DOCSLIB.ORG

Appendix a Fauna Survey Effort and Results

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Appendix a Fauna Survey Effort and Results APPENDIX A FAUNA SURVEY EFFORT AND RESULTS October 2016 Prepared by Anderson Environment and Planning The Fauna Survey Effort (FSE) for the Biobanking Assessment Report has been guided by the following: The predict threatened species from within the Biobanking Credit Calculator; The Threatened Species Survey and Assessment Guidelines for developments and activities (working draft), NSW Department of Environment and Conservation (2004); The NSW Threatened Species Profile Database; and Previous fauna survey results from the site. The following Ecosystem Credit species have been recorded on the site during past or current survey work: Eastern Bentwing-bat (Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis); Eastern False Pipistrelle (Falsistrellus tasmaniensis); Eastern Freetail-bat (Mormopterus norfolkensis); Greater Broad-nosed Bat (Scoteanax rueppellii); Grey-headed Flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus); Little Bentwing-bat (Miniopterus australis); Little Lorikeet (Glossopsitta pusilla); Long-nosed Potoroo (Potorous tridactylus); Powerful Owl (Ninox strenua); Squirrel Glider (Petaurus norfolcensis); Varied Sittella (Daphoenositta chrysoptera); Yellow-bellied Glider (Petaurus australis); Yellow-bellied Sheathtail-bat (Saccolaimus flaviventris). The following Species Credit species have been recorded on the site or surrounds during past survey work: Koala (Phascolarctos cinereus); Wallum Froglet (Crinia tinnula). Prepared by Anderson Environment and Planning Contents 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 4 1.1 Project Background ................................................................................................................................ 4 1.2 Site Survey Rationale ............................................................................................................................. 5 2.0 Field Survey ............................................................................................................................................... 7 2.1 Previous Assessments ........................................................................................................................... 7 2.2 Current Assessment ............................................................................................................................... 9 2.3 Survey Dates, Times and Activities ................................................................................................12 3.0 Results ........................................................................................................................................................14 4.0 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................16 5.0 References ................................................................................................................................................18 Figures Figure A1 – Fauna Survey Effort ...................................................................................................12 Figure A2 – Location of Threatened Species Records ..........................................................16 Appendices Appendix A1 – Fauna Species List Appendix A2 – Bat Call Analysis Appendix A3 – Hair Tube Analysis Appendix A4 – Fauna Photographs Prepared by Anderson Environment and Planning 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Project Background The development site, adjacent proposed development sites, as well as adjacent conservation zoned lands have been the subject of numerous flora and fauna assessment reports between the periods of 2003 to 2010. These assessments included extensive fieldwork including more than 1600 trap-nights. The following reports were used to inform and have been summarised in the 2010 report by Travers Bushfire & Ecology Ecological Constraints and Analysis, Bundeena Road, Glenning Valley; Ambrose Ecological Services Pty Ltd (2007) Fauna survey and assessment - Lot 2 DP 1100181. Anne Clements & Associates (2006) Ecological assessment - Lot 2 DP 1100181. Anne Clements & Associates (2006) Flora Assessment - Lot 2 DP 1100181. Biolink Ecological Consultants (2008) Koala Survey (SEPP 44 Assessment) - Lot 2 DP 1100181. Conacher Travers (2003) Flora and Fauna Assessment (of the Study Area being Lot 2 DP 1100181). Conacher Travers (2003) Flora and Fauna Assessment of Lot 50 DP 755263 Berkeley Road Fountaindale. Conacher Travers (2003) Habitat tree survey (of the Study Area being Lot 2 DP 1100181). Conacher Travers (2006) Flora and Fauna Assessment - Proposed