FOUR MILE PROSPECT BASELINE FAUNA SURVEY
22nd October – 29th October 2007
Four Mile Prospect Baseline Fauna Survey April 2008, Version 1.1
37 Kent Road KESWICK SA 5035
Phone : 08 8297 7711
Fax : 08 8297 7722
Email : [email protected]
Web : www.ebservices.com.au
FOUR MILE PROSPECT BASELINE FAUNA SURVEY
22nd October – 29th October 2007
Date: 07/04/2008 Version: 1.1
Document Control
Revision No. Date Author Approved Date Revision type issued by approved 1.0 14/02/2008 H. Waudby / T. How TH 14/02/2008 First draft 1.1 07/04/2008 H Waudby / T How TH 07/04/2008 Final
Distribution of copies
Revision Issue date Quantity Media Issued to No. 1.0 14/02/2008 1 Electronic S Carter (Heathgate Resources), P Woods (Heathgate Resources) 1.1 07/04/2008 1 Electronic S Carter (Heathgate Resources), P Woods (Heathgate Resources)
COPYRIGHT: Use or copying of this document in whole or in part without the written permission of Environment and Biodiversity Services constitutes an infringement of copyright.
LIMITATION: This report has been prepared on behalf of and for the exclusive use of Environmental and Biodiversity Services Client, and is subject to and issued in connection with the provisions of the agreement between Environmental and Biodiversity Services and it’s Client. Environmental and Biodiversity Services accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for or in respect of any use of or reliance upon this report by any third party.
Cover Photos: Northern Spiny-tailed Gecko (Strophurus ciliaris); Wedge-tailed Eagle (Aquila audax); Fat-tail Dunnart (Sminthopsis crassicaudata).
Four Mile Prospect Baseline Fauna Survey April 2008, Version 1.1
Environmental and Biodiversity Services
Acknowledgements
Various people have assisted us prior to and during monitoring and provided advice during preparation of this report. We would particularly like to thank the following people for their advice, logistical support and field assistance.
¾ Sue Carter (Heathgate Resources): Senior Environmental Adviser ¾ David Hunt (Heathgate Resources): Environmental Adviser ¾ Ping Goodwin (Heathgate Resources): Environmental Adviser ¾ David Sumner (Heathgate Resources): Environmental Technician ¾ Keith Bellchambers (Ardeotis Biological Consultants): Ornithologist ¾ Peter Copley (SA DEH): Senior Ecologist, Threatened Species and Communities ¾ Cath Kemper (SA Museum): Curator of Mammals ¾ David Stemmer (SA Museum):Collection Manager (Parasitology/Vertebrates) ¾ Mark Hutchinson (SA Museum): Curator of Reptiles and Amphibians ¾ Terry Reardon (SA Museum): Technical Officer (Bat Specialist) ¾ Reece Pedler (SA Arid Lands NRM Board): Community Fauna Recovery Officer
Four Mile Prospect Baseline Fauna Survey i April 2008, Version 1.1
Environmental and Biodiversity Services
Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION...... 3
1.1 REGIONAL CONTEXT...... 4
1.2 CLIMATE ...... 4
1.3 PREVIOUS FAUNA SURVEYS ...... 7
2.0 METHODS ...... 8
2.1 BASELINE SURVEY...... 8
2.2 SURVEY TECHNIQUES...... 8
3.0 RESULTS...... 11
3.1 SITE DESCRIPTIONS...... 11
3.2 TRAPPING EFFORT ...... 13
3.3 MAMMALS ...... 15
3.4 REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS...... 19
3.5 BIRDS ...... 23
4.0 DISCUSSION ...... 28
4.1 SURVEY LIMITATIONS...... 28
4.2 MAMMALS ...... 28
4.3 REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS...... 30
4.4 BIRDS ...... 30
4.5 POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED FOUR MILE PROSPECT ...... 32
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 33
6.0 REFERENCES...... 34
7.0 APPENDICES ...... 36
APPENDIX 1 SITE PHOTOS...... 37
ii Four Mile Prospect Baseline Fauna Survey April 2008, Version 1.1
Environmental and Biodiversity Services
Tables
TABLE 1. WEATHER DATA OBTAINED FROM THE BEVERLEY URANIUM MINE WEATHER STATION
DURING THE FOUR MILE PROSPECT BASELINE SURVEY...... 5
TABLE 2. MONTHLY AND YEARLY RAINFALL RECORDS FROM 2000 - 2007...... 6
TABLE 3. SITE DESCRIPTIONS, LOCATIONS AND ASSOCIATED HABITAT AT EACH TRAPPING SITE... 11
TABLE 4. TRAP EFFORT FOR THE OCTOBER 2007 FOUR MILE PROSPECT BASELINE FAUNA
SURVEY ...... 13
TABLE 5. HARP TRAPPING AND MIST NETTING EFFORT, OCTOBER 2007 ...... 13
TABLE 6. SPOTLIGHTING EFFORT ...... 144
TABLE 7. MAMMALS DETECTED DURING THE OCTOBER 2007 FOUR MILE PROSECT BASELINE
FAUNA SURVEY ...... 177
TABLE 8. MAMMALS DETECTED OPPORTUNISTICALLY DURING OCTOBER 2007 FOUR MILE
PROSPECTFAUNA SURVEY ...... 178
TABLE 9. REPTILES DETECTED DURING THE OCTOBER 2007 FOUR MILE PROSPECT BASELINE
FAUNA SURVEY ...... 211
TABLE 10. REPTILES OBSERVED OPPORTUNISTICALLY DURING THE OCTOBER 2007 FOUR MILE
PROSPECT BASELINE FAUNA SURVEY ...... 222
TABLE 11. REPTILES SPECIES NOT RECORDED WITHIN THE 2007 FOUR MILE PROSPECT BASELINE
FAUNA SURVEY BUT KNOWN TO OCCUR WITHIN THE PROJECT VICINITY ...... 222
TABLE 12. BIRDS DETECTED DURING THE OCTOBER 2007 FOUR MILE PROSPECT BASELINE
FAUNA SURVEY ...... 244
TABLE 13. BIRDS DETECTED OPPORTUNISTICALLY DURING THE OCTOBER 2007 FOUR MILE
PROSPECT BASELINE FAUNA SURVEY ...... 25
TABLE 14. BIRD SPECIES NOT RECORDED WITHIN THE 2007 FOUR MILE PROSPECT BASELINE
FAUNA SURVEY BUT KNOWN TO OCCUR WITHIN THE PROJECT VICINITY ...... 266
FIGURES
FIGURE 1. 2007 MONTHLY RAINFALL FOR THE BEVERLEY MINE SITE...... 6
FIGURE 2. LOCATION OF THE TRAPPING SITES FOR THE FOUR MILE PROSPECT BASELINE FAUNA
SURVEY...... 12
FIGURE 3. COMPARISON OF SPECIES DIVERSITY ACROSS THE FAUNA SURVEY SITES FOR THE FOUR
MILE PROSPECT BASELINE FAUNA SURVEY...... 27
iii Four Mile Prospect Baseline Fauna Survey April 2008, Version 1.1
Environmental and Biodiversity Services
Executive Summary
This document reports on the baseline fauna survey undertaken for the Four Mile Prospect. The project was undertaken by Environmental and Biodiversity Services (EBS) for Quasar Resources Pty Ltd from October 22nd – 29th 2007. A number of trapping techniques were used, including Pitfall, Elliott, cage and harp traps. Active searching, spotlighting, mist nets and AnaBat detectors were also used. Bird surveys were undertaken at all trapping sites and any opportunistic sightings of fauna and their locations were noted. Trapping sites were left open for four nights.
