DOCSLIB.ORG

CRAYFISH DEPOSIT FAUNA ASSESSMENT Field Survey and Fauna Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
CRAYFISH DEPOSIT FAUNA ASSESSMENT Field Survey and Fauna Assessment GINKGO MINE MODIFICATION – CRAYFISH DEPOSIT FAUNA ASSESSMENT Rainbow Bee-eater, listed as Migratory under the EPBC Act (photo by Andrew Lothian) Field Survey and Fauna Assessment A Report by Biodiversity Monitoring Services, November 2012 GINGKO MINE MODIFICATION – FIELD SURVEYS & FAUNA ASSESSMENT i GINKGO MINE MODIFICATION – CRAYFISH DEPOSIT FAUNA ASSESSMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS: Section Section Title Page Number Number 1.0 BACKGROUND 1 2.0 STUDY AREA 6 3.0 SURVEY SITES WITHIN THE MODIFICATION AREA 8 4.0 SURVEY GUIDELINES 11 5.0 APPROACH TO SURVEY 11 6.0 METHODOLOGY 13 6.1 Fauna Sampling 13 6.2 Survey Effort 19 6.3 Habitat Characteristics 20 6.4 Statistical Analysis 21 6.5 Use of Indices 21 7.0 RESULTS 24 7.1 Fauna 24 7.1.1 Fauna Listings 24 7.1.2 Fauna in the Study Area 25 7.2 Threatened Species 30 7.3 Application of Environment Protection and Biodiversity 34 Conservation Act 1999 to Fauna Known or Expected to Occur within Modification 7.4 Habitat 37 8.0 ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS 40 8.1 Loss of Vegetation 41 8.2 Disturbance by Noise and Dust 43 8.3 Vehicle Movement 43 8.4 Fauna and Artificial Lighting 43 8.5 Introduced Fauna 44 8.6 Bushfire Risk 44 8.7 Cumulative Impact Assessment 44 8.7.1 Loss of Native vegetation 44 8.7.2 Loss of Habitats 44 8.7.3 Threatened Fauna 45 9.0 MEASURES TO AVOID AND MITIGATE IMPACTS 45 10.0 PROPOSED BIODIVERSITY OFFSET AREA 49 10.1 Background 49 BIODIVERSITY MONITORING SERVICES [email protected] GINGKO MINE MODIFICATION – FIELD SURVEYS & FAUNA ASSESSMENT ii Section Section Title Page Number Number 10.2 Comparison between Modification Area and Biodiversity 49 Offset Area 10.2.1 Species Richness of Faunal Groups 51 10.2.2 Simpson’s Index of Diversity 52 10.2.3 Evenness of Occurrence of Species within an Area 52 10.2.4 Capture Rates of Individual Species 55 10.2.5 Contribution to the Faunal Assemblages by Threatened 55 Species and Species Dependent upon Woodland 10.2.6 Habitat Characteristics 56 10.2.7 Habitat Complexity Scores 57 10.2.8 Threatened Fauna 58 10.2.9 Other factors 58 10.3 Conclusion 59 11.0 OFFSET MEASURES 60 11.1 Offset area proposal management, security, monitoring 60 and auditing 11.1.1 Proposed Management Plan 60 11.1.2 Monitoring 60 11.1.3 Independent Audits 61 11.1.4 Completion Criteria 61 11.1.5 Strategic Benefit of the Offset Area 61 11.1.6 Ecosystem Resilience 61 11.1.7 Existing Infrastructure 62 11.3 Reconciliation of the Proposed Offset Strategy against 63 OEH Offset Principles 11.4 Ecological Gains of the Proposed Offset 64 12.0 REFERENCES 65 BIODIVERSITY MONITORING SERVICES [email protected] GINGKO MINE MODIFICATION – FIELD SURVEYS & FAUNA ASSESSMENT iii Section Section Title Page Number Number Appendix 1 SUMMARY OF TECHNIQUES TO BE USED DURING 67 THE SURVEY OF STUDY AREA Appendix 2 FAUNA LOCATED DURING THE SURVEY OF MLA 68 AND HAUL ROAD AREAS Appendix 3 FAUNA LOCATED WITHIN STUDY AREA 74 Appendix 4 SIGHTING NUMBERS OF BIRDS WITHIN EACH AREA 81 DURING A SIX DAY SURVEY PERIOD Appendix 5 ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS UPON THREATENED 83 SPECIES Appendix 6 BIODIVERSITY OFFSET FAUNA ASSESSMENT 110 FIGURES Figure Figure Title Page Number Number 1 Modification Layout including Haul Road Route to and 3 Within Gingko Mine 2 Vegetation Communities within the Modification 7 3 Habitats within the Modification Area 8 4 Locations of Main Survey Sites within the Modification and 10 Haul Road Survey Area 5 Sampling Score Sheet Used to Calculate Habitat 24 Complexity 6 Biodiversity Indices for Birds and Reptiles 27 7 Threatened Species in or Near Modification Area 32 8 Distribution Records of Delma australis 33 9 Habitat Characteristics at Each Site 38 10 Habitat Complexity Scores 40 11 Comparison of the