Road Upgrade Berkeley Road, Berkeley Vale. Travers bushfire & ecology (2008) Flora and Fauna Assessment of Lot 50 DP 755263 Berkeley Road Fountaindale. Travers bushfire & ecology (2008) Habitat tree survey - Lot 2 DP 1100181. Travers bushfire & ecology (2009) Bushfire Protection Assessment - Lot 2 DP 1100181. Travers environmental consultants (2008) Ecological Assessment of Lot 50 DP 755263 & Incorporation of a Conservation Plan at 70 Berkeley Road, Fountaindale. Prepared by Anderson Environment and Planning The following reports were used to inform and have been summarised by AEP (2016) within the Ecological Assessment Report for Proposed Residential Subdivision of Lot 2 DP1100181, Berkeley Road, Glenning Valley: Anne Clements and Associates (2014). Potential impact of the proposed lot layout on identified threatened flora on the 38ha site in Glenning Valley. EcoLogical Australia (2011). Glenning Valley Improve or Maintain Assessment – Indicative Biocertification Calculations. Travers Bushfire & Ecology (2013). Response to Council Conditions for a Gateway Determination Berkeley Road, Bundeena Road and Bottlebrush Drive, Glenning Valley. Travers Bushfire & Ecology (2010). Ecological Constraints and Analysis, Bundeena Road, Glenning Valley. At the request of the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) additional fieldwork has been undertaken to provide more contemporary data for the development site. 1.2 Site Survey Rationale The FSE for the Biobanking Assessment was guided by the following: Previous threatened species records for the development site and adjacent lands; The predict threatened species and seasonal survey requirements for each as listed within the Biobanking Credit Calculator and Threatened Species Profile Database (TSPD); and The Threatened Species Survey and Assessment Guidelines for developments and activities (working draft), NSW Department of Environment and Conservation (2004). From the above the following Species Credit Species were identified as requiring contemporary survey for the development site: Black-necked Stork (Ephippiorhynchus asiaticus)^*; Black Bittern (Ixobrychus flavicollis)^*; Common Planigale (Planigale maculata); Brush-tailed Phascogale (Phascogale tapoatafa); Eastern Chestnut Mouse(Pseudomys gracilicaudatus); Eastern Pygmy Possum(Cercartetus nanus); Prepared by Anderson Environment and Planning Giant Barred Frog (Mixophyes iteratus)^; Golden-tipped Bat (Phoniscus papuensis); Green and Golden Bell Frog (Litoria aurea) ^*; Green-thighed Frog (Litoria brevipalmata)*; Koala (Phascolarctos cinereus)*; Pale-headed Snake (Hoplocephalus bitorquatus); Parma Wallaby (Macropus parma); Regent Honeyeater (Anthochaera phrygia); Stephens Banded Snake (Hoplocephalus stephensii); Stuttering Frog (Mixophyes balbus)^; Wallum Froglet (Crinia tinnula); Species marked with an “^” were determined that no suitable habitat was present within the development area or areas immediately adjacent to the development areas. Species marked with an asterisk (*) were surveyed as part of the 2016 AEP report. To adequately provide contemporary survey data for all of the above species the following techniques were identified: Targeted survey in suitable habitat and survey period; Terrestrial and arboreal trapping within both the dry forest and moist forest habitats; Terrestrial and arboreal hair tubes within both the dry forest and with moist forest habitats; Camera trapping within both the dry forest and with moist forest habitats; Targeted survey and call playback for frog species following suitable weather events as well as tadpole surveys; Harp trapping; Nocturnal targeted survey for arboreal snakes. Prepared by Anderson Environment and Planning 2.0 Field Survey 2.1 Previous Assessments The following is a summary of the field survey undertaken on the site prior to the current assessment. Table A1 – Previous Survey Undertaken Fauna Group Survey Survey Effort Undertaken and Comments Technique Period Birds Diurnal Birds Formal Census Summer & Winter Over 10 hours of formal census and 130 hours of opportunistic surveys have been conducted across the site Nocturnal Birds Formal census Summer & Winter Over 40 hours of nocturnal searches that include spotlighting, owl call playback / identification and stag- watching have occurred on the site Mammals Small Terrestrial Small Mammal Avoid mid winter, Dry Forest Habitats (Blackbutt Forest / Disturbed Pine Traps August – October Forest): 180 Traps nights over 4 consecutive nights + 10 for breeding days and 8 nights of infrared camera trapping Antechinus Moist Forest Habitats (Swamp Mahogany Woodland / Apple Mahogany Woodland): 36 trap nights over 4 consecutive nights + 10 days and 8 nights of infrared camera trapping Cleared Habitats (Disturbed Grassland with Scattered Trees): 108 trap nights over 4 consecutive nights Hair Tubes