Nine mammal species were directly observed or captured at the Four Mile Prospect survey sites. Eight bat species were detected using Anabat detectors across the survey sites with all species being confidently identified from at least one survey site. No conservation significant species were observed. The most commonly recorded species was the Fat-tailed Dunnart (Sminthopsis crassicaudata) and the least commonly detected species, were Dingoes (Canis lupus dingo), Euros (Macropus robustus), and Echidnas (Tachyglossus aculeatus). The nationally vulnerable Dusky Hopping Mouse (Notomys fuscus) was recorded during the 2007 annual fauna monitoring within the Beverley Mine area. Four specimens of this species were recorded within similar habitat to that located within the Four Mile Prospect area.
Fifteen reptile species were detected at the monitoring sites and four were noted opportunistically. The total number of reptile species observed was 16. No conservation significant reptiles were observed, however the Desert Trilling Frog (Neobatrachus centralis), a new species record for Beverley, was detected at FOU008. Eyrean Earless Dragons (Tympanocryptis tetraporophora) were the most commonly caught species. Several species were detected once, including the Desert Wall Skink (Cryptoblepharus plagiocephalus), Mueller’s Lerista (Lerista muelleri), Common Snake-eye (Morethia boulengeri) and Smooth Knob-tailed Gecko (Nephrurus levis). One species of state conservation significance, the rare Common Bandy-bandy (Vermicella annulata), was recorded, by Heathgate Resources staff, after the fauna survey had been completed. The deceased specimen was found within the Four Mile Prospect and has not been previously recorded during the annual fauna monitoring of the Beverley Uranium Mine.
Thirty-seven bird species were observed or detected at the monitoring sites and 20 species were observed or detected opportunistically, bringing the overall bird species total to 37. No conservation significant birds were detected, however Rainbow Bee-eaters (Merops ornatus), an EPBC-listed Migratory species, was detected at FOU008. The most commonly observed species were Galahs (Cacatua roseicapilla) and Little Corellas (Cacatua sanguinea). The least observed species, with each only being detected once, were
1 Four Mile Prospect Baseline Fauna Survey April 2008, Version 1.1
Environmental and Biodiversity Services
the Inland Thornbill (Acanthiza apicalis), Grey Shrike-thrush (Colluricincla harmonica), White-winged Triller (Lalage tricolor) and Common Bronzewing (Phaps chalcoptera).
It is known that at least one species of state conservation significance occurs within the Four Mile Prospect area. The Common Bandy-bandy (Vermicillea annulata), listed as state rare, has been recorded within the project area (after the current survey). One species of national conservation significance, the nationally vulnerable Dusky Hopping-mouse (Notomys fuscus), has recently been recorded adjacent to the Four Mile Prospect area. However, the project area does not contain the preferred habitat (sand dunes) and it is likely that the recently discovered species is a transient population. It is considered that the project will not have a significant impact on the fauna species within the region.
It is recommended that vegetation and habitat disturbance be kept to a minimum and that the impact on the minor and major creek line areas is minmised. It is also recommended that the existing annual fauna monitoring program at the Beverley Mine be expanded to incorporate the Four Mile Prospect.
2 Four Mile Prospect Baseline Fauna Survey April 2008, Version 1.1
Environmental and Biodiversity Services
1.0 Introduction
Environmental and Biodiversity Services (EBS) undertook a baseline fauna survey within the proposed Four Mile Creek mining area. The project was undertaken for Quasar Resources Pty Ltd and the field survey was undertaken between the 22nd of Oct and 29th of Oct 2007. Annual fauna monitoring has been conducted within the Beverley Uranium Mine since the installation of permanent fauna trapping sites in 1996 (Gunninah Environmental Consultants 1997), whilst annual fauna monitoring has just commenced within the Beverley Expansion area (baseline survey undertaken in 2006, follow-up monitoring in 2007).
To ensure that trapping effort and methods are consistent at all trapping sites across the Beverley Mine, Beverley Expansion area and the proposed Four Mile Prospect mine area, the sites were installed and trapping conducted in accordance with the South Australian Department for Environment and Heritage (SA DEH) vertebrate survey guidelines (as per Owens 2000). It is imperative that this methodology and trapping effort are maintained in future monitoring years, to enable accurate examinations of fluctuations in faunal assemblages among years. Several years (3-5) of monitoring data coupled with a comparison of rainfall data will be required before changes can be detected.
The objectives of the 2007 baseline fauna survey and report were to: • Undertake a baseline fauna survey to determine the species present within the Four Mile Prospect; • Set up permanent fauna monitoring sites for ongoing annual monitoring; • Produce a document detailing the findings of the baseline survey and assess the potential impacts of the proposed mine and mining activities on fauna species, particularly those of conservation significance; • Provide recommendations to ensure that any possible impacts on fauna species are minimized.
3 Four Mile Prospect Baseline Fauna Survey April 2008, Version 1.1
Environmental and Biodiversity Services
1.1 Regional context
Beverley Uranium Mine is located approximately 600 km north of Adelaide in the Flinders and Olary subregions of the Flinders Lofty Block Bioregion (Neagle 2003) in the South Australian rangelands on the North Olary Plains. These subregions are characterised by a chain of mountains and hills extending into arid gibber plains in the north (where the Beverley Uranium Mine is located). Characteristic habitat types of this region have been described by Neagle (2003) and Brandle (2001).
The survey sites within the Four Mile Prospect are located within the following habitats:
• Tall Shrubland adjacent a minor creekline with Dead Finish (Acacia tetragonophylla), Elegant Wattle (A. victoriae), Emu-bush (Eremophila spp.), and Senna (Senna spp). FOU001 FOU007 • Major Ephemeral Creek Line (Four Mile Creek) associated with Inland Paper-bark (Melaleuca glomerata) thickets and River Red Gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) Woodlands. FOU006 FOU008 • Gibber Plain with Saltbush (Atriplex spp.), Bindyi (Scleroleana spp.) and Bluebush (Maireana spp.) herbland and shrublands. Mitchell Grass (Astrebla pectinata) would be a dominant species in this habitat when climatic conditions are suitable. FOU002 FOU003 FOU004 FOU005
The main land-uses in this bioregion include pastoralism and in particular cattle grazing. Several conservation reserves are present in the area, the largest of which include Flinders Ranges National Park, the Gammon Ranges National Park and Nantawarrina Indigenous Protected Area. Other land-uses include mining, with the Leigh Creek coal fields and Beverley Uranium Mine both operating in the region (Neagle 2003).