Survey Efforts between the 51 Modification and Biodiversity Offset Areas 12 Biodiversity Indices for Birds and Reptiles 53 13 Mean Values of Habitat Characteristics for Modification 57 and Biodiversity Offset Areas 14 Habitat Complexity Scores 58 BIODIVERSITY MONITORING SERVICES [email protected] GINGKO MINE MODIFICATION – FIELD SURVEYS & FAUNA ASSESSMENT iv TABLES Table Table Title Page Number Number 1 Main Sites Selected at Modification Area and Haul Road 9 Area 2 Weather at Pooncarie during Survey Period 12 3 Survey Efforts within Each Area in Trap-Days, Camera- 20 days and person-days 4 Species Richness at Snapper Mine and the Modification 26 5 Biodiversity Indices for Study Area, MLA and Haul Road 27 Area 6 Threatened Species Located in Modification Area 30 7 Fauna Species of National Environmental Significance that 35 could occur within the Modification 8 Habitat Characteristics of the Detailed Survey Sites 37 9 Habitat Complexity Scores for All Sites in Modification 39 Area 10 Percentage of Habitat Lost within Modification Area 42 11 Biodiversity Indices for Modification Area and Biodiversity 53 Offset Area 12 Proportion of Woodland Dependent and Declining Birds 56 in Each Area 13 Mean Values of Habitat Characteristics for Modification 56 and Biodiversity Offset Areas 14 Habitat Complexity Scores for All Sites 58 15 Sightings of Pest Species in Both Areas 59 16 Reconciliation of Offset Strategy against OEH Principles 63 PLATES Plate Plate Title Page Number Number 1 Tree-mounted Tomahawk Traps at a patch of Old Trees 14 at Site CD06 2 CD04 Site showing tree-mounted Glider Tube 15 3 Remote Camera at Bait Station 16 4 Pit Trap Line Established at CD01 Site 17 5 CD05 Site with line of Reptile Funnels 18 6 Shingleback Lizards Inspecting a bait Station at CD04 26 (Oakland) Site 7 Sand Goanna at CD01(Dune South) Site 62 BIODIVERSITY MONITORING SERVICES [email protected] GINGKO MINE MODIFICATION – FIELD SURVEYS & FAUNA ASSESSMENT ES-1 GINKGO MINE MODIFICATION – CRAYFISH DEPOSIT FAUNA ASSESSMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: 1) A large area (Study Area) containing low sand dunes with mallee-spinifex, woodland of Black Box, woodland of Black Oak, Chenopod shrubland and grassland was surveyed for fauna in the summer of 2011 and the winter of 2012 using a range of techniques recommended by NSW and Federal guidelines. 2) A total of 76 bird, 13 native mammal, eight introduced mammal, 21 reptile and four amphibian species were located within the Study Area. The assemblage of fauna is representative of the region, particularly in terms of bird and reptile fauna. 3) No small native ground fauna were located and this is possibly due to the disturbed nature of the area and the presence of numbers of introduced competitors (House Mouse) and predators (Feral Cat and Red Fox). Feral Goat numbers were also high within the area. 4) A total of seven species listed as Vulnerable or Endangered under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act were located within Study Area. These were the Little Eagle, Major Mitchell's Cockatoo, Varied Sittella, Hooded Robin, Inland Forest Bat, Little Pied Bat and Marble-headed Delma. 5) The development of the Modification Area will result in the potential loss of 760 ha of vegetation, comprising 268.5 ha spinifex-dune habitat, 73 ha Black Box/Black Oak woodland and the remainder grassland and shrubland. This loss represents approximately 0.033% of the extent of vegetation in the surrounding region. BIODIVERSITY MONITORING SERVICES [email protected] GINGKO MINE MODIFICATION – FIELD SURVEYS & FAUNA ASSESSMENT ES-2 6) Other impacts would include noise and dust generation, increased vehicle movement, attraction of introduced species and creation of artificial lighting. Such impacts are considered minor and appropriate mitigation measures can be put into place to reduce any such impacts. 