing: 6622547 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Eucalypt woodland over shrubs and chenopods of varying densities

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 83 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 338302 mE Northing: 6622917 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Chenopod shrubland

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 84 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 338478 mE Northing: 6623035 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Eucalypt woodland over shrubs and chenopods of varying densities

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 85 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 338694 mE Northing: 6623162 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Eucalypt woodland over shrubs and chenopods of varying densities

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 86 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 339092 mE Northing: 6623484 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Chenopod shrubland

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 87 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 339430 mE Northing: 6623692 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Open shrubland with an understory of spinifex or tussock grasses

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 88 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 339797 mE Northing: 6623931 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Eucalypt woodland over shrubs and chenopods of varying densities

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 89 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 340069 mE Northing: 6623864 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Open shrubland with an understory of spinifex or tussock grasses

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 90 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 339552 mE Northing: 6624040 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Open shrubland with an understory of spinifex or tussock grasses

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 91 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 339291 mE Northing: 6624142 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Eucalypt woodland over shrubs and chenopods of varying densities

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 92 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 339048 mE Northing: 6624240 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Eucalypt woodland over shrubs and chenopods of varying densities

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 93 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 338758 mE Northing: 6624371 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Chenopod shrubland

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 94 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 338486 mE Northing: 6624479 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Eucalypt woodland over shrubs and chenopods of varying densities

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 95 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 338160 mE Northing: 6624625 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Chenopod shrubland

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 96 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 337861 mE Northing: 6624750 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Chenopod shrubland

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 97 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 337536 mE Northing: 6624856 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Eucalypt woodland over shrubs and chenopods of varying densities

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 98 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 337228 mE Northing: 6625024 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Eucalypt woodland over shrubs and chenopods of varying densities

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 99 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 336897 mE Northing: 6625158 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Eucalypt woodland over shrubs and chenopods of varying densities

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 100 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 336498 mE Northing: 6625179 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Eucalypt woodland over shrubs and chenopods of varying densities

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 101 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 336257 mE Northing: 6625193 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Open shrubland with an understory of spinifex or tussock grasses

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 102 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 335902 mE Northing: 6625172 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Open shrubland with an understory of spinifex or tussock grasses

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 103 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 335644 mE Northing: 6625166 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Eucalypt woodland over shrubs and chenopods of varying densities

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 104 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 334830 mE Northing: 6625133 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Eucalypt woodland over shrubs and chenopods of varying densities

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 105 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 334461 mE Northing: 6625137 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Eucalypt woodland over shrubs and chenopods of varying densities

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 106 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 334093 mE Northing: 6625111 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Open shrubland with an understory of spinifex or tussock grasses

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 107 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 333780 mE Northing: 6625109 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Eucalypt woodland over shrubs and chenopods of varying densities

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 108 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 333621 mE Northing: 6625084 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Eucalypt woodland over shrubs and chenopods of varying densities

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 109 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 333508 mE Northing: 6625098 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Undulating Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Open shrubland with an understory of spinifex or tussock grasses

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles/Cobbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 110 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 333451 mE Northing: 6625082 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Hilly Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Dense shrubland

Soil Type: Rocky Surface Stone: Cobbles/Boulders

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 111 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 333314 mE Northing: 6625070 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Open shrubland with an understory of spinifex or tussock grasses

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles/Cobbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 112 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 333233 mE Northing: 6625126 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Open shrubland with an understory of spinifex or tussock grasses

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles/Cobbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 113 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 333123 mE Northing: 6625076 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Open shrubland with an understory of spinifex or tussock grasses

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles/Cobbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 114 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 333068 mE Northing: 6625325 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Open shrubland with an understory of spinifex or tussock grasses

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 115 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 348468 mE Northing: 6634361 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Open shrubland with an understory of spinifex or tussock grasses

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 116 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 348581 mE Northing: 6634490 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Open shrubland with an understory of spinifex or tussock grasses

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 117 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 348718 mE Northing: 6634618 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Open shrubland with an understory of spinifex or tussock grasses

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 118 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 348871 mE Northing: 6634687 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Open shrubland with an understory of spinifex or tussock grasses

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 119 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 349126 mE Northing: 6634756 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Open shrubland with an understory of spinifex or tussock grasses

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: None

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 120 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 349457 mE Northing: 6634704 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Open shrubland with an understory of spinifex or tussock grasses

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 121 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 349729 mE Northing: 6634614 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Open shrubland with an understory of spinifex or tussock grasses

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 122 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 350027 mE Northing: 6634630 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Disturbed

Habitat Structure: Eucalypt woodland over shrubs and chenopods of varying densities

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 123 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 350167 mE Northing: 6634528 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Open shrubland with an understory of spinifex or tussock grasses

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 124 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 350413 mE Northing: 6634520 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Open shrubland with an understory of spinifex or tussock grasses

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 125 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 350659 mE Northing: 6634480 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Open shrubland with an understory of spinifex or tussock grasses

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 126 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 350954 mE Northing: 6634387 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Open shrubland with an understory of spinifex or tussock grasses

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 127 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 351218 mE Northing: 6634387 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Open shrubland with an understory of spinifex or tussock grasses

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 128 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 351506 mE Northing: 6634455 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Open shrubland with an understory of spinifex or tussock grasses

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 129 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 351761 mE Northing: 6634548 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Open shrubland with an understory of spinifex or tussock grasses

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 130 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 351772 mE Northing: 6634350 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Eucalypt woodland over shrubs and chenopods of varying densities

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 131 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 351636 mE Northing: 6634368 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Dense shrubland

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 132 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 345323 mE Northing: 6632540 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Dense shrubland

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 133 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 345257 mE Northing: 6632704 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Dense shrubland

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 134 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 345072 mE Northing: 6632348 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Open shrubland with an understory of spinifex or tussock grasses