1.2 Climate
The arid zone tends to experience erratic rainfall, which rarely follows predictable annual patterns and includes some of the driest regions in South Australia (South Australian Arid Lands NRM Board 2007). Data obtained from the Beverley weather station indicate that
4 Four Mile Prospect Baseline Fauna Survey April 2008, Version 1.1
Environmental and Biodiversity Services
average quarterly temperatures have ranged from 14.1°C to 45.8°C in the past eight years. Most rainfall is generally experienced in the winter/autumn months, though substantial summer rainfall events can also occur (Table 2). Higher than average rainfall was recorded in May 2007 (44.60 mm over seven days of rain), which would have influenced the abundance and diversity of faunal species during the October/November monitoring to some extent (Figure 1; Table 2). During the four months prior to the fauna survey being undertaken with no rain was recorded for three months and 0.4mm recorded in one month (August). The good rains experienced in May were not followed up with subsequent rain which would have been ideal for fauna species, their habitat and the available resources. A total of 96mm of rain fell for the entire 2007 calendar year and less than 115mm of rain has fallen annually for the last seven years (Table 2).
Weather conditions during the 2007 survey were mild to warm with some rainfall experienced (see Table 1). This rainfall influenced the types of species observed during the survey to some degree, as indicated by the presence of an amphibian, the Desert Trilling Frog (Neobatrachus centralis).
Table 1. Weather data obtained from the Beverley Uranium Mine weather station at 9.00am each day for the previous 24 hours.
Total Min Temp Max Temp Ave Ave Wind Date Rainfall °C °C Humidity % Speed m/s (mm) 22/10/2007 25.4 37.0 12.8 4.8 0 23/10/2007 19.1 35.1 33.2 3.8 1.4 24/10/2007 14.6 22.0 86.0 4.1 10.8 25/10/2007 13.1 21.0 65.7 5.9 0 26/10/2007 14.6 25.0 48.0 3.3 0 27/10/2007 17.8 30.9 21.2 2.8 0 28/10/2007 18.0 37.9 21.7 8.4 0 29/10/2007 12.0 28.5 20.2 4.3 0
5 Four Mile Prospect Baseline Fauna Survey April 2008, Version 1.1
Environmental and Biodiversity Services
Table 2. Monthly and yearly rainfall records from 2000 - 2007.
Rainfall per month (mm) Total Year rainfall Jan Feb March April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec (mm) 2000 0 66.5 8.5 35.5 17.5 20 0 5 2.5 32.5 0 7.5 195.5 2001 0 15 12.5 0 0 42.5 2.5 0 2.5 30 0 2.5 107.5 2002 17.5 5 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 7.5 33.5 73.5 2003 0 37.5 0 11.5 0 3 9 25.5 2.5 13 10.5 0.5 113.0 2004 1.5 6 0 0 8 17 0.3 9 44.5 0 6.5 9 101.75 2005 0 0 0 0 0 16 37 0.5 28.5 15.5 2 0 99.5 2006 14.5 7.5 2.5 14 0 2 32.5 0 0 2.5 4 1 80.5 2007 11.2 0 4.4 2.2 44.6 0 0 0.4 0 13 11.6 8.6 96.0
50.0 45.0
40.0
35.0
30.0
25.0
(mm) Rainfall 20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Month
Figure 1. 2007 monthly rainfall for the Beverley Mine Site.
6 Four Mile Prospect Baseline Fauna Survey April 2008, Version 1.1
Environmental and Biodiversity Services
1.3 Previous fauna surveys
A number of fauna surveys have been undertaken within the Beverley area as part of the existing Beverley Uranium Mine and the Beverley Uranium Mine Expansion. The initial baseline survey for the Beverley Mine was undertaken in 1996 whilst ongoing annual fauna monitoring has been undertaken since 2000 (Gunninah 1997; Fatchen 2000, 2001, 2002; Tattersall 2003; Carter 2004, 2005; EBS 2006, 2007). The baseline fauna survey for the Beverley Mine Expansion was undertaken in 2006 (EBS 2006) with the first monitoring event undertaken in spring 2007 (EBS 2007).
As a result of the amount of survey effort, extensive datasets, of fauna species known to occur in different habitats within the area, exist. Therefore, detailed knowledge of the species likely to occur within the Four Mile Prospect are known and can be utilised when assessing possible impacts on fauna species, particularly those of conservation significance.
7 Four Mile Prospect Baseline Fauna Survey April 2008, Version 1.1
Environmental and Biodiversity Services
2.0 Methods 2.1 Baseline survey
The baseline fauna survey for the Beverley Four Mile project area was undertaken over an eight day period from October 22nd – 29th 2007. A number of survey techniques were used to ensure a comprehensive coverage of species that occur in the survey area (detailed below). Eight trapping sites were installed during the survey. Two pitfall lines (line A and line B) were installed at each site, along with 30 Elliott traps and four cage traps. Traps were checked for fauna and bait replaced (if necessary) each day in the morning and the late afternoon. Each site was opened for four nights.
The trapping and fauna detection methods used were based on the standard biological survey methodology developed by the South Australian Department for Environment and Heritage (refer to Owens 2000). Pitfall, Elliott, and cage traps were used at the trapping sites; harp traps and mist nets were used at suitable selected sites within the monitoring area. Active searching, spotlighting and AnaBat detectors were also used to detect fauna. Bird surveys were undertaken by an ornithologist at each site. Any opportunistic sightings of fauna and their locations were also noted.
The annual monitoring was conducted under the following licences and permits: • Scientific Research Permit No. M25542 -1 (Department for Environment and Heritage) • Wildlife Ethics Committee Permit No. 5/2006 (Wildlife Ethics Committee) • Scientific Licence No. 158 (Animal Welfare, National Parks and Wildlife SA)
2.2 Survey techniques
Pitfall traps Six pitfalls were installed at each trap-line. Pitfalls consisted of PVC piping with a 150mm diameter and 400mm depth. Square pieces of metal mesh were attached to the bottom of each trap to act as the base and allow for water drainage during rainfall events. A 60m length of drift-net fence (metal mesh approximately 300mm high) was placed over the centre of each trap and connected the traps.
Elliott traps Elliott traps are small aluminium traps approximately 330mm long, 100mm high and 90mm wide. Each Elliott trap-line consisted of 15 traps spaced at approximately 10m apart. These lines were installed approximately 30m from and paralell with the pitfall trap-lines. A small
8 Four Mile Prospect Baseline Fauna Survey April 2008, Version 1.1
Environmental and Biodiversity Services
bolus of peanut butter, rolled oats and linseed oil was placed in all Elliott traps as bait. Elliott traps were left open day and night. In extreme weather conditions or if there was little cover for the traps, Elliotts were closed during the day.
Cage traps Four cage traps were set at each site. Cage traps were placed approximately 10 m from either end of each pitfall trap line. Cage traps were baited with the same mixture used for Elliott traps and left open day and night. The cage traps were also closed during hot weather.
Harp traps, AnaBat Detectors and Mist Nets Harp traps were placed in ‘fly-ways’ (corridors formed by vegetation down which bats will fly) at sites that had previously been surveyed for bats. Additionally, a mist net was used at Four Mile Dam to capture bats as they flew over the water. An AnaBat detector was used once at each of the monitoring sites, with the AnaBat detector recording bat calls from early evening until early the following morning.