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A New Species of Eumops (Chiroptera: Molossidae) from Southwestern Peru
    Zootaxa 3878 (1): 019–036 ISSN 1175-5326 (print edition) www.mapress.com/zootaxa/ Article ZOOTAXA Copyright © 2014 Magnolia Press ISSN 1175-5334 (online edition) http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3878.1.2 http://zoobank.org/urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:FDE7F7A4-7DCC-4155-8D96-A0539229DBFE A new species of Eumops (Chiroptera: Molossidae) from southwestern Peru CÉSAR E. MEDINA1, RENATO GREGORIN2, HORACIO ZEBALLOS1,3, HUGO T. ZAMORA1 & LIGIANE M. MORAS4 1Museo de Historia Natural de la Universidad Nacional San Agustín (MUSA). Av. Alcides Carrión s/n. Arequipa, Perú. E-mail: [email protected] 2Departamento de Biologia, Universidade Federal de Lavras, Lavras, Minas Gerais, CEP 37200-000, Brazil. E-mail: [email protected] 3Instituto de Ciencias de la Naturaleza, Territorio y Energías Renovables, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, Av. Universitaria 1801, San Miguel, Lima 32, Perú. E-mail: [email protected] 4Departamento de Zoologia, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil. E-mail: [email protected] Abstract The genus Eumops is the most diverse genera of molossid bats in the Neotropics. In Peru this genus is widely distributed and represented by nine species: E. auripendulus, E. delticus, E. hansae, E. maurus, E. nanus, E. patagonicus, E. perotis, E. trumbulli, and E. wilsoni. After several years of mammalian diversity surveys in the coastal desert and western slopes of southwestern Peru, a specimen of Eumops was collected whose unique set of traits allows us to assert that deserves to be described as a new species. Based on molecular and morphological evidence, the new species is related to medium- large sized species (i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • 17 Roberts Road, Eastern Creek
    17 ROBERTS ROAD, EASTERN CREEK SSD-10330 Proposed Data Centre Biodiversity Development Assessment Report Prepared for: Canberra Data Centres Pty Ltd PO Box 304 JERRABOMBERRA NSW 2619 SLR Ref: 610.18883-R05 Version No: -v2.0 November 2019 Canberra Data Centres Pty Ltd SLR Ref No: 610.18883-R05-v2.0-Eastern Creek BDAR-20191111.docx 17 Roberts Road, Eastern Creek November 2019 SSD-10330 Proposed Data Centre Biodiversity Development Assessment Report PREPARED BY SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd ABN 29 001 584 612 10 Kings Road New Lambton NSW 2305 Australia (PO Box 447 New Lambton NSW 2305 Australia) T: +61 2 4037 3200 E: [email protected] www.slrconsulting.com BASIS OF REPORT This report has been prepared by SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd (SLR) with all reasonable skill, care and diligence, and taking account of the timescale and resources allocated to it by agreement with Canberra Data Centres Pty Ltd (the Client). Information reported herein is based on the interpretation of data collected, which has been accepted in good faith as being accurate and valid. This report is for the exclusive use of the Client. No warranties or guarantees are expressed or should be inferred by any third parties. This report may not be relied upon by other parties without written consent from SLR. SLR disclaims any responsibility to the Client and others in respect of any matters outside the agreed scope of the work. DOCUMENT CONTROL Reference Date Prepared Checked Authorised 610.18883-R05-v2.0 11 November 2019 Fiona Iolini and David Martin Jeremy
    [Show full text]
  • Index of Handbook of the Mammals of the World. Vol. 9. Bats
    Index of Handbook of the Mammals of the World. Vol. 9. Bats A agnella, Kerivoula 901 Anchieta’s Bat 814 aquilus, Glischropus 763 Aba Leaf-nosed Bat 247 aladdin, Pipistrellus pipistrellus 771 Anchieta’s Broad-faced Fruit Bat 94 aquilus, Platyrrhinus 567 Aba Roundleaf Bat 247 alascensis, Myotis lucifugus 927 Anchieta’s Pipistrelle 814 Arabian Barbastelle 861 abae, Hipposideros 247 alaschanicus, Hypsugo 810 anchietae, Plerotes 94 Arabian Horseshoe Bat 296 abae, Rhinolophus fumigatus 290 Alashanian Pipistrelle 810 ancricola, Myotis 957 Arabian Mouse-tailed Bat 164, 170, 176 abbotti, Myotis hasseltii 970 alba, Ectophylla 466, 480, 569 Andaman Horseshoe Bat 314 Arabian Pipistrelle 810 abditum, Megaderma spasma 191 albatus, Myopterus daubentonii 663 Andaman Intermediate Horseshoe Arabian Trident Bat 229 Abo Bat 725, 832 Alberico’s Broad-nosed Bat 565 Bat 321 Arabian Trident Leaf-nosed Bat 229 