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 135 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 344890 mE Northing: 6632244 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Open shrubland with an understory of spinifex or tussock grasses

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 136 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 344704 mE Northing: 6632149 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Open shrubland with an understory of spinifex or tussock grasses

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 137 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 344534 mE Northing: 6632022 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Open shrubland with an understory of spinifex or tussock grasses

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 138 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 344357 mE Northing: 6631931 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Open shrubland with an understory of spinifex or tussock grasses

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 139 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 343977 mE Northing: 6631689 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Open shrubland with an understory of spinifex or tussock grasses

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 140 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 343888 mE Northing: 6631686 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Open shrubland with an understory of spinifex or tussock grasses

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles/Cobbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 141 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 343608 mE Northing: 6631504 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Open shrubland with an understory of spinifex or tussock grasses

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 142 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 343417 mE Northing: 6631395 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Open shrubland with an understory of spinifex or tussock grasses

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 143 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 343258 mE Northing: 6631328 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Eucalypt woodland over shrubs and chenopods of varying densities

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 144 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 343019 mE Northing: 6631180 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Disturbed

Habitat Structure: Eucalypt woodland over shrubs and chenopods of varying densities

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 145 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 342763 mE Northing: 6631069 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Disturbed

Habitat Structure: Eucalypt woodland over shrubs and chenopods of varying densities

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 146 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 342618 mE Northing: 6630950 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Disturbed

Habitat Structure: Eucalypt woodland over shrubs and chenopods of varying densities

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 147 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 342445 mE Northing: 6630883 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Rehabilitated

Habitat Structure: Chenopod shrubland

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 148 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 342160 mE Northing: 6630740 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Eucalypt woodland over shrubs and chenopods of varying densities

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 149 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 341977 mE Northing: 6630646 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Eucalypt woodland over shrubs and chenopods of varying densities

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 150 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 341754 mE Northing: 6630527 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Open shrubland with an understory of spinifex or tussock grasses

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 151 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 341548 mE Northing: 6630398 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Eucalypt woodland over shrubs and chenopods of varying densities

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 152 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 341274 mE Northing: 6630260 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Eucalypt woodland over shrubs and chenopods of varying densities

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 153 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 341111 mE Northing: 6630198 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very disturbed

Habitat Structure: Open shrubland with an understory of spinifex or tussock grasses

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 154 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 340826 mE Northing: 6630126 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Disturbed

Habitat Structure: Open shrubland with an understory of spinifex or tussock grasses

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 155 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 340663 mE Northing: 6630009 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Chenopod shrubland

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 156 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 340454 mE Northing: 6629979 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Disturbed

Habitat Structure: Open shrubland with an understory of spinifex or tussock grasses

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 157 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 340340 mE Northing: 6629483 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Open shrubland with an understory of spinifex or tussock grasses

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 158 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 340475 mE Northing: 6630192 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Open shrubland with an understory of spinifex or tussock grasses

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 159 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 345943 mE Northing: 6632618 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Dense shrubland

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 160 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 346058 mE Northing: 6632853 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Dense shrubland

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 161 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 346140 mE Northing: 6632663 mN

Fire History: > 5 years Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Very good

Habitat Structure: Dense shrubland

Soil Type: Sandy clay Surface Stone: Pebbles

Date: 23-11-17 Habitat Assessment #: 162 Observer: Dr Scott Thompson

Zone: 51 Easting: 346576 mE Northing: 6632787 mN

Fire History: Landform: Flat Habitat Quality: Disturbed

Habitat Structure: Open shrubland with an understory of spinifex or tussock grasses

Soil Type: Surface Stone: Pebbles

Appendix 6

Malleefowl Survey 2018

Ref: 2018-0082-004-st Version 2

12 December 2018

Sheree Blechynden Graduate Environmental Advisor Norton Gold Fields PO Box 1653 Kalgoorlie WA 6430

Re: Annual Malleefowl Survey – Enterprise, Carbine and Golden Cities

Dear Sheree

Terrestrial Ecosystems is pleased to provide the outcomes of the recent targeted search for Malleefowl (Leipoa ocellata) and their mounds at Enterprise, Carbine and Golden Cities (i.e. project areas; Figure 1). This survey was completed to fulfil the requirements of Norton Gold Field’s Malleefowl Management Plan and to assist mining development in the region.

Malleefowl

Malleefowl have been found in mallee regions of southern Australia from approximately the 26th parallel of latitude southwards. Malleefowl are now only found throughout these regions in fragmented patches of mostly dense vegetation due to clearing of habitat for agriculture, increased fire frequency, competition with exotic herbivores (sheep, rabbits, cattle, goats) and kangaroos, predation by wild dogs, foxes and cats, inbreeding as a result of fragmentation, and possibly hunting for food.

Mound Profiles

The following six Malleefowl mound profiles (Hopkins nd) are used by the national Malleefowl monitoring program: Profile 1 (crater rim apparent) – this is the typical mound shape but is inactive and without any accumulated vegetation in the crater. Profile 2 (mound dug out) – this is a recently fully dug out mound with steep sides to the crater, with the base forming a box like structure with the sides normally 20-30cm deep. Sometimes litter has been raked into windrows in readiness to be placed in the mound Profile 3 (mound filled if litter) – this mound contains litter in the crater, and is the next construction stage after profile 2. It should be apparent where litter has been raked into the mound. Profile 4 (active mound with no crater) – this active mound is closed, and dome shaped. Note that some mounds have a dome and no crater but are not active. Profile 5 (mound with crater and often a peak at the centre) – this is an active mound that is being opened or closed. Profile 6 (disused or extinct mound) – this mound has not been used for some time and weathering and erosion have ‘flattened’ the original mound.