Bird survey Bird species diversity and abundance was assessed at all sites. Surveys at the trapping sites consisted of a combination of slow walking and occasional stopping. All species seen or heard during these surveys were recorded. Sites were surveyed for a total of two hours, for one hour in the morning and one hour in the afternoon. Additionally, a short period of time was spent at sites on one night to listen for nocturnal species that may be present and 1-2 hour spotlight surveys were also conducted on several nights. Opportunistic observations of bird species were also noted.
Active searching Active searching (during the day) was used as an additional method to locate fauna (particularly reptiles) by actively looking for fauna underneath shrubs, in holes and under leaf litter. A minimum of 1 hour was spent actively searching each site.
Spotlighting Spotlighting, both on foot (with handheld spotlights) and from the car, was undertaken. The spotlighting was undertaken at several locations, primarily along Four Mile Creek or along the tracks within the project area. All species detected were recorded. Spotlighting was undertaken in the first two hours after sunset.
Opportunistic observations Opportunistic observations are classified as chance sightings of animals, which are not premeditated through trap captures or active searching. Opportunistic observations of all fauna observed in the survey area were noted and their location recorded with a GPS unit.
9 Four Mile Prospect Baseline Fauna Survey April 2008, Version 1.1
Environmental and Biodiversity Services
Specimen identification Each animal caught in a trap or observed when actively searching was, where possible, identified at the point of capture. If the animal could be identified to species level it was marked and released immediately. Several reptiles were more difficult to identify and were kept overnight to allow correct identification. Animals kept overnight were released at the point of capture at an appropriate time for that species. As a requirement of the survey’s Scientific Permit, voucher specimens were taken for some fauna species captured. For those animals which were euthanized, a liver sample was taken and the carcass placed in formalin (for mammals) or setting trays (reptiles). At the end of the field survey, voucher specimens were taken to the South Australian Museum to confirm identification and to provide the museum with valuable biological data.
10 Four Mile Prospect Baseline Fauna Survey April 2008, Version 1.1
Environmental and Biodiversity Services
3.0 Results
3.1 Site descriptions
The eight sites consisted of three main vegetation associations and landforms; these are described in Table 3. Figure 2 shows the locations of each trapping site for the Four Mile Prospect baseline fauna survey. Photos of each survey site are provided in Appendix 1.
The dominant landform within the survey area is the gibber plains which are dominated by a Sclerolaena spp. Low Open Herbland. Four Mile Creek is located within the project area and is a large ephemeral creek dominated by Red Gums (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) and Inland Paperbark (Melaleuca glomerata). Four Mile Creek is generally a sandy creekline, however, large areas of river stone are present. Numerous minor drainage lines join into the Four Mile Creek. The minor drainage lines are mixed in their composition with several containing low open chenopod shrublands and others containing Dead Finish (Acacia tetragonaphylla) low shrublands. The minor drainage lines and associated vegetation are generally narrow (<50m) and the shrubs within the minor drainage lines can be quite patchy in distribution.
Table 3. Site descriptions, locations and associated habitat at each trapping site
Site Name Trap line Zone Easting Northing Habitat A 54 J 359443 6662216 Acacia tetragonaphylla Low FOU001 Shrubland adjacent a minor B 54 J 359510 6662072 drainage line A 54 J 358569 6663059 Sclerolaena spp. Low Open FOU002 Herbland on gibber plains B 54 J 358555 6663220 A 54 J 358017 6664148 Sclerolaena spp. Low Open FOU003 Herbland on gibber plains B 54 J 358052 6664244 A 54 J 356219 6664908 Sclerolaena spp. Low Open FOU004 Herbland on gibber plains B 54 J 356293 6664825 A 54 J 356172 6663291 Sclerolaena spp. Low Open FOU005 Herbland on gibber plains B 54 J 356133 6663262 A 54 J 355166 6663845 Melaleuca glomerata Very Open FOU006 Woodland adjacent a major B 54 J 355195 6663771 creekline A 54 J 355083 6662824 Acacia tetragonaphylla Low FOU007 Shrubland adjacent a minor B 54 J 355092 6662806 drainage line A 54 J 358416 6661626 Melaleuca glomerata Very Open FOU008 Woodland adjacent a major B 54 J 358345 6661720 creekline
11 Four Mile Prospect Baseline Fauna Survey April 2008, Version 1.1
Environmental and Biodiversity Services
Figure 2. Location of the trapping sites for the Four Mile Prospect baseline fauna survey.
12 Four Mile Prospect Baseline Fauna Survey April 2008, Version 1.1
Environmental and Biodiversity Services
3.2 Trapping effort
Each trapping site was left open for four nights (Table 4). Spotlighting was undertaken at several sites when weather conditions permitted (Table 5). All sites were actively searched for reptiles during the day for a minimum of one hour. AnaBat detectors were placed at each trapping site for one night and each site was surveyed for birds for one hour in the morning and in the afternoon. Additionally, a harp trap was set at two suitable sites for four nights each and mist netting was undertaken for one hour at Four Mile Dam.
Table 4 . Trap effort for the October 2007 Four Mile Baseline Fauna Survey
Site Elliott trap Pitfall traps Cage traps Day Bat Bird search detector survey Nights Trap Nights Trap Nights Trap nights nights nights hours nights hours FOU001 4 120 4 48 4 8 1.5 1 2 FOU002 4 120 4 48 4 8 1.5 1 2 FOU003 4 120 4 48 4 8 1.5 1 2 FOU004 4 120 4 48 4 8 1.5 1 2 FOU005 4 120 4 48 4 8 1.5 0 2 FOU006 4 120 4 48 4 8 2.25 1 2 FOU007 4 120 4 48 4 8 1 1 2 FOU008 4 120 4 48 4 8 1.5 1 2 Total 32 960 32 384 32 64 12.25 7 16
Table 5 . Harp trapping and mist netting effort, October 2007
Harp trap Site Mist net hours nights Four Mile Creek *54J 357247E, 6666354N 4 0 Four Mile Dam *54J 358933E, 6661624N 4 2 Total 8 2 *GPS datum = WGS ‘84
13 Four Mile Prospect Baseline Fauna Survey April 2008, Version 1.1
Environmental and Biodiversity Services
Table 6 . Spotlighting effort
Date Location Hours Spotlighting Weather conditions description 25/10/07 Four Mile Dam 2 On foot Mild, breezy 25/10/07 Four Mile Dam to Vehicle Mild, breezy 1.5 E&D Camp 26/10/07 Four Mile Creek On foot Mild, breezy 1 North 26/10/07 FOU003 1 On foot Mild, breezy Total 5.5
14 Four Mile Prospect Baseline Fauna Survey April 2008, Version 1.1
Environmental and Biodiversity Services
3.3 Mammals
Nine mammal species and 56 individuals were captured or directly observed at the Four Mile Prospect survey sites (Table 7). A further eight bat species were detected at the survey sites using the Anabat detectors (Table 7), however, the number of individuals cannot be quantified using this survey method. Three species and four individuals were detected opportunistically (Table 7). No conservation significant species were observed. The most commonly recorded species was the Fat- tailed Dunnart (Sminthopsis crassicaudata) with 23 individuals detected (Plate 2). The least commonly detected species, with each only being detected once, were the Dingo (Canis lupus dingo), Euro (Macropus robustus) and Echidna (Tachyglossus aculeatus) (Plate 1).