7) The loss of habitats, particularly the spinifex-dune habitat and a small number of hollow-bearing trees may impact upon the resident fauna. In particular, species with small home ranges may be affected, including the Marble-headed Delma. 8) The creation of a Biodiversity Offset Area will help mitigate the impacts from the loss of habitats in the Modification and Haul Road Areas. The proposed Biodiversity Offset Area occupies 2,594 ha and comprises similar habitats to that within the Modification Area. 9) The Modification, Haul Road and Biodiversity Offset Areas were surveyed for fauna and it was possible to assess the biodiversity values of the Modification and Biodiversity Offset Areas to determine whether the offset would adequately compensate for the disturbance of the deposit area. 10) Analyses of the results from the surveys showed that there are no significant differences in the fauna assemblages and habitats between the Modification Area and the Biodiversity Offset Area. 11) Mitigation measures are provided, together with guidelines for a management plan for the Biodiversity Offset Area aimed to improve the biodiversity values of this area. BIODIVERSITY MONITORING SERVICES [email protected] GINGKO MINE MODIFICATION – FIELD SURVEYS & FAUNA ASSESSMENT Page 1 GINKGO MINE MODIFICATION – CRAYFISH DEPOSIT FAUNA ASSESSMENT Field Survey and Biodiversity Offset Fauna Assessment A Report by Biodiversity Monitoring Services, November 2012 1.0 BACKGROUND Bemax Resources Limited (Bemax) operates the Ginkgo Mineral Sands Mine (the Ginkgo Mine) which is located approximately 170 kilometres (km) to the south of Broken Hill in western New South Wales. Heavy mineral concentrate from the Ginkgo Mine is transported to the Bemax-owned Mineral Separation Plant (the MSP) in Broken Hill. Bemax propose to develop and mine a new mineral sands deposit (the Crayfish deposit) located approximately 6km to the east of the Ginkgo Mine within the Proposed Mining Leases Application (MLA) I. The Crayfish deposit would be developed to maximise the utilisation of existing infrastructure at the Ginkgo Mine.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Abiotic Effects Predominate Under Prolonged Livestock-Induced Disturbanceaec 2159 367..377
    Austral Ecology (2011) 36, 367–377 Abiotic effects predominate under prolonged livestock-induced disturbanceaec_2159 367..377 DAVID J. ELDRIDGE,1* JAMES VAL2 AND ALEX I. JAMES1 1Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water, c/- Ecology and Evolution Research Centre, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia. (Email: [email protected]), and 2Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water, Buronga, New South Wales, Australia Abstract Despite the widespread recognition that disturbance by livestock affects multiple indices of landscape health, few studies have examined their effects on both biotic and abiotic processes. We examined the effects of livestock disturbance on soil, vascular plants and reptiles across a disturbance gradient in a semi-arid Australian woodland. Our gradient ranged from long-ungrazed water remote sites, through intermediately grazed recovering sites, to currently grazed sites close to water. Our aim was to examine the nature of the effects of grazing-induced disturbance on biotic and abiotic processes along the gradient. We detected small biotic effects, but no abiotic effects, at low levels of disturbance (intermediate sites). We could not detect a consistent biotic effect on plants or reptiles along the gradient, except between the extreme disturbances. In contrast, we recorded substantial reduc- tions in abiotic structure and function at the most disturbed sites. Structural changes included reductions in the cover of shrub hummocks and increases in bare soil, and reductions in cryptogamic soil crusts. Structural changes were associated with declines in function (soil stability and nutrient indices). Our data are consistent with the notion that abiotic effects predominate at high levels of disturbance in rangelands.