10 Houston Place, Mt Claremont, Western Australia, Australia 6010 ph: 08 9385 2398, mob: 0407 385 239, email: [email protected] www.terrestrialecosystems.com

Methodology

Dr Margot Oorebeek and Ray Turnbull (Senior Zoologist and Ornithologists, Terrestrial Ecosystems) completed a transect search of all habitat suitable for Malleefowl in the three project areas. Field assistance was provided by Sheree Blechynden and Dylan Martini (Paddington Gold) for a portion of the Golden Cities project area. The transect searching was completed on foot and using an all-terrain vehicle between 16-24 November 2018. Transects were spaced so that all areas could be visually inspected between each pass, and in most cases, this varied between 10-50m.

All mounds were mapped and rated according to the National Malleefowl mound monitoring guidelines (see above: Hopkins nd).

The weather was fine and warm during the site surveys. While every effort was made to detect potential mounds in the survey area, some old and disused mounds could have been missed as they do not have a good mound profile and will not stand out when compared with rabbit diggings and other disturbances.

Results

Carbine

Although 80km of transects were completed, no Malleefowl mounds were recorded in the Carbine project area (Figure 2). The habitat consisted of an open eucalypt woodland with a shrub and chenopod understory and was not considered suitable for Malleefowl (Plates 1-4).

Enterprise

Twelve inactive Malleefowl mounds have been recorded in the Enterprise project area (Table 1; Figure 3) during 192km of transect searches. The transect searches were completed on ATV and on foot and were more detailed than February 2018 and Botanical Consulting (2017). The recorded mounds included the five mounds recorded by Botanica Consulting (2017) and two mounds recorded by Terrestrial Ecosystems (2018a). Five additional inactive mounds were recorded in November 2018. The Malleefowl mound (ENT07) recorded as recently active in February 2018 is now inactive. The Enterprise habitat is shown in Plates 5-8 and the Malleefowl mounds in Plates 9-20.

Golden Cities

Eleven Malleefowl mounds have been recorded in the Federal area (northern portion of Golden Cities) and 11 mounds in the remaining portion (Table 1; Figure 4). One Malleefowl mound was active in each of these areas. In total, 805km of transect searching were completed on ATV and on foot and checks were completed of all previously recorded mounds (Terrestrial Ecosystems 2018b). The habitat is shown in Plates 21-28 and the Malleefowl mounds in Plates 29-50. Mounds recorded as active by Terrestrial Ecosystems (2018a) in February 2018 are no longer active.

Table 1 provides the location and description of all Malleefowl mounds recorded by Terrestrial Ecosystems in February and November 2018 (Terrestrial Ecosystems 2018b, a) and Botanic Consulting (2017).

Summary

This survey and others completed by Terrestrial Ecosystems (2018b, a) and Botanica Consulting (2017) indicate that Malleefowl are still present in the area, however, there is limited evidence of many birds breeding. In other areas of Western Australia Terrestrial Ecosystems has recorded a higher ratio of active to inactive mounds (Thompson et al. 2015). This would indicate that the Malleefowl in the Norton tenements are under breeding stress, and given the lack of broad scale vegetation clearing, this stress it is most likely coming from predation by cats, foxes and wild dogs.

Further exploration drilling and fragmentation of the area will increase the access of feral and pest species (i.e. cats, foxes and wild dogs) into the dense habitats which further exacerbate the predation pressure issue. Terrestrial Ecosystems therefore recommends that Norton considers implementing an annual feral and pest

2 animal management program to reduce the predation pressure on Malleefowl. It is unlikely that all foxes, cats and wild dogs in the area could be killed in an annual predator reduction program, but such a program should kill sufficient animals to reduce predation pressure, with the possible consequence of an increase in the Malleefowl population.

If mining or exploration is considered in the Golden Cities area, then a minimum 100m buffer should be maintained around the active Malleefowl mounds and 50m buffer around recently active (2016 onwards) mounds. Terrestrial Ecosystems also recommends that if vegetation disturbance is planned within 250m of any active mound that Norton Gold Fields consider the significant impact test as per Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1 published by the Australian Government with respect to the EPBC Act 1999.

In addition to the regular surveys of Norton tenements, Terrestrial Ecosystems recommends that:

a) all recently active or active Malleefowl mounds found previously across the Norton tenements are inspected annually to determine breeding success; b) Norton monitors all active Malleefowl mounds throughout the annual breeding season using camera traps. These camera traps should be set up as soon as possible and remain active until March 2019. The analysis of camera trap data should look at daily usage patterns, presence of breeding activity, nest mound preparation, presence of feral and pest fauna and hatching of chicks. These data will facilitate better management of this conservation significant species in the tenements.

Please do not hesitate in contacting the undersigned (0407 385 239), if you have any queries regarding this letter.

Yours sincerely

Dr Scott Thompson Partner and Principal Zoologist

References Botanica Consulting. 2017. Breeding Season Malleefowl Survey 2016-2017. Kalgoorlie. Hopkins, L. nd. National Manual for the Malleefowl Monitoring System. National Heritage Trust, Canberra. Terrestrial Ecosystems. 2018a. Annual Malleefowl Survey - Enterprise, Mulgarrie and north Federal. Perth. Terrestrial Ecosystems. 2018b. Level 1 Fauna Risk Assessment and the results of a Malleefowl search for the Golden Cites project area. Perth. Thompson, S., G. Thompson, J. Sackmann, J. Spark, and T. Brown. 2015. Using high-definition aerial photography to search in 3D for malleefowl mounds is a cost-effective alternative to ground searches. Pacific Conservation Biology 21:208-213.

Disclaimer

This document is prepared in accordance with and subject to an agreement between Terrestrial Ecosystems and the client, Norton Gold Fields Ltd. It has been prepared and is restricted to those issues that have been raised by the client in its engagement of Terrestrial Ecosystems and prepared using the standard of skill and care ordinarily exercised by environmental scientists in the preparation of such reports.