FOU007 had the highest species diversity with nine species detected, followed by FOU001 with seven species (five bat species) detected (Table 6; Figure 3). FOU005 had the lowest species diversity with five species being recorded, however, no Anabat detectors were used at the site, thereby reducing the survey effort (Table 7; Figure 3).
As the number of individual bats cannot be determined from the Anabat detector, the bat data has been left out of the summary in relation to the abundance of different species. FOU001 had the lowest mammal abundance with only two individuals observed or captured and only four individuals were detected at FOU006. FOU002 had the highest fauna abundance with 10 individuals detected (mostly Fat-tailed Dunnarts), followed by FOU005 where nine individuals were detected (also mostly Fat-tailed Dunnarts).
FOU006 had the highest number of bat species detected using the Anabat detectors with a total of five species identified to a confident level (Table 7). FOU001 and FOU007 both had four species detected whilst FOU002 had the lowest number of species detected with only two recorded. Two species (Nytophilus geoffroyi at site FOU03 and Scotorepens balstoni at site FOU001) were recorded as probable identification as the calls were either a slightly altered sequence or varied in frequency compared to other calls recorded from the same species. All eight bat species identified from the Anabat detector are listed as being a confident identification for at least one site across the survey sites.
The diversity of mammal species did not vary between the three different broad habitat groups (Figure 3). The minor drainage lines had a slightly higher diversity compared to other habitat groups, but the differences are seen as minor (e.g. minor drainage lines had 2-3 more species than other sites). Interestingly, the sites within Four Mile Creek did not have a higher diversity of mammal species, particularly bat species, as expected. The reason for this is likely to be the location of the survey sites and the low frequency of River Red Gums (Eucalyptus camaldulensis). The majority of the River Red Gums, within the surveyed section of Four Mile Creek, did not contain hollows. This would therefore reduce the diversity of species, particularly bats, that utilise the area. The bats
15 Four Mile Prospect Baseline Fauna Survey April 2008, Version 1.1
Environmental and Biodiversity Services
recorded at other sites are likely to have flown in from further down Four Mile Creek which contains larger River Red Gums with numerous hollows.
Mammals previously recorded or known to occur in the vicinity of the project area but were not recorded during the current baseline survey include the Sandy Inland Mouse (Pseudomys hermannsburgensis) and the nationally vulnerable Dusky Hoppping-mouse (Notomys fuscus) and (EBS 2007). The Western Grey Kangaroo (Macropus fuliginosus) and Feral Cat (Felis catus) were also not recorded during the current survey.
Plate 1: Echidna Plate 2: Fat-tailed Dunnarts
16 Four Mile Prospect Baseline Fauna Survey April 2008, Version 1.1
Environmental and Biodiversity Services
Table 7 . Mammals detected during the October 2007 Four Mile Prospect Baseline Fauna Survey
Species Name Common Name Total Total FOU001 FOU002 FOU003 FOU004 FOU005 FOU006 FOU007 FOU008
1xTr
Canis lupus dingo Dingo 2 1 Chalinolobus gouldii Gould’s Wattled Bat A A A 3 Chalinolobus morio Chocolate Wattled Bat A 1 Leggadina forresti Forrest's Mouse 2 2 Macropus robustus Euro 1 1 Macropus rufus Red Kangaroo 1 1 1 3 Mormopterus sp. 3 or 4 Southern Freetail-bats A A A A A A A 7 *Mus musculus House Mouse 1 4 1 2 3 11 Nyctophilus geoffroyi Lesser Long-eared Bat A? A A 2 1xDi, *Oryctolagus cuniculus European Rabbit 1 1xSc 4 1 Scotorepens balstoni Inland Broad-nosed Bat A? A 2 Sminthopsis crassicaudata Fat-tailed Dunnart 8 3 6 4 2 23 Sminthopsis macroura Stripe-faced Dunnart 1 1 1 2 2 2 9 Tachyglossus aculeatus Echidna 1 1 Tadarida australis White-striped Freetail-bat A 1 Vespadelus baverstocki Inland Forest Bat A A A A 4 Vespadelus finlaysoni Finalyson’s Cave Bat A A A A 4 Total site observations 7 12 11 11 9 9 11 10 80 Total species for site 7 5 6 6 4 5 9 5 17 *Exotic species; Tr = track, species counted only, not abundance; SC = scat, species counted only, not abundance; Di = digging, species counted only, not abundance; A = Anabat confident identification; A? = Anabat probable identification
17 Four Mile Prospect Baseline Fauna Survey April 2008, Version 1.1
Species Name Common Name Total Total 25/10/2007 26/10/2007
Macropus rufus Red Kangaroo 1 1 2 Nyctophilus geoffroyi Lesser Long-eared Bat 1 1 *Oryctolagus cuniculus Rabbit 1 1 Total observations for site 1 3 4 Total species for site 1 3 3 *Exotic species Environmental and Biodiversity Services
3.4 Reptiles and amphibians
Fifteen species and 46 individuals were detected at the monitoring sites (Table 9). Four species and five individuals were noted opportunistically (Table 10). Sixteen species were detected overall during the survey period. No conservation significant species were observed.
The most commonly observed species were the Eyrean Earless Dragon (Tympanocryptis tetraporophora) (Plate 4) with 14 individuals detected and Tree Dtellas (Gehyra variegata) with six individuals detected. Several species were only detected once, including the Desert Wall Skink (Cryptoblepharus plagiocephalus), Mueller’s Lerista (Lerista muelleri), Common Snake-eye (Morethia boulengeri) and Smooth Knob-tailed Gecko (Nephrurus levis).
FOU008 and FOU007 had the highest species diversity with six species detected overall, followed by FOU006 (five species detected) (Table 9; Figure 3). FOU007 also had the highest abundance of individuals with 12 individuals detected (mostly Tree Dtellas), followed by FOU008 with seven individuals detected. Only one species was detected at FOU004, and only two at FOU003 and FOU002 (Table 9; Figure 3). FOU004 also had the lowest abundance of individuals with only two detected followed by FOU002 with three individuals detected.
The diversity of reptiles was generally lower at the gibber sites compared to the minor and major drainage line sites (Figure 3). The diversity of habitat within the gibber sites is generally lower with very little cover present. This reduces the available refuges and promotes the species more adapted to living within relatively bare gibber plain areas. Additionally, some habitat features, such as leaf litter, are not present within the gibber plain areas, therefore reducing the number of species likely to be recorded at the gibber sites.
An additional seventeen species have been previously recorded within close proximity to the Four Mile Prospect Baseline Fauna Survey project area (Beverley Mine and Mine Extension areas) which were not recorded in the current survey (Table 11). These species include large elapids (Western Brown Snake and Mulga Snake) as well four gecko species. Suitable habitat occurs within the Four Mile project area for these species to occur, however, it is likely that either weather conditions did not promote activity in some species (e.g. large elapids and geckos) or the species occur at low densities in the area and therefore were not detected. In addition to the species recorded or likely to occur on site, a Common Bandy-bandy (Vermicella annulata) was recorded, after the current survey was completed, within the Four Mile project area (Hunt, D. pers. comm.). The Common Bandy-bandy is listed as being rare at the state level and has not been previously recorded within close proximity to the project site. The specimen was recorded at 358957E; 6664200N (GDA 94, Zone 54).