Abo Butterfly Bat 725, 832 albericoi, Platyrrhinus 565 andamanensis, Rhinolophus 321 arabica, Asellia 229 abramus, Pipistrellus 777 albescens, Myotis 940 Andean Fruit Bat 547 arabicus, Hypsugo 810 abrasus, Cynomops 604, 640 albicollis, Megaerops 64 Andersen’s Bare-backed Fruit Bat 109 arabicus, Rousettus aegyptiacus 87 Abruzzi’s Wrinkle-lipped Bat 645 albipinnis, Taphozous longimanus 353 Andersen’s Flying Fox 158 arabium, Rhinopoma cystops 176 Abyssinian Horseshoe Bat 290 albiventer, Nyctimene 36, 118 Andersen’s Fruit-eating Bat 578 Arafura Large-footed Bat 969 Acerodon albiventris, Noctilio 405, 411 Andersen’s Leaf-nosed Bat 254 Arata Yellow-shouldered Bat 543 Sulawesi 134 albofuscus, Scotoecus 762 Andersen’s Little Fruit-eating Bat 578 Arata-Thomas Yellow-shouldered Talaud 134 alboguttata, Glauconycteris 833 Andersen’s Naked-backed Fruit Bat 109 Bat 543 Acerodon 134 albus, Diclidurus 339, 367 Andersen’s Roundleaf Bat 254 aratathomasi, Sturnira 543 Acerodon mackloti (see A.
    [Show full text]
  • Fitz-Stirling 2007-2017 Ten-Year Evaluation Review
    Fitz-Stirling 2007-2017 Ten-year Evaluation Review Feb / 2018 P a g e | 1 Acknowledgements: This report has benefited greatly from the discussion and guidance on content, presentation and editing by Annette Stewart, Clair Dougherty and Simon Smale. Their expert assistance is greatly appreciated. Volunteers have played a major and vital role in the monitoring and survey program over the past 5 years and I thank all of those involved. Special thanks go to Dr Sandra Gilfillan for her continuing dedication to the wallaby monitoring and research program. Volunteers Aaron Gove, who provided the bird data analysis and Richard Thomas, who provided the bat data analysis, have made a large contribution to this report and I thank them. I sincerely thank Bill and Jane Thompson who have regularly carried out all the pool monitoring for several years. Thanks also to Barry Heydenrych, Greening Australia, who provided restoration data. Funding to assist the monitoring program and UAV surveys during 2015 was gratefully received from South Coast NRM as part of the Australian Government funded ‘Restoring Gondwana’ program. Funding vital for wallaby monitoring and research was provided by the Diversicon Foundation. Citation: Sanders, A. (2018). Fitz-Stirling 2007-2017 ten-year evaluation review. Unpublished report for Bush Heritage Australia. P a g e | 2 Contents Overview of Fitz-Stirling Project ........................................................................................................ 6 This report evaluates our conservation impact .................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The New Sydney Fish Market: Biodiversity Development Assessment Report Concept and Stage 1 Works and Stage 2 Main Works
    The new Sydney Fish Market: Biodiversity Development Assessment Report Concept and Stage 1 Works and Stage 2 Main Works Infrastructure NSW © ECO LOGICAL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD 1 Concept and Stage 1 Works and Stage 2 Main Works | Infrastructure NSW DOCUMENT TRACKING Project Name The new Sydney Fish Market: Biodiversity Development Assessment Report Project Number 17WOL-7553 Date 6 May 2020 Project Manager Ian Dixon Prepared by Mitchell Scott and Belinda Failes Reviewed by Matthew Dowle and Meredith Henderson Approved by David Bonjer Status Final Version Number v9 Last saved on 6 May 2020 This report should be cited as ‘Eco Logical Australia 2020 The new Sydney Fish Market: Biodiversity Development Assessment Report. Prepared for Infrastructure NSW.’ UrbanGrowth NSW Development Corporation (UrbanGrowth NSW) was abolished on 1 July 2019 with all functions transferred to Infrastructure NSW. Any reference to UrbanGrowth NSW throughout this report is interchangeable with Infrastructure NSW (INSW). ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This document has been prepared by Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd. Disclaimer This document may only be used for the purpose for which it was commissioned and in accordance with the contract between Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd and Infrastructure NSW. The scope of services was defined in consultation with Infrastructure NSW, by time and budgetary constraints imposed by the client, and the availability of reports and other data on the subject area. Changes to available information, legislation and schedules are made on an ongoing basis and readers should obtain up to date information. Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for or in respect of any use of or reliance upon this report and its supporting material by any third party.