Persons or agencies that rely on or use this document for purposes or reasons other than those agreed by Terrestrial Ecosystems and its client without first obtaining prior consent, do so at their own risk and Terrestrial Ecosystems denies all liability in tort, contract or otherwise for any loss, damage or injury of any kind whatsoever (whether in negligence or otherwise) that may be suffered as a consequence.

Table 1. Details for Malleefowl mounds recorded in the Enterprise and Golden Cities (including Federal) project areas

Project ID Zone Easting Northing Category Size Comments Enterprise ENT01 51J 316339 6640205 Old, long unused Enterprise ENT02 51J 316028 6639884 Old, long unused Enterprise ENT03 51J 316104 6639585 Old, long unused Enterprise ENT04 51J 315913 6639834 Old, long unused Enterprise ENT05 51J 317986 6638713 Old, long unused Enterprise Prominent rim. Mound with shallow crater. Unable to determine activity level ENT07 51J 315330 6639399 Profile 1 due to rain. 5m wide, 70cm high. Active in January but inactive in November 2018 Enterprise ENT08 51J 316303 6640077 Profile 6 Bushes regrown around edges. Inactive for a long period. Used by rabbits? Enterprise ENT09 51J 317469 6638194 Profile 1 2.5x2.5m Crater 0.4m deep and rim 0.3m high. Appears quite old. Enterprise 5x4m Crater 0.3m deep and rim 0.3m high. Has bushes growing in it. Appears quite ENT10 51J 315883 6640097 Profile 1 old. Enterprise ENT11 51J 317323 6638031 Profile 6 2.5x2.5x0.3m Low mound of small stones and soil. Extinct. Enterprise ENT12 51J 315961 6639523 Profile 1 3.5x4x0.6m No leaf litter present. Inactive. Enterprise ENT13 51J 315379 6638798 Profile 1 4x4x0.3m No leaf litter present and small shrubs growing on top of it. Old. Federal FED01 51J 346692 6635867 Profile 6 Slightly raised earth mound. Inactive for a long period. Federal FED02 51J 347072 6635705 Profile 1 Prominent rim. Mound dug out. Appeared inactive. 6m wide, 40cm high Federal FED03 51J 347191 6635830 Profile 6 Stony material. Inactive for a long period. Federal FED04 51J 347480 6636620 Profile 6 Stony material. Bushes regrown around edges. Inactive for a long period. Federal FED05 51J 347298 6636381 Profile 6 Stony material. Inactive for a long period. Federal FED06 51J 347155 6636130 Profile 6 Stony material. Inactive for a long period. Federal FED07 51J 347143 6636534 Profile 6 Stony material. Bushes growing on mound. Inactive for a long period. Federal FED08 51J 346812 6636593 Profile 6 Stony material. Bushes regrown around edges. Inactive for a long period. Federal FED09 51J 346607 6636074 Profile 6 Stony material. Bushes growing on mound. Inactive for a long period. Federal 3x3x0.7m The mound mostly consists of soil with only a small amount of organic matter. FED10 51J 348541 6635863 Profile 4 Fresh scrapings all around the base of the mound and a Malleefowl feather at the top. Most likely active. Federal FED11 51J 346759 6636460 Profile 6 2.5x3x0.3m Consisting of lots of white pebbles and bushes growing on top. Extinct. Golden Cities GC01 51J 345168 6634038 6x0.5m Old, long unused Golden Cities GC02 51J 347152 6633637 3.5x0.5m Old, long unused Golden Cities GC03 51J 347115 6633275 4x0.5m Used in 2016 (old egg shell)

10 Houston Place, Mt Claremont, Western Australia, Australia 6010 ph: 08 9385 2398, mob: 0407 385 239, email: [email protected] www.terrestrialecosystems.com

Golden Cities GC04 51J 347031 6633149 3.5x0.5m Used in 2016 (old egg shell and some scratchings) Golden Cities 4x0.75m In use in November 2017 (footprints, egg shell, scats). Inactive in November GC05 51J 346232 6632527 2018 although there is egg shell in it indicating it was active last breeding season. Golden Cities 5x0.75m Inactive in 2017, but inactive in November 2018 although there is egg shell in GC06 51J 346638 6632759 it indicating it was active last breeding season (between assessments). Golden Cities GC07 51J 346798 6632934 Profile 6 5x5m Approximately 0.3m high. Has bushes growing on top. Extinct. Golden Cities GC08 51J 346642 6632762 Profile 1 5x6x0.6m No leaf litter present and soil is compacted. Old. Golden Cities 3.5x3.5x1m The mound contains a lot of leaf litter and has fresh scratch markings. Most GC09 51J 345836 6632669 Profile 4 likely active. Golden Cities GC10 51J 348544 6633069 Profile 1 3.5x4x0.9m Has a few small shrubs growing on top of it. Inactive. Golden Cities GC11 51J 348259 6633316 Profile 6 2x2x0.2m Small scatter of white pebbles. Extinct.