19 Four Mile Prospect Baseline Fauna Survey April 2008, Version 1.1
Environmental and Biodiversity Services
Plate 3: Desert Trilling Frog Plate 4: Eyrean Earless Dragon
20 Four Mile Prospect Baseline Fauna Survey April 2008, Version 1.1
Environmental and Biodiversity Services
Table 9 . Reptiles detected during the October 2007 Four Mile Prospect Baseline Fauna Survey.
Species Name Common Name Total Total FOU001 FOU002 FOU003 FOU004 FOU005 FOU006 FOU007 FOU008
Cryptoblepharus plagiocephalus Desert Wall skink 1 1 Ctenotus leonhardi Common Desert Ctenotus 3 1 4 Ctenotus olympicus Saltbush Ctenotus 2 2 Ctenotus robustus Eastern Striped Skink 2 1 3 Diplodactylus tessellatus Tessellated Gecko 1 1 2 Gehyra variegata Tree Dtella 5 1 6 Heteronotia binoei Bynoe's Gecko 1 1 2 Lerista muelleri Mueller’s Lerista 1 1 Menetia greyii Dwarf Skink 1 1 2 Morethia boulengeri Common Snake-eye 1 1 Neobatrachus centralis Desert Trilling Frog 2 2 Nephrurus levis Smooth Knob-tailed Gecko 1 1 Pogona vitticeps Central Bearded Dragon 1 1 2 Strophurus ciliaris Northern Spiny-tailed Gecko 2 2 Tiliqua rugosa Sleepy Lizard 1 1 Tympanocryptis tetraporophora Eyrean Earless Dragon 1 2 4 2 3 2 14 Total observations for site 6 3 5 2 5 6 12 7 46 Total species for site 3 2 2 1 3 5 6 6 15
21 Four Mile Prospect Baseline Fauna Survey April 2008, Version 1.1
Environmental and Biodiversity Services
Table 10. Reptiles observed opportunistically during the October 2007 Four Mile Prospect Baseline Fauna Survey.
Species Name Common Name Total Total 26/10/2007 28/10/2007
Ctenotus leonhardii Common Desert Ctenotus 1 1 Gehyra variegata Tree Dtella 1 1 Pogona vitticeps Central Bearded Dragon 1 1 Tiliqua rugosa Sleepy Lizard 1 1 2 Total observations 4 1 5 Total species 4 1 4
Table 11. Reptiles species not recorded in the 2007 Four Mile Prospect Baseline Fauna Survey but known to occur within the project vicinity.
Species Name Common Name
Ctenophorous nuchalis Central Netted Dragon Ctenotus regius Eastern Desert Ctenotus Ctenotus schomburgkii Sandplain Ctenotus Delma tincta Black-necked Snake-lizard Demansia psammophis Yellow-faced Whipsnake Diplodactylus byrnei Gibber Gecko Diplodactylus damaeus Beaded Gecko Eremiascincus richardsonii Broad-banded Sandswimmer Lerista labialis Eastern Two-toed Slider Lerista punctatovittata Spotted Slider Pseudechis australis Mulga Snake Psuedonaja nuchalis Western Brown Snake Rhynchoedura ornata Beaked Gecko Strophurus intermedius Southern Spiny-tailed Gecko Suta suta Curl Snake Tympanocryptis intima Smoot-snouted Earless Dragon Varanus gouldii Gould's Sand Goanna
22 Four Mile Prospect Baseline Fauna Survey April 2008, Version 1.1
Environmental and Biodiversity Services
3.5 Birds
Thirty-seven species and 456 individuals were observed or detected at the monitoring sites (Table 12). Twenty species and 77 individuals were observed or detected opportunistically (Table 13). Overall, 38 species and 533 individuals were observed. No birds of conservation significant species were detected, however the Rainbow Bee-eater (Merops ornatus), an EPBC-listed Migratory species, was detected at FOU008. The most commonly observed species were Galahs (Cacatua roseicapilla) with 98 individuals observed and Little Corellas (Cacatua sanguinea) with 70 individuals detected. The least observed species, with each only being detected once, were the Inland Thornbill (Acanthiza apicalis), Grey Shrike-thrush (Colluricincla harmonica), White-winged Triller (Lalage tricolor) and Common Bronzewing (Phaps chalcoptera).
FOU008 had the highest species diversity with 26 species detected overall, followed by FOU001 and FOU006 (11 species detected) (Table 12; Figure 3). FOU005 had the lowest species diversity (only two species were detected) followed by FOU003 and FOU004 (five species detected) (Table 12; Figure 3). FOU008 also had the highest bird abundance, with 176 individuals observed (most of these were Galahs), followed by FOU003 with 122 individuals observed (mostly Little Corellas). FOU005 had the least number of individuals with only five detected (again mostly Galahs), followed by FOU004 with only 11 individuals.
Generally, the gibber plains sites had a lower diversity of bird species compared to the minor and major drainage lines (Figure 3). The minor and major drainage line sites have comparable bird species diversity, except for one major drainage line site (FOU008) which had more than double the number of bird species compared to any other survey site. It is likely that the increased bird species in the minor and major drainage lines is due to the diversity of habitat offered within these different areas. Nesting and roosting sites are available for a broader range of bird species due to the presence of tree and shrub species and better protection from predators is offered when compared to the gibber plain sites. The gibber plain sites are generally more favourable for species which are either predominantly ground dwelling or spend time on the ground feeding.
A total of 16 additional bird species were recorded within the Beverley Mine and Mine Extension areas during the annual fauna monitoring surveys which were undertaken directly after the current Four Mile Prospect baseline survey (Table 14). This is likely to be partly due to the increased survey effort during the Beverley Mine and Mine Extension monitoring program (12 sites surveyed vs 8 in the Four Mile Prospect baseline survey). Four species recorded during the 2006 annual monitoring for the Beverley Mine were not recorded during the current baseline survey (Table 14). It is likely that several of these species (e.g. Zebra Finch) were not present due to environmental conditions or specific habitat required for a 23 Four Mile Prospect Baseline Fauna Survey April 2008, Version 1.1
Environmental and Biodiversity Services
species was not within the Four Mile project area (e.g. Little Grassbird and Clamourous Reed- warbler previously recorded within the Reedbeds area).