    [Show full text]
  • A LIST of the VERTEBRATES of SOUTH AUSTRALIA
    A LIST of the VERTEBRATES of SOUTH AUSTRALIA updates. for Edition 4th Editors See A.C. Robinson K.D. Casperson Biological Survey and Research Heritage and Biodiversity Division Department for Environment and Heritage, South Australia M.N. Hutchinson South Australian Museum Department of Transport, Urban Planning and the Arts, South Australia 2000 i EDITORS A.C. Robinson & K.D. Casperson, Biological Survey and Research, Biological Survey and Research, Heritage and Biodiversity Division, Department for Environment and Heritage. G.P.O. Box 1047, Adelaide, SA, 5001 M.N. Hutchinson, Curator of Reptiles and Amphibians South Australian Museum, Department of Transport, Urban Planning and the Arts. GPO Box 234, Adelaide, SA 5001updates. for CARTOGRAPHY AND DESIGN Biological Survey & Research, Heritage and Biodiversity Division, Department for Environment and Heritage Edition Department for Environment and Heritage 2000 4thISBN 0 7308 5890 1 First Edition (edited by H.J. Aslin) published 1985 Second Edition (edited by C.H.S. Watts) published 1990 Third Edition (edited bySee A.C. Robinson, M.N. Hutchinson, and K.D. Casperson) published 2000 Cover Photograph: Clockwise:- Western Pygmy Possum, Cercartetus concinnus (Photo A. Robinson), Smooth Knob-tailed Gecko, Nephrurus levis (Photo A. Robinson), Painted Frog, Neobatrachus pictus (Photo A. Robinson), Desert Goby, Chlamydogobius eremius (Photo N. Armstrong),Osprey, Pandion haliaetus (Photo A. Robinson) ii _______________________________________________________________________________________ CONTENTS
    [Show full text]
  • Volunteer Newsletternewsletter Environment And
    NorthernNorthern andand YorkeYorke RegionRegion Department of VolunteerVolunteer NewsletterNewsletter Environment and SummerSummer 20112011 Natural Resources In this edition of the Volunteer newsletter: ‐ Thank you to the Friends of Althorpe Island CP ‐ Two new birders by Jan Aamodt ‐ Mt Remarkable Working Bee by Paul Shinks ‐ Of Herpos and Birdos by Andrew Wurst ‐ Farming on Social Media by Wendy Fowler ‐ OH&S volunteer management framework ‐ People Matters by David Armstrong ‐ Fairy Tern Census first round results ‐ Fairy Tern Surveys my volunteer experience ‐ Education Days by Wendy Cliff ‐ Busy, busy, busy Spring Photo: Paul Wiliams Thanks for the collaborations of: Jasmine Swales, Jan Aamodt, Paul Shinks, Andrew Wurst, Wendy Fowler, David Amstrong, Celia Manning, Kaye Simpson, Deb Agnew, Montse Soria, Wendy Cliff, Paul Williams, Chad Cole, Keith Baseley Thank you to the Friends of Althorpe Island CP! The Friends of Althorpe Island Conservation Park are celebrating this year their 15th anniversary. They have done an amazing job on the island managing weeds, eradicating cats, monitoring seabirds and maintaining the heritage listed cottages, access trails and grave sites. Many of the members have strong links with the island as ex‐lighthouse keepers or caretakers before the Friends group was formed. During the last few years, access to the island has been difficult but the group has managed the challenges to keep caring for the island. DENR and the Yorke Peninsula Team would like to thank the group for their on going support during the last 15 years! Well done team!! 1 Two new birders…………………………………………………….. by Jan Aamodt A warning to all birders of the Mid North – 2 new birders have joined your ranks – look for us in camouflage gear lurking in undergrowth.