Plate 1. Carbine project area Plate 2. Carbine project area

Plate 3. Carbine project area Plate 4. Carbine project area

Plate 5. Enterprise project area Plate 6. Enterprise project area

10 Houston Place, Mt Claremont, Western Australia, Australia 6010 ph: 08 9385 2398, mob: 0407 385 239, email: [email protected] www.terrestrialecosystems.com

Plate 7. Enterprise project area Plate 8. Enterprise project area

Plate 9. Enterprise mound ENT001 Plate 10. Enterprise mound ENT002

Plate 11. Enterprise mound ENT003 Plate 12. Enterprise mound ENT004

Plate 13. Enterprise mound ENT005 Plate 14. Enterprise mound ENT007

Plate 15. Enterprise mound ENT008 Plate 16. Enterprise mound ENT009

Plate 17. Enterprise mound ENT010 Plate 18. Enterprise mound ENT011

Plate 19. Enterprise mound ENT012 Plate 20. Enterprise mound ENT013

Plate 21. Golden Cities habitat Plate 22. Golden Cities habitat

Plate 23. Golden Cities habitat Plate 24. Golden Cities habitat

Plate 25. Golden Cities habitat Plate 26. Golden Cities habitat

Plate 27. Golden Cities habitat Plate 28. Golden Cities habitat

Plate 29. Golden Cities Mound FED01 Plate 30. Golden Cities Mound FED02

Plate 31. Golden Cities Mound FED03 Plate 32. Golden Cities Mound FED04

Plate 33. Golden Cities Mound FED05 Plate 34. Golden Cities Mound FED06

Plate 35. Golden Cities Mound FED07 Plate 36. Golden Cities Mound FED08

Plate 37. Golden Cities Mound FED09 Plate 38. Golden Cities Mound FED10

Plate 39. Golden Cities Mound FED11 Plate 40. Golden Cities Mound GC01

Plate 41. Golden Cities Mound GC02 Plate 42. Golden Cities Mound GC03

Plate 43. Golden Cities Mound GC04 Plate 44. Golden Cities Mound GC05

Plate 45. Golden Cities Mound GC06 Plate 46. Golden Cities Mound GC07

Plate 47. Golden Cities Mound GC08 Plate 48. Golden Cities Mound GC09

Plate 49. Golden Cities Mound GC10 Plate 50. Golden Cities Mound GC11

14 N 0 2 4 6 8 10km

SCALE 1 : 300 000 at A4 (MGA)

ENTERPRISE PROJECT AREA

GOLDEN CITIES PROJECT AREA

CARBINE PROJECT AREA

Norton Goldfields Limited 2018 ANNUAL MALLEEFOWL MONITORING ENTERPRISE, CARBINE AND GOLDEN CITIES Figure 1

REGIONAL LOCATION ENT01 N ENT10 0 200 400 600 800 1000m ENT08 SCALE 1 : 22 500 at A4 (MGA) ENT02

ENT04 ENT03

ENT07 ENT12

ENT13 ENT05

ENT09

ENT11

Legend Site Boundary

Malleefowl Survey Track

Inactive Malleefowl Mound

Norton Goldfields Limited 2018 ANNUAL MALLEEFOWL MONITORING ENTERPRISE, CARBINE AND GOLDEN CITIES Figure 3

ENTERPRISE PROJECT AREA N 0 200 400 600 800 1000m

SCALE 1 : 22 500 at A4 (MGA)

Legend Site Boundary

Malleefowl Survey Track

Norton Goldfields Limited 2018 ANNUAL MALLEEFOWL MONITORING ENTERPRISE, CARBINE AND GOLDEN CITIES Figure 2

CARBINE PROJECT AREA FED08 FED07 FED04 N FED11 0 200 400 800600 1000m FED05 FED06 SCALE 1 : 30 000 at A4 (MGA) FED09

FED01 FED03 FED10

FED02

GC01 GC02

GC03

GC11 GC04 GC05 GC10 GC07 GC09 GC08

GC06 Legend Site Boundary

Malleefowl Survey Track Norton Goldfields Limited 2018 ANNUAL MALLEEFOWL MONITORING Inactive Malleefowl Mound ENTERPRISE, CARBINE AND GOLDEN CITIES Figure 4 Active Malleefowl Mound GOLDEN CITIES PROJECT AREA Appendix 7

Risk Rating Matrix

TABLE A. CONSEQUENCE OF EVENT (Actual and Potential)

Level Descriptor Injuries Environment Corporate liability Cost 1 Insignificant No injuries No permanent damage to the No corporate liability <$10,000 environment or heritage feature 2 Minor First aid Spillage immediately contained; Low corporate $10,000 - treatme Minor short-term damage to the liability $50,000 nt environment or heritage feature; 3 Moderate Minor Spillage contained with some Moderate level $50,000 - medical difficulty; of corporate treatme liability $750,000 nt Significant short-term or minor long- term damage to the environment 4 Major Serious Major short-term or significant long- High level of $750,000 - extensiv term damage to the environment corporate liability. e injuries or heritage feature. $3,000,000 5 Catastrophic Fatality Major long-term damage to the Very high level of >$3,000,000 environment or heritage feature corporate liability

TABLE B. LIKELIHOOD OF EVENT OCCURRING Level Descriptor Description A Almost Certain Is expected to occur in most circumstances (ie > once per day) B Likely Will probably occur in most circumstances (ie > once per month but < once per C Possible Should occur at some time (ie > once per year but < once per month) D Unlikely Could occur at some time (ie < once per year) E Rare May occur only in exceptional circumstances (ie unlikely to ever occur)

TABLE C. RISK RANKING

Consequenc 1 2 3 4 5 A 15 10 6 3 1 B 19 14 9 5 2 C 22 18 13 8 4 D 24 21 17 12 7 E 25 23 20 16 11

Table D. RISK LEVEL TYPE RANKING ACTION REPORTING Extreme risk 1 – 5 • Cease all affected work immediately.

• In the event of an incident an

ICAM is required. Area Manager to be notified immediately High risk 9 – 12 • Consider ceasing all affected work.

• In the event of an incident an ICAM is to be considered.

• Action/s & responsibilities to be assigned by end of the shift. Moderate 13 – 19 • In the event of an incident an ICAM is to be Area Manager to be risk considered. notified before the end of shift • Manage by routine procedures. Low risk 20 – 25 • Manage by routine procedures.