Table 12. Birds detected during the October 2007 Four Mile Prospect Baseline Fauna Survey
Species Name Common Name Total Total FOU001 FOU002 FOU003 FOU004 FOU005 FOU006 FOU007 FOU008
Acanthagenys rufogularis Spiny-cheeked Honeyeater 1 4 5 Acanthiza apicalis Inland Thornbill 1 1 Acanthiza uropygialis Chestnut-rumped Thornbill 2 2 3 2 9 Anthus novaeseelandiae Richard’s Pipit 3 3 1 7 Aphelocephala leucopsis Southern Whiteface 2 4 8 14 Aquila audax Wedge-tailed Eagle 2 2 4 Artamus cinereus Black-faced Woodswallow 3 5 2 3 2 15 Barnardius zonarius Australian Ringneck 3 3 6 Cacatua roseicapilla Galah 9 50 4 2 33 98 Cacatua sanguinea Little Corella 68 2 70 Cinclosoma cinnamomeum Cinnamon Quail-thrush 8 8 Colluricincla harmonica Grey Shrike-thrush 1 1 Corvus bennetti Little Crow 2 1 2 5 Dromaius novaehollandiae Emu 2 1 3 Falco cenchroides Australian Kestrel 1 1 2 Falco subniger Brown Falcon 2 2 Gymnorhina tibicen Australian Magpie 3 2 2 7 Hirundo nigricans Tree Martin 2 23 25 Lalage tricolor White-winged Triller 1 1 Lichenostomus virescens Singing Honeyeater 1 10 4 4 19 Malurus lamberti Variegated Fairy-wren 5 7 12 Malurus leucopterus White-winged Fairy-wren 2 16 18 Melanodryas cucullata Hooded Robin 6 6 Merops ornatus Rainbow Bee-eater 7 7 Milvus migrans Black Kite 1 1 2 Ocyphaps lophotes Crested Pigeon 4 2 10 16 Oreoica gutturalis Crested Bellbird 2 5 7 Pachycephala rufiventris Rufous Whistler 1 5 6 Pardalotus striatus Striated Pardalote 6 6 Petroica goodenovii Red-capped Robin 3 2 3 8 Phaps chalcoptera Common Bronzewing 1 1 Pomatostomus superciliosus White-browed Babbler 12 12 24 Psephotus varius Mulga Parrot 6 5 4 10 25 Psophodes occidentalis Chirruping Wedgebill 1 4 5 Rhipidura leucophrys Willie Wagtail 2 4 6 Smicrornis brevirostris Weebill 2 2 Todirampus pyrrhopygia Red-backed Kingfisher 3 3 Total observations for site 33 29 122 11 5 45 35 176 456 Total species for site 11 9 5 5 2 11 12 26 37 24 Four Mile Prospect Baseline Fauna Survey April 2008, Version 1.1
Environmental and Biodiversity Services
Table 13. Birds detected opportunistically during the October 2007 Four Mile Prospect Baseline Fauna Survey
Species Name Common Name Total Total Gibber plain plain Gibber Drainage line line Drainage Upper 4-Mile Creek
Acanthiza apicalis Inland Thornbill 2 2 Acanthiza uropygialis Chestnut-rumped Thornbill 2 2 Aquila audax Wedge-tailed Eagle 1 1 Cacatua roseicapilla Galah 12 12 Cacatua sanguinea Little Corella 8 8 Colluricincla harmonica Grey Shrike-thrush 1 1 Corvus bennetti Little Crow 4 4 Dromaius novaehollandiae Emu 1 1 Falco subniger Brown Falcon 1 1 Gymnorhina tibicen Australian Magpie 2 2 Hirundo nigricans Tree Martin 6 6 Lichenostomus virescens Singing Honeyeater 1 1 Malurus lamberti Variegated Fairy-wren 4 4 Malurus leucopterus White-winged Fairy-wren 20 20 Merops ornatus Rainbow Bee-eater 3 3 Pachycephala rufiventris Rufous Whistler 1 1 Petroica goodenovii Red-capped Robin 1 1 Psephotus varius Mulga Parrot 3 3 Psophodes occidentalis Chirruping Wedgebill 3 3 Rhipidura leucophrys Willie Wagtail 1 1 Total observations 18 1 1 77 Total species 93 1 1 20
25 Four Mile Prospect Baseline Fauna Survey April 2008, Version 1.1
Environmental and Biodiversity Services
Table 14. Bird species not recorded in the 2007 Four Mile Prospect Baseline Fauna Survey but known to occur within the project vicinity.
Species Name Common Name
Accipiter fasciatus Brown Goshawk Acrocephalus stentoreus Clamorous Reed-warbler Aegotheles cristatus Australian Owlet-nightjar Chrysococcyx basalis Horsefield’s Bronze-Cuckoo Corvus coronoides Australian Raven Epthianura aurifrons Orange Chat Epthianura tricolor Crimson Chat Eurostopodus argus Spotted Nightjar Grallina cyanoleuca Magpie-lark Lichenostomus penicillatus White-plumed honeyeater Manorina flavigula Yellow-throated Miner Megalurus gramineus Little Grassbird Phylidonyris albifrons White-fronted Honeyeater Pomatostomus ruficeps Chestnut-crowned Babbler Stiltia isabella Australian Pratincole Taeniopygia guttata Zebra Finch
26 Four Mile Prospect Baseline Fauna Survey April 2008, Version 1.1
Environmental and Biodiversity Services
30 Mammals Reptiles Birds
25
20
15
Species diversity Species 10
5
0 FOU001 FOU007 FOU002 FOU003 FOU004 FOU005 FOU006 FOU008 Site No. Minor Drainage Line Gibber Plains Major Drainage Line
Figure 3. Comparison of species diversity across the fauna survey sites for the Four Mile Prospect baseline fauna survey.
27 Four Mile Prospect Baseline Fauna Survey April 2008, Version 1.1
Environmental and Biodiversity Services
4.0 Discussion
4.1 Survey limitations
The presence of fauna species (particularly that of birds) will vary seasonally and in response to environmental conditions, consequently not all species that utilise the project area would have been detected during the baseline survey. However, the number of sites and survey effort, have resulted in a thorough fauna survey of the area. Additionally, previous surveys undertaken within the Beverley Mine and Mine Extensions areas also have provided extensive survey effort for the general region and provide valuable data on the species likely to occur within the current project area.
Weather conditions during this years’ baseline fauna survey were not necessarily optimal for some survey techniques. For example, during most spotlighting nights, the conditions were very windy and relatively cool, which would have reduced the activity and possibly visibility of fauna. Windy conditions are also not optimal for mist netting or harp trapping because movement of the traps (as experienced in windy conditions), make the traps more visible to bats and consequently easier for them to avoid.
Comparisons of changes in faunal abundance and species diversity in the Four Mile extension area cannot be made at this stage since the 2007 baseline survey was the first year fauna surveys have been undertaken in that area.
4.2 Mammals
As the October 2007 baseline fauna survey constitutes the beginning of ongoing monitoring in the Four Mile area, no definitive comments can be made about species abundance and diversity in 2007 in comparison to other years. However, some general observations have been noted.
No threatened species or species of conservation significance were recorded during the current survey. The diversity of mammal species across the survey sites was similar with a total of five species recorded in the gibber sites and eight species recorded in the drainage / creekline sites. Although a slightly lower diversity was recorded in the gibber sites, a higher abundance of mammals was recorded at the gibber sites. This is due to the high number of Dunnarts (Fat-tailed and Striped-faced) and House Mice recorded at these sites. The most commonly caught species during the survey was the Fat-tailed Dunnart (Sminthopsis crassicaudata), which generally inhabits the cracking clay soils present at the gibber sites. Correspondingly, Stripe-faced Dunnarts (Sminthopsis macroura), which tend to exist
28 Four Mile Prospect Baseline Fauna Survey April 2008, Version 1.1
Environmental and Biodiversity Services
sympatrically with Fat-tailed Dunnarts, were also caught quite frequently. Other species commonly caught included the introduced House Mouse, which is a habitat generalist, although it was predominantly caught within the gibber sites.