    [Show full text]
  • Biodiversity Condition Assessment for Grazing Lands
    finalreportp Project code: NBP.231 Teresa Eyre1, Annie Kelly1, Daniel Ferguson1, Col Paton2, Michael Mathieson1, Prepared by: Giselle Whish2, Melanie Venz1, Jane Hamilton2, Jian Wang1, Rosalie Buck1 and Luke Hogan1 1. Department of Environment and Resource Management 2. Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation Date published: October 2011 ISBN: 9781741916393 PUBLISHED BY Meat & Livestock Australia Limited Locked Bag 991 NORTH SYDNEY NSW 2059 Biodiversity Condition Assessment for Grazing Lands Meat & Livestock Australia acknowledges the matching funds provided by the Australian Government to support the research and development detailed in this publication. This publication is published by Meat & Livestock Australia Limited ABN 39 081 678 364 (MLA). Care is taken to ensure the accuracy of the information contained in this publication. However MLA cannot accept responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of the information or opinions contained in the publication. You should make your own enquiries before making decisions concerning your interests. Reproduction in whole or in part of this publication is prohibited without prior written consent of MLA. Biodiversity Condition Assessment for Grazing Lands Abstract The primary purpose of the project was to develop and test a prototype procedure for the assessment of biodiversity condition of grazing lands. This would then complement the grazing land condition assessment framework used by the Grazing Land Management education package, which promotes sustainable management of grazed lands in northern Australia. To do this, comprehensive sampling of fauna, flora, habitat features and grazing land condition indicators was conducted at 171 sites. The sample sites were stratified across three different land types of southern Queensland (soft mulga, poplar box on alluvial and brigalow belah scrub), and broad condition states.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessing the Sustainability of Native Fauna in NSW State of the Catchments 2010
    State of the catchments 2010 Native fauna Technical report series Monitoring, evaluation and reporting program Assessing the sustainability of native fauna in NSW State of the catchments 2010 Paul Mahon Scott King Clare O’Brien Candida Barclay Philip Gleeson Allen McIlwee Sandra Penman Martin Schulz Office of Environment and Heritage Monitoring, evaluation and reporting program Technical report series Native vegetation Native fauna Threatened species Invasive species Riverine ecosystems Groundwater Marine waters Wetlands Estuaries and coastal lakes Soil condition Land management within capability Economic sustainability and social well-being Capacity to manage natural resources © 2011 State of NSW and Office of Environment and Heritage The State of NSW and Office of Environment and Heritage are pleased to allow this material to be reproduced in whole or in part for educational and non-commercial use, provided the meaning is unchanged and its source, publisher and authorship are acknowledged. Specific permission is required for the reproduction of photographs. The Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) has compiled this technical report in good faith, exercising all due care and attention. No representation is made about the accuracy, completeness or suitability of the information in this publication for any particular purpose. OEH shall not be liable for any damage which may occur to any person or organisation taking action or not on the basis of this publication. Readers should seek appropriate advice when applying the information to
    [Show full text]
  • The Vegetation, Flora and Fauna of Nanya Station
    UNIVERSITY OF BALLARAT NANYA STATION WESTERN NEW SOUTH WALES: CONSERVATION RESEARCH EDUCATION Nanya Station, owned and managed by the University of Ballarat was purchased with assistance from the Department of Environment and Heritage. The University gratefully acknowledges support for ongoing management from the Lower Murray Darling Catchment Management Authority. Production of this brochure was made possible through funding from the Commonwealth Government Caring for our Country program. FOREWORD This booklet has been prepared as an introduction for visitors to Nanya Station. Nanya is managed for conservation, research and education and affords protection to highly significant environments including two endangered communities and twenty three endangered or vulnerable species. On your visit, please respect these values. NANYA STATION Nanya Station is located in the Scotia country, west of the Darling Ana-Branch in far western New South Wales and consists of the Nanya Western Lands Pastoral Lease 3281 – Perpetual Leasehold Lot 1244 in Deposited Plan 762778, Parish of Winnebaga, County of Tara and part of Lot 1242 County of Windeyer. ABORIGINAL HISTORY Nanya is within the tribal area of the Danggali Aboriginal people, a sub-group of the Barkindji. Many Aboriginal sites have been recorded adjacent to major rivers in the region providing evidence that these areas supported a large population. In areas such as Nanya located distant from any major water source, Aboriginal sites are generally restricted to sand dune locations near a soak or claypan. It is probable that the lack of water and the relative poverty of the mallee sandridge country mitigated against significant Aboriginal use of areas away from the rivers (NPWS 2001).