    [Show full text]
  • DOC Best Practice Manual of Conservation Techniques for Bats Version 1.0
    DOC best practice manual of conservation techniques for bats Version 1.0 This manual was prepared by Jane Sedgeley, Colin O’Donnell, John Lyall, Hannah Edmonds, Warren Simpson, Jo Carpenter, Jo Hoare and Kate McInnes (2012). Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 2 Introduction to New Zealand bats/pekapeka ............................................................................................... 5 Conservation management of New Zealand bats ..................................................................................... 21 Finding bats with bat detectors .................................................................................................................. 37 Species identification in the hand .............................................................................................................. 49 Inventory and monitoring methods for counting bats ................................................................................ 56 Catching bats ............................................................................................................................................. 58 Handling, examining, measuring and releasing bats ................................................................................ 85 Banding and marking ............................................................................................................................... 112 Attaching radio
    [Show full text]
  • The Role and Impact of Zootaxa in Mammalogy in Its First 20 Years
    Zootaxa 4979 (1): 070–094 ISSN 1175-5326 (print edition) https://www.mapress.com/j/zt/ Review ZOOTAXA Copyright © 2021 Magnolia Press ISSN 1175-5334 (online edition) https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4979.1.10 http://zoobank.org/urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:15620BC4-B989-4A98-84D0-019707FF0197 The role and impact of Zootaxa in mammalogy in its first 20 years PEDRO CORDEIRO-ESTRELA¹, ANDERSON FEIJÓ², PHILIPPE GAUBERT³, MARCELO WEKSLER4, LIONEL HAUTIER5,6, PAÚL M. VELAZCO7,8, PABLO TETA9, PIERRE-HENRI FABRE5,6, GERALDINE 10 11 VERON & JANET K. BRAUN 1Laboratório de Mamíferos, Departamento de Sistemática e Ecologia, Centro de Ciências Exatas e da Natureza, Universidade Federal da Paraíba, Campus I, João Pessoa, PB, Brazil. [email protected]; https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3383-571X 2Key Laboratory of Zoological Systematics and Evolution, Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Chaoyang District, Beijing, China. [email protected]; http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4643-2293 3Laboratoire Évolution & Diversité Biologique, Université Toulouse III Paul Sabatier, 118 route de Narbonne – Bât. 4R1, 31062 Toulouse cedex 9, France. [email protected]; https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1375-9935 4Departamento de Vertebrados, Museu Nacional, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, 20940-040 Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. [email protected]; https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8111-4779 5Institut des Sciences de l’Evolution (ISEM, UMR 5554 CNRS-IRD-UM), Université de Montpellier, Place E. Bataillon - CC 064 - 34095, Montpellier Cedex 5, France. [email protected]; https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8701-5421 [email protected]; https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3414-5625 6Mammal Section, Department of Life Sciences, The Natural History Museum, SW7 5DB London, United Kingdom 7Department of Mammalogy, American Museum of Natural History, Central Park West at 79th Street, New York, NY 10024, USA.
    [Show full text]
  • African Bat Conservation News
    Volume 36 African Bat Conservation News November 2014 ISSN 1812-1268 © ECJ Seamark, 2014 (AfricanBats) Above: A female Geoffroy’s Horseshoe Bat (Rhinolophus clivosus) caught in the Telperion Nature Reserve, Mpumalanga, South Africa on the 21 February 2014, with collectors number ECJS-42/2014. Inside this issue: Scientific contributions The first record of the African Sheath-tailed Bat Coleura afra (Peters, 1852) (Mammalia, Chiroptera) in 2 Cameroon with information on its ecology Recent Literature Papers 4 Notice Board Conferences 15 Call for contributions 15 Download and subscribe to African Bat Conservation News published by AfricanBats at: www.africanbats.org The views and opinions expressed in articles are no necessarily those of the editor or publisher. Articles and news items appearing in African Bat Conservation News may be reprinted, provided the author’s and newsletter refer- ence are given. African Bat Conservation News November 2014 vol. 36 2 ISSN 1812-1268 Scientific contributions THE FIRST RECORD OF THE AFRICAN SHEatH-taILED Bat Coleura afra (PETERS, 1852) (MAMMALIA, CHIROPTERA) IN CAMEROON WITH INFORmatION ON ITS ECOLOGY MATTHEW LEBRETON1,2, ERIC MOISE BAKWO FILS3*, JEAN MICHEL TAKUO2 and JOSEPH LE DOUX DIFFO JOSEPH DIFFO LEDOUX2 1 Mosaic, BP 35322, Yaoundé, CAMEROON. 2 Global Viral Cameroon, BP 7039, Yaoundé, CAMEROON. 3 Department of Biological Sciences; Faculty of Sciences; University of Maroua; CAMEROON *Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] Coleura afra (Peters, 1852) is known from different localities across portions of sub-Saharan Africa. A colony of about 5,000 individuals of this species was recently identified in a cave, south east of Edea in the Littoral Region of Cameroon).