Appendix 8

Dust Suppression Procedure

DUST SUPPRESSION PROCEDURE

Document No: NGF-ENV-PRO-06-002B

Revision: A B

Tari Pawlyk Graduate Kellie Carter Senior Environmental Environmental Prepared by: Advisor Advisor

Wayne Astill HSE Wayne Astill ECS Reviewed by: Superintendent Superintendent

Brad Daddow Brian Sowden Acting General Approved by: Manager HSE Manager

SUMMARY OF DOCUMENT REVISIONS

Rev. Date Section No. Revised Revised Revision Description

A 09/08/2013 Initial Document

B 23/03/2018 Full doc. Required review. Updated organisational structure, improved grammar, included reference to new EMS documents.

Norton’s Paddington Operations –NGF-ENV-PRO-06-002B Uncontrolled if printed, retrieve current version from Cintellate Page 1 of 5

1. PURPOSE

The purpose of this procedure is to outline the process to suppress prevalence of dust during mining activities, whilst avoiding damage to the surrounding environment.

Dust is generated by wind or vehicle movement over areas cleared of vegetation such as haul roads, ROMs, laydown areas, etc. Risks of generated dust may include; contamination with heavy metals or fibrous materials which may cause harm to health if inhaled, obstruction of vision whilst driving and damage to nearby vegetation if dust settles on leaves and impacts ability to photosynthesise light. Dust suppression is therefore required on a regular basis and is generally through the use of stored groundwater via a standpipe and use of a watercart.

The salinity level of the groundwater resources in the Kalgoorlie region is comparable to salinity levels of sea water or greater (hyper-saline), however, it is the most appropriate and readily available water source to use for dust suppression purposes. The spraying of hyper-saline groundwater to control dust generation is necessary but it is important the application of water is controlled in a manner that prevents secondary impact to vegetation and contamination of the surrounding environment via runoff.

2. SCOPE

The scope of the procedure applies to all sites within the NGF Paddington Operations. For specific applications and the related job steps for dust abatement methods on ramps, haul roads, ROM and mine areas please see specific site safe work procedures.

DEFINITIONS AND ACRONYMS

Definitions  ‘Dust suppression’ is the spraying or dribbling of water on all trafficable roads to abate the dust that rises as vehicles drive over it.  ‘Raw water’ refers to saline and/or hyper-saline water that contains high levels of dissolved salts and is intolerable to most living things.

3. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

General Manager Responsible for ensuring sufficient resources are available to implement this Procedure.

Norton’s Paddington Operations –NGF-ENV-PRO-06-002B Uncontrolled if printed, retrieve current version from Cintellate Page 2 of 5

Environment, Community and Security Superintendent Responsible for discussion/review of this procedure and ensures the Procedure complies with site standards.

Area Superintendents  Responsible for ensuring that staff adhere to procedure; and  Informing the Environmental Department of any issues arising from dust suppression procedures.

Water-Cart Vehicle Operators  Responsible for maintaining awareness and ensuring the correct procedure for spraying roads is adhered to, preventing negative impacts to the environment; and  Reporting any defects associated with the vehicle that may affect the correct application of raw water.

4. PROCEDURE

Dust suppression is required during the operation of a mine where dust can be, or is prevalent, on haul roads and has potential to cause nuisance or present a potential hazard to mine site personnel, operations, or members of the public.

Raw water will be obtained from stand pipes directly to water-carts at various locations on site when needed.

The preferred method of raw water application is via the use of dribble bars as opposed to spray bars. Dribble bars reduce the chance of spraying surrounding vegetation.

Water may be sprayed where adjacent v-drains are in place to capture runoff and prevent spray drifting outside of v-drains, and wind conditions are moderate.

If visible dust is observed, then attempts shall be made to contact an appropriate area shift supervisor, who is to contact the driver of a water cart and organise the application of water in the dusty area. Water is not to be sprayed where any topsoil stripping operations are occurring. If contact cannot be made with either the shift supervisor or water cart driver, the Area Superintendent is to be contacted regarding visible dust.

The use of dust suppression additives is to be assessed via the Hazardous Substances Management Procedure (NGF-SAF-PRO-08-001) if necessary.

Any spills or inappropriate use of hyper-saline water is to be contained where possible and reported to the Environmental Department immediately.

Norton’s Paddington Operations –NGF-ENV-PRO-06-002B Uncontrolled if printed, retrieve current version from Cintellate Page 3 of 5

4.1 Monitoring

Monitoring is required whilst dust suppression is undertaken to ensure that risks identified are controlled/managed. Dust suppression monitoring includes but is not limited to:  Daily visual observations; and  Annual visual audits of road corridors, bunding, v-drains and spoon drains.

5. CONTINGENCY PLAN

In the event of an uncontrolled discharge of raw water onto vegetation, the following measures should be implemented to reduce the risk of further damage to the environment:  Dust suppression is to stop immediately until the issue has been resolved;  The Area Superintendent and Environment Department will be notified of the spill or where vegetation is affected to ensure that appropriate remediation measures can be implemented;  The spill will be contained within earthen bunds or otherwise to prevent further environmental harm; and  If necessary, contaminated soils should be removed and disposed of from the area.

6. REPORTING

All incidents associated with dust suppression and uncontrolled hypersaline water discharge are classed as reportable incidents by NGF. In the event of an incident, it is required to be entered into Cintellate.

If an incident triggers the criteria within applicable tenement conditions or Section 72 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986, the Environment Department will notify relevant government authorities within the timeframes stipulated within legislation or licence, and to the prescribed standard stipulated within the NGF Incident Reporting and Investigation Procedure.

7. REVIEW

A review shall be carried out to ensure the content of this procedure is still applicable and practicable. A review should take place:  Whenever the process/equipment changes;  At a periodic frequency (every two years); and/or  At incident investigation.