    [Show full text]
  • The High-Level Classification of Skinks (Reptilia, Squamata, Scincomorpha)
    Zootaxa 3765 (4): 317–338 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.3765.4.2 http://zoobank.org/urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:357DF033-D48E-4118-AAC9-859C3EA108A8 The high-level classification of skinks (Reptilia, Squamata, Scincomorpha) S. BLAIR HEDGES Department of Biology, Pennsylvania State University, 208 Mueller Lab, University Park, PA 16802, USA. E-mail: [email protected] Abstract Skinks are usually grouped in a single family, Scincidae (1,579 species) representing one-quarter of all lizard species. Oth- er large lizard families, such as Gekkonidae (s.l.) and Iguanidae (s.l.), have been partitioned into multiple families in recent years, based mainly on evidence from molecular phylogenies. Subfamilies and informal suprageneric groups have been used for skinks, defined by morphological traits and supported increasingly by molecular phylogenies. Recently, a seven- family classification for skinks was proposed to replace that largely informal classification, create more manageable taxa, and faciliate systematic research on skinks. Those families are Acontidae (26 sp.), Egerniidae (58 sp.), Eugongylidae (418 sp.), Lygosomidae (52 sp.), Mabuyidae (190 sp.), Sphenomorphidae (546 sp.), and Scincidae (273 sp.). Representatives of 125 (84%) of the 154 genera of skinks are available in the public sequence databases and have been placed in molecular phylogenies that support the recognition of these families. However, two other molecular clades with species that have long been considered distinctive morphologically belong to two new families described here, Ristellidae fam. nov. (14 sp.) and Ateuchosauridae fam. nov.
    [Show full text]
  • Cencus of South Australian Vertebrates 2009
    Reptiles (last update Jan 2010) Mark Hutchinson, less closely related to one another than diplodactylines are to pygopods (Donnellan et al. 1999, Han et al. Curator of Herpetology, 2004). Diplodactylus was revised by Oliver et al. (2007), South Australian Museum who revived and expanded the genus Lucasium to include some species formerly placed in Diplodactylus. This compilation shows the distributions of all tortoises, Hutchinson et al. (2009) describe further new species of turtles, lizards and snakes that are known to have Diplodactylus and redefined others. Other taxonomic occured in South Australia during European settlement. changes include recognition of Christinus alexanderi Records are based mostly on South Australian sources, (Donnellan et al. 2000), Delma petersoni (Jennings et al. primarily the Herpetology collection held by the South 2003 ) and the newly discovered Lucasium bungabinna Australian Museum plus additional records from the (Doughty and Hutchinson 2008). The gecko long Biological Survey of South Australia. For a few very rare referred to informally as Gehyra “2n=44” will shortly be or seldom collected species, some use has been made redescribed as Gehyra lazelli (Sistrom et al., submitted). of records from other sources (interstate or overseas This compilation also continues to include milii as a museums). All but one of the species listed are regarded species of Nephrurus, rather than placing it in the poorly as naturally occurring in South Australia. The one characterised genus Underwoodisaurus. exception is the water dragon, Physignathus lesueurii, an eastern Australian lizard that has established a feral Scincidae population in parts of the Torrens River system. Skinks of the genus Cryptoblepharus were extensively Reptile and amphibian taxonomy is subject to frequent revised by Horner (2007), with the result that the two change as new information emerges regarding species former ‘species’, C.
    [Show full text]
  • Marree Soil Conservation Board
    FOREWORD The Marree Soil Conservation Board (MSCB) has seen changes since the last review of the District Plan including drought, the possibility of Natural Resource Management Reform (NRM) and some new faces on the board. During the past two to three years, our district has seen most areas in a very severe drought and has only had patchy relief. The Federal Government proclaimed 'Exceptional Circumstances' in some areas, and without good summer rain most areas will remain in drought. Also, this past two years has seen a proposed move toward the amalgamation of the functions of the Animal and Plant Commission (APCC), Soil Conservation Council (SCC) and the Water Catchment Management Board (WCMB). The new Act is to be called the Natural Resource Management Act. In the interim, the MSCB remains in its present form, but may change in the future. I believe we need a strong voice in the far northern regions of South Australia, so we can be involved with decisions, which affect the social and economic well being of our district. The proposed NRM Regional Board will need those strong voices to continue the work developed by the MSCB and other rangeland soil boards. As the current Chairperson of the MSCB, I would like to thank the previous and present board members for the work they have done, and give special thanks to Marie Morton and Catriona McTaggart for staying on as board members. The current MSCB is a good cross-section of interest from the district, and I look forward to continuing to work with them.