    [Show full text]
  • Biodiversity Assessment Report FINAL
    APPENDIX6 BiodiversityAssessmentReport INVINCIBLE SOUTHERN EXTENSION PROJECT Biodiversity Assessment Report FINAL September 2016 INVINCIBLE SOUTHERN EXTENSION PROJECT Biodiversity Assessment Report FINAL Prepared by Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited on behalf of Castlereagh Coal Project Director: Tim Crosdale Project Manager: David Holmes Technical Director: Allison Riley Technical Manager: Shaun Corry Report No. 3622/R04/FINAL Date: September 2016 Newcastle 75 York Street Teralba NSW 2284 Ph. 02 4950 5322 www.umwelt.com.au This report was prepared using Umwelt’s ISO 9001 certified Quality Management System. Executive Summary Castlereagh Coal operates the Invincible Colliery (Invincible), an open cut coal mine located approximately 25 kilometres north-west of Lithgow in NSW. Castlereagh Coal is the trading name for Shoalhaven Coal Pty Ltd which is part of the Manildra Group, an integrated and diverse agribusiness. Castlereagh Coal is seeking to modify the Invincible Project Approval to extend the life of mining operations at the Invincible Colliery and obtain approval to extend the open cut mining operations to an area immediately south of the existing operations (Southern Extension Area). The primary purpose of the operation will be to provide nut coal to Manildra’s Shoalhaven Starches Plant located at Bomaderry on the NSW South Coast. Project features (including location and setback from potential habitat features) and impact mitigation measures have been incorporated into the detailed design of the Southern Extension Project to minimise biodiversity impacts. Umwelt (Australia) Pty Limited (Umwelt) has prepared this Biodiversity Assessment Report on behalf of Castlereagh Coal to assess the potential ecological impacts of the proposed Southern Extension Project using the Framework for Biodiversity Assessment – NSW Biodiversity Offsets Policy for Major Projects (FBA).
    [Show full text]
  • Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment Fbase
    APPENDICES 7 APPENDIX C- ASSESSMENT IMPACT AND FAUNA FLORA FLORA AND FAUNA IMPACT ASSESSMENT APPENDIX C-7 | C-7 APPENDIX FBASE Jervois Base Metals Project, EL 25429, Landscape, Flora and Fauna Report September 2017 and May 2018 For KGL Resources Prepared by: Low Ecological Services P/L July 2018 Low Ecological Services P/L PO Box 3130, Alice Springs, NT 0871 Ph: (08) 89 555 222 Fax: (08) 89 555 722 Email: [email protected] Web: www.lowecol.com.au KGL Resources – EL25429 Jervois Base Metal Project EIS Flora and Fauna Survey combined September 2017 and May 2018 Report FRONTISPIECE Top: view over Project area looking north from Gidyea Woodland at site J13 to the east of EL25429. Bottom left to right: Pseudantechinus macdonnellensis (Fat-tailed false antechnius), data deficient Eremophila cordatisepala (A desert fuchsia bush), Pogona vitticeps (central-bearded dragon). DOCUMENT CONTROL DISCLAIMER This document has been prepared by Low Ecological Services (LES) for Nitro Solutions Pty Ltd in accordance with an agreement with Nitro Solutions Pty Ltd and KGL Resources. LES have prepared this document using the skill and care expected from professional scientists to provide factual and technical information and reasonable solutions to identified risks. This document does not constitute legal advice. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS LES acknowledges the assistance of Rudy Lennartz, KGL Resources, for site familiarisation and assistance with setting up trap sites. LES would also like to acknowledge Des Nelson for plant identification and Dennis Matthews for bat call identification. Assistance from other Low Ecological staff including Xavier Tingle and Mareike Pohling, was integral to field work and report preparation.