Norton’s Paddington Operations –NGF-ENV-PRO-06-002B Uncontrolled if printed, retrieve current version from Cintellate Page 4 of 5

8. LEGISLATION AND STANDARDS

 Environmental Protection Act 1986; and  Mining Act 1978

9. RELEVANT DOCUMENTATION

 Incident and Investigation Procedure  Hazardous Substances Management Procedure  Environmentally Hazardous Substances and Dangerous Goods Management Plan

Norton’s Paddington Operations –NGF-ENV-PRO-06-002B Uncontrolled if printed, retrieve current version from Cintellate Page 5 of 5

Appendix 9

Mine Dewatering Procedure

MINE DEWATERING PROCEDURE

Document No: PGM-ENV-PRO-06-002

Revision: A B

Anna Dyer Tari Pawlyk Environmental Environmental Prepared by: Advisor Advisor

Wayne Astill Environmental Wayne Astill Reviewed by: Superintendent ECS Superintendent

Albert Schaus Acting General Brian Sowden Manager - Approved by: Manager HSE Operations

SUMMARY OF DOCUMENT REVISIONS

Rev. Date Section No. Revised Revised Revision Description

A 18/10/2012 Initial Document

B 24/04/2017 All Revision and update

Norton’s Paddington Operation – Procedure Uncontrolled if printed, retrieve current version from STEMS Page 1 of 11

1. PURPOSE

The purpose of this procedure is to provide guidance to Norton Gold Fields (NGF) employees and contractors on the process of mine dewatering out of open cut and underground mines with discharge primarily into inactive open cut voids, or via other means into the environment.

2. SCOPE

This procedure applies to all sites within the NGF Operations.

3. DEFINITIONS AND ACRONYMS

Definitions  Mine dewatering is the extraction of water from an underground or open cut mine and discharge of it into another open cut void or into the environment via other means, such as into a salt lake other water body.  Monthly measurements are to be taken more than 15 days apart across two separate months, but not more than 45 days apart, as per operating license conditions.

Acronyms  DER – Department of Environment Regulation  DoW – Department of Water  GWL – Groundwater Well License

4. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

General Manager  Responsible for ensuring sufficient resources are available to implement this Procedure.

Environmental Superintendent  Responsible for an annual discussion/biennial review of this Procedure with Area Superintendents and other responsible departments; and  Responsible for maintaining records of open cut and underground mine dewatering volumes, pit water levels and pit water parameters, as required by the relevant DER Works Approval and Licences, and DoW GWLs.

Area Superintendents  Responsible for ensuring that staff adhere to procedure and are made available to carry out inspections as required by relevant licences;  Informing the NGF Environmental Section of any issues identified during dewatering inspections; and

Norton’s Paddington Operation – Procedure Uncontrolled if printed, retrieve current version from STEMS Page 2 of 11

 Ensuring logbooks/inspection books are filled out as required by license conditions and when completed, provided to the Environmental Superintendent, or made available to view when requested for inspection purposes.

Surveyors  Surveyors are responsible for ensuring that water levels within the discharge pit are surveyed on a monthly basis or more frequently as required by the relevant licences; and  Responsible for surveying extent of any environmental harm resulting from incidents of hypersaline water discharge.

Dewatering  The Dewatering Section is responsible for ensuring all flow metre readings are recorded on a monthly basis for all pits registered on active GWLs and DER Environmental Operating Licenses.

5. TRAINING

NGF will ensure that training is provided to appropriate responsible site personnel and will include as a minimum the understanding of:  Requirements for dewatering mines as per the relevant licences; and  The requirements of this Procedure.

6. PROCEDURE

Dewatering is required during the operation of a mine where groundwater is infiltrating into an underground or open cut mine at a rate in which it cannot be reutilised for purposes such as dust suppression. In these circumstances, water is collected in either a sump or dam and pumped via a pipeline to a discharge location such as an inactive open cut void with sufficient storage capacity.

Considerations for the discharge location must be investigated prior to requesting government agency approval and include; water quality, storage capacity, geotechnical stability, safe access and groundwater flow direction.

In instances where a salt lake is considered as a potential discharge location, archaeological, hydrological and ecological studies may also be required prior to application to ensure impacts to the environment are minimised.

6.1 REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW DEWATERING POINTS

Government Approval Prior to undertaking the construction or operation of a dewatering network, approvals are required from DER when design capacity of the discharge could exceed 50,000 t

Norton’s Paddington Operation – Procedure Uncontrolled if printed, retrieve current version from STEMS Page 3 of 11

per year (if pipeline infrastructure were to be operated at maximum capacity 24hrs/day for 365 days per year).

The application for Works Approvals and Environmental Operating Licences will be made via the Environment Section after an appropriate discharge receiving location has been identified and risk assessed.

Pipeline Pipelines are to be constructed of HDPE piping that meets Australian Standards:  AS/NZS 2033:2008: Installation of polyethylene pipe systems;  AS/NZS 4129:2008 Fittings for polyethylene (PE) pipes for pressure applications;  AS/NZS 4130:2009 Polyethylene (PE) pipes for pressure applications; and  AS/NZS 4131:2010 Polyethylene (PE) compounds for pressure pipes and fittings.

All pipelines are to be fitted with isolation and breather valves, as dewatering pipeline networks do not generally have telemetry systems installed. Additionally, a flow meter is required to be installed with monthly readings to be reported and made available to the Environment Section to ensure compliance with relevant licences.

Pipeline Bunding As water in the Goldfields is brackish to hypersaline, an uncontrolled release of water can have a detrimental effect on the surrounding environment. Therefore, all pipelines on the surface must be contained within an earthen bund or v-drain that directs water either to a mining void or catchment pit. The bund must be constructed in such a way that if a pipeline were to fail, the bunding would sufficiently contain the volume of discharge from the pipeline and prevent the release of water into the surrounding environment.

Pumping All pumps using fuel are required to have a hydrocarbon spill kit nearby to ensure that any hydrocarbon spills are managed appropriately. Each department is responsible for ensuring their spill kits are stocked and in good order. Where it is identified there is inadequate spill response equipment available, the Environment Section shall be contacted to supply a new or refurbished spill kit for the area.