    [Show full text]
  • Biodiversity Offset Baseline Fauna Report CRISTAL MINING PTY LTD
    APPENDIX F Biodiversity Offset Baseline Fauna Report CRISTAL MINING PTY LTD MALLARA FAUNA SURVEY PREPARED BY BIODIVERSITY MONITORING SERVICES JUNE 2014 Project No. CMA-13-03 Document No. 00597789.docx Mallara Fauna Survey TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1 1 INTRODUCTION 1 2 LOCAL ENVIRONMENT 4 2.1 REGIONAL LOCATION 4 2.2 CLIMATE 4 2.3 HYDROLOGY 4 2.4 TOPOGRAPHY AND LAND USE 5 2.5 VEGETATION 5 3 METHODOLOGY 7 3.1 DATABASE SEARCHES 7 3.2 SURVEY SITES 7 3.3 SURVEY TECHNIQUES 9 3.4 THREATENED SPECIES SURVEYS 14 3.5 HABITAT ASSESSMENT 16 4 RESULTS 19 4.1 HABITAT TYPES 19 4.2 FAUNA COMPOSITION 20 4.3 THREATENED SPECIES 23 4.4 INTRODUCED SPECIES 23 4.5 TREE HOLLOWS 23 5 CONCLUSION 25 6 REFERENCES 26 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Rainfall and Temperatures at Ivanhoe Post Office Table 2 Survey Sites within the Study Area Table 3 Survey Techniques Used at Each Site Table 4 Survey Effort within the Study Area Table 5 Threatened Species Known from the Locality Containing the Study Area Table 6 Bird and Reptile Species Richness Values in the Ginkgo Area Table 7 Biodiversity Indices for Three Areas Table 8 Threatened Species Located within the Study Area Table 9 Characteristics of Trees within the Study Area 00597789.DOCX\16 NOV 2015 i Biodiversity Monitoring Services Mallara Fauna Survey TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Regional Location Figure 2 Location of Study Area and Sampling Sites Figure 3 Vegetation Communities and Threatened Species Figure 4 Habitat Types and Threatened Fauna Species Figure 5 Bird and Reptile
    [Show full text]
  • Why Do Some Species Have Geographically Varying Responses to fi Re History?
    Ecography 37: 805–813, 2014 doi: 10.1111/ecog.00684 © 2014 Th e Authors. Ecography © 2014 Nordic Society Oikos Subject Editor: Erica Fleishman. Accepted 21 January 2013 Why do some species have geographically varying responses to fi re history? D. G. Nimmo , L. T. Kelly , L. M. Farnsworth , S. J. Watson and A. F. Bennett D. G. Nimmo ([email protected]), S. J. Watson and A. F. Bennett, Landscape Ecology Research Group and the centre for Integrative Ecology, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Deakin Univ., Burwood, VIC 3125, Australia. – L. M. Farnsworth and SJW, Dept of Zoology, La Trobe Univ., Bundoora, VIC 3086, Australia. – L. T. Kelly, School of Botany, Univ. of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia. A capacity to predict the eff ects of fi re on biota is critical for conservation in fi re-prone regions as it assists managers to anticipate the outcomes of diff erent approaches to fi re management. Th e task is complicated because species ’ responses to fi re can vary geographically. Th is poses challenges, both for conceptual understanding of post-fi re succession and fi re management. We examine two hypotheses for why species may display geographically varying responses to fi re. 1) Species ’ post-fi re responses are driven by vegetation structure, but vegetation – fi re relationships vary spatially (the ‘ dynamic vegetation ’ hypothesis). 2) Regional variation in ecological conditions leads species to select diff erent post-fi re ages as habitat (the ‘ dynamic habitat ’ hypothesis). Our case study uses data on lizards at 280 sites in a ∼ 100 000 km 2 region of south-eastern Australia.
    [Show full text]