    [Show full text]
  • Nest Boxes Do Not Cause a Shift in Bat Community Composition in an Urbanised Landscape Stephen R
    www.nature.com/scientificreports OPEN Nest boxes do not cause a shift in bat community composition in an urbanised landscape Stephen R. Grifths 1*, Linda F. Lumsden2, Kylie A. Robert 1 & Pia E. Lentini 3 Nest boxes are often used to provide supplementary roosts for cavity-dependent wildlife, but little is known about if they infuence faunal community composition. Long-term monitoring of bat boxes in south-eastern Australia indicated that their use was dominated by one generalist species (Chalinolobus gouldii), causing concern that installing bat boxes could cause a shift toward less diverse bat communities. To test this, we conducted a large-scale before-after control-impact experiment at 18 sites, over fve years. Sites were either: (1) those with existing bat boxes, (2) those where boxes were added during the study, or (3) controls without boxes. We used echolocation call data from 9035 bat detector nights to compare community composition, diversity, and species’ relative activity between the sites. Chalinolobus gouldii continued to dominate the use of existing boxes, but we found little diference in community composition between sites based on the presence, absence, or addition of boxes. Our study is the frst to explore the infuence installing artifcial hollows has on localized faunal assemblages over spatio-temporal scales relevant to management. We conclude that there is cause for optimism that bat boxes might not have perverse outcomes on local community composition in the short- to medium-term, as we had feared. Tree hollows and cavities are keystone habitats used by a broad range of fauna for shelter and breeding1.
    [Show full text]
  • List of Taxa for Which MIL Has Images
    LIST OF 27 ORDERS, 163 FAMILIES, 887 GENERA, AND 2064 SPECIES IN MAMMAL IMAGES LIBRARY 31 JULY 2021 AFROSORICIDA (9 genera, 12 species) CHRYSOCHLORIDAE - golden moles 1. Amblysomus hottentotus - Hottentot Golden Mole 2. Chrysospalax villosus - Rough-haired Golden Mole 3. Eremitalpa granti - Grant’s Golden Mole TENRECIDAE - tenrecs 1. Echinops telfairi - Lesser Hedgehog Tenrec 2. Hemicentetes semispinosus - Lowland Streaked Tenrec 3. Microgale cf. longicaudata - Lesser Long-tailed Shrew Tenrec 4. Microgale cowani - Cowan’s Shrew Tenrec 5. Microgale mergulus - Web-footed Tenrec 6. Nesogale cf. talazaci - Talazac’s Shrew Tenrec 7. Nesogale dobsoni - Dobson’s Shrew Tenrec 8. Setifer setosus - Greater Hedgehog Tenrec 9. Tenrec ecaudatus - Tailless Tenrec ARTIODACTYLA (127 genera, 308 species) ANTILOCAPRIDAE - pronghorns Antilocapra americana - Pronghorn BALAENIDAE - bowheads and right whales 1. Balaena mysticetus – Bowhead Whale 2. Eubalaena australis - Southern Right Whale 3. Eubalaena glacialis – North Atlantic Right Whale 4. Eubalaena japonica - North Pacific Right Whale BALAENOPTERIDAE -rorqual whales 1. Balaenoptera acutorostrata – Common Minke Whale 2. Balaenoptera borealis - Sei Whale 3. Balaenoptera brydei – Bryde’s Whale 4. Balaenoptera musculus - Blue Whale 5. Balaenoptera physalus - Fin Whale 6. Balaenoptera ricei - Rice’s Whale 7. Eschrichtius robustus - Gray Whale 8. Megaptera novaeangliae - Humpback Whale BOVIDAE (54 genera) - cattle, sheep, goats, and antelopes 1. Addax nasomaculatus - Addax 2. Aepyceros melampus - Common Impala 3. Aepyceros petersi - Black-faced Impala 4. Alcelaphus caama - Red Hartebeest 5. Alcelaphus cokii - Kongoni (Coke’s Hartebeest) 6. Alcelaphus lelwel - Lelwel Hartebeest 7. Alcelaphus swaynei - Swayne’s Hartebeest 8. Ammelaphus australis - Southern Lesser Kudu 9. Ammelaphus imberbis - Northern Lesser Kudu 10. Ammodorcas clarkei - Dibatag 11. Ammotragus lervia - Aoudad (Barbary Sheep) 12.
    [Show full text]