6.2 Monitoring

Monitoring is required whilst dewatering activities are undertaken to ensure that risks identified by dewatering are controlled/managed (these are generally licence conditions also). Dewatering monitoring includes but is not limited to:

12 hourly inspections Whilst dewatering is occurring, 12 hourly inspections shall be carried out and recorded in the pipeline inspection logbook held within the Area Superintendent’s office. The recommended schedule for 12 hourly inspections should include the following:

Norton’s Paddington Operation – Procedure Uncontrolled if printed, retrieve current version from STEMS Page 4 of 11

 Inspection of the pipeline network for leaks and to check that all pipelines, valves, flow meters, fittings and other equipment are in good operating condition;  Inspections of pipeline bund for erosion, degradation and to ensure pipeline remains within the confines of the bund;  Inspections of active groundwater discharge point to ensure that operational procedures are being implemented in accordance with deposition plan; and  Inspection of discharge pit water levels to ensure water levels are maintained within the nominated free board associated with the relevant licences (generally 6 metres below ground level).

Monthly Monitoring Monthly monitoring includes:  Monthly surveys of water levels within the discharge pit are required to be carried out and recorded to ensure the water levels do not breach the freeboard levels outlined in the relevant licences; and  Flow meter readings are required to be recorded monthly from water meters associated with active dewatering pipelines.

Annual Monitoring Groundwater quality sampling is required to be carried out annually (unless stated otherwise on a license). This should include sampling the following analytes (also unless stated otherwise) in all receiving pits:  Electrical conductivity;  Water temperature;  pH;  Total Dissolved Solids; and  A metals suite analysis.

Ground water sampling procedures shall be conducted in accordance with Australian Standard AS/NZS 5667.11 and the groundwater samples sent to a NATA accredited laboratory for analyses.

Additional Inspections The following additional inspections should be carried out following heavy rainfall events:  Integrity of pipeline bund and of pipeline and pit access roads;  Integrity of safety bund, diversion embankment and diversion trench; and  Integrity of pit margins.

Additional monitoring requirements may be necessary in conjunction with those stipulated above, due to the nature of the area and/or the monitoring requirements outlined in the relevant licences.

Norton’s Paddington Operation – Procedure Uncontrolled if printed, retrieve current version from STEMS Page 5 of 11

7. RECORD KEEPING

Records of pipeline inspections will be maintained and stored within the Area Superintendents office, to be made available upon request when an internal or external audit is carried out.

Water level surveys, water meter readings and water quality analysis will be maintained by the Survey, Regional Infrastructure and Environment Sections and stored in an appropriately marked folder in the Environmental Superintendent’s office, or in an appropriate digital folder on P drive.

8. CONTINGENCY PLAN

In the event of a spill, the following measures should be implemented to reduce the risk of further damage to the environment:  Dewatering activities to stop immediately until the issue has been resolved;  The Area Superintendent and Environment Section to be notified of spills or breaks in containment to ensure that appropriate remediation measures can be implemented;  Pipeline breaks will be repaired immediately and spilled material collected or pumped and discharged into the pit; and  In the event of erosion or scouring resulting from the spillage, appropriate remediation measures will be implemented, as per the Environmental Superintendent’s advice.

9. REPORTING

All spills, pipeline infrastructure failures, breakdown of containment bunding and failure to carry out 12 hourly inspections without reasonable cause are classed as reportable incidents and are required to be entered into STEMS.

If the incident is also classified as externally reportable, the Environment Section will notify relevant government authorities within the timeframes stipulated by legislation or licence requirements and to the prescribed standard, usually within one working day of becoming aware of the incident, by verbal or written notification.

10. REVIEW

A review shall be carried out to ensure the content of this procedure is still applicable, current and practicable. A review should take place: a. Whenever the process/equipment changes b. At a periodic frequency (every two years) c. At incident investigation.

Norton’s Paddington Operation – Procedure Uncontrolled if printed, retrieve current version from STEMS Page 6 of 11

11. LEGISLATION AND STANDARDS

 Environmental Protection Act 1986; and  Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914.

12. RELEVANT DOCUMENTATION

The following documentation may be utilised or referenced to comply with the requirements of this procedure:

 Norton’s Groundwater Operating Strategy

Department of Water:  Groundwater Well License 151865(10) – Paddington Gold  Groundwater Well License 160697(3) – Ora Banda  Groundwater Well License 167686(3) – Navajo Chief and Janet Ivy  Groundwater Well License 182749(1) – Bullabulling

Department of Environment Regulation:  Environmental Operating License L8327/2008/2 – Rose Pit  Environmental Operating License L8512/2010/2 – Bullant and San Peblo  Environmental Operating License L8692/2012/1 – Enterprise  Environmental Operating License L9048/2017/1 – Janet Ivy

Norton’s Paddington Operation – Procedure Uncontrolled if printed, retrieve current version from STEMS Page 7 of 11

Appendix 1: Homestead and Quarters 040 DER License L8327/2008/2 Activities

Norton’s Paddington Operation – Procedure Uncontrolled if printed, retrieve current version from STEMS Page 8 of 11

Appendix 2: Bullant Underground DER License 8512/2010/2 Activities

Norton’s Paddington Operation – Procedure Uncontrolled if printed, retrieve current version from STEMS Page 9 of 11

Appendix 3: Janet Ivy DER License L9048/2017/1 Activities

Norton’s Paddington Operation – Procedure Uncontrolled if printed, retrieve current version from STEMS Page 10 of 11

Appendix 4: Enterprise DER License 8692/2012/1 Activities

Norton’s Paddington Operation – Procedure Uncontrolled if printed, retrieve current version from STEMS Page 11 of 11

Appendix 10

Environment and Community Policy