The captures of bats were very low in the Four Mile Prospect area during monitoring, with only one individual caught. However, low bat numbers can possibly be attributed to poor trapping conditions (i.e. very windy or rainy nights) and do not necessarily reflect low population numbers. The relatively high abundance and diversity of bats caught at other Beverley monitoring sites in October and November further supports this point. Additionally, good results were obtained from the Anabat Detectors utilised at the sites. A total of eight species were positively identified using this method.
The abundance of carnivores, such as Dingoes (Canis lupus dingo) was quite low during the monitoring period and Foxes (Vulpes vulpes) have not been observed within the area for a number of years (Carter, S. pers. comm.). The apparent low abundance of Dingoes can possibly be attributed to the baiting program that has been undertaken regularly at Beverley since April 2007. Local pastoralists also bait periodically and during monitoring, baiting was being undertaken on the Wooltana lease (Hunt pers. comm.). Rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) were not recorded frequently from the Four Mile area; however based on general observations they did appear to be quite abundant throughout the area. This abundance can possibly also be attributed to the baiting program, as Dingoes would normally be the main predators of this species in the area.
The nationally vulnerable Dusky Hopping Mouse (Notomys fuscus) was recorded during the 2007 annual fauna monitoring within the Beverley Mine area (EBS 2007). Three live specimens were recorded within similar habitat to that located within the Four Mile Prospect area, and one dead specimen was located prior to the survey. It is therefore possible that the species is present within the Four Mile Prospect area. The species generally habits yellow sand dune systems with Sandhill Cangegrass (Zygochloa paradoxa), Sandhill Wattle (Acacia ligulata), Nitrebush (Nitraria billardierei), Sticky Hopbush (Dodonaea viscosa) and ephemeral plants (Ehmann 2005) which are not present within the Four Mile Prospect area. The closest known sites containing this type of habitat are more than 50km north east and east of the project area.
Potentially, drought conditions in other parts of the species’ range, combined with the recent rainfall at Beverley, have hastened its range expansion or at the very least allowed a previously undetected population to increase. All of the individuals caught in October/November were male; these individuals were possibly dispersing in search of mates or other suitable habitat, further suggesting that the species is breeding in response to optimal conditions. The most recent surveys indicate that Dusky Hopping Mouse populations are
29 Four Mile Prospect Baseline Fauna Survey April 2008, Version 1.1
Environmental and Biodiversity Services
present at eight locations in the Strezlecki Desert and nearby Cobbler Sandhills in South Australia and in south-west Queensland (Moseby et al. 1999). It is possible that the species has utilised the minor and major drainage lines as dispersal corridors into the area.
The state of the Beverley population is essentially unknown. The 2007 annual surveys in the Beverley Mine and Mine Extension areas is the first time the species has been detected in the area despite a number of annual fauna surveys. Consequently it is likely that the Beverley population is an outlier population and not necessarily critical to the survival of the species. However, as the species is nationally vulnerable, it must also be considered that every individual is important for the species’ overall survival, particularly if members of the Beverley population disperse into other populations, assisting in maintaining genetic diversity for nearby populations.
4.3 Reptiles and amphibians
Reptile abundance and diversity was relatively high during monitoring. The species recorded are those that could be expected to occur in the habitats present in the Four Mile area. The Eyrean Earless Dragon was the most commonly recorded species. This species was probably the most commonly recorded because many of the site habitats (i.e. Low Open Chenopod shrubland on gibber plains) are favoured habitat for this species, with the cracking clays providing shelter (EBS 2006). It is not entirely clear why the Desert Trilling Frog has not been detected previously as the species is relatively common in the region; however its presence is probably due to the rainfall experienced during the baseline survey.
Whilst no species of state or national conservation significance were recorded during the Four Mile Prospect baseline fauna survey, one species, the Common Bandy-bandy (Vermicella annulata), was recorded by Heathgate Resources staff after the fauna survey was complete (Hunt, D. pers. comm.). The Common Bandy-bandy has a state conservation rating of rare and was recorded within the Four Mile Prospect area. This species is a habitat generalist and whilst present within the project area, it is likely to be rare throughout the area.
4.4 Birds
Bird diversity and abundance was moderately high during monitoring this year. Overall, the species recorded at Four Mile during the 2007 monitoring were those that would be expected to be common in the habitats present in the Four Mile area. Sites that had relatively dense vegetation, such as those near drainage lines (e.g. FOU001, FOU006, FOU007, FOU008), also had fairly high bird abundance and diversity. Sites on gibber plains had fewer individuals and fewer species. The influence of the nearby ranges on bird fauna was demonstrated by the species that were recorded at the Four Mile sites as opposed to further out on the stony 30 Four Mile Prospect Baseline Fauna Survey April 2008, Version 1.1
Environmental and Biodiversity Services
plains (i.e. many of the “BU” and “BEXT” sites). These species included the Crested Bellbird (Oreoica gutturalis), Hooded Robin (Melanodryas cucullata), Common Bronzewing (Phaps chalcoptera) and Inland Thornbill (Acanthiza apicalis).
No species of conservation significance were detected during this years’ monitoring, however it is likely that several state and nationally listed species use the area when the conditions are appropriate. A number of these species have been recorded in the Flinders Bioregion and may occur in the Beverley area. Based on observations by Bellchambers (pers comm. 2007), these species are:
¾ Redthroat (Sericornis brunneus): Rare SA, prefers dry shrublands on ranges and creeklines and has been recorded in similar nearby habitats in the region. ¾ Thick-billed Grasswren (Amytornis textilis): Rare SA and nationally Vulnerable, patches of potentially suitable habitat are present on the Balcanoona to Innamincka road; the species has been recorded in chenopod shrubland in the region. ¾ Slender-billed Thornbill (Acanthiza iredalei): Vulnerable in SA and nationally, tends to prefer habitat with more Bluebush (Maireana sp.) than found on the Beverley mine lease, however the species has been recorded to the west of the ranges. ¾ Chestnut-breasted Whiteface (Aphelocephala pectoralis): Rare SA, suitable habitat is not located near the mine; however the species has been recorded at sites to the north and the west of the ranges. ¾ Plains Wanderer (Pedionomus torquatus): Endangered SA and nationally Vulnerable, scattered records exist for the species from further north and south in the region. Potential habitat is present on site and in the immediate area but is probably not currently suitable to support the species on a permanent basis. Continued de-stocking and reasonable rainfall may make this habitat more suitable.
Other birds of conservation significance, which have been recorded for the region that may inhabit the area infrequently or seasonally, are the Australian Bustard (Ardeotis australis), Major Mitchell Cockatoo (Cacatua leadbeateri), Blue-winged Parrot (Neophema chrysostoma), Peregrine Falcon (Falco perigrinus), Black-breasted Buzzard (Hamirostra melanosternon) and Square-tailed Kite (Lophoictinia isura).
31 Four Mile Prospect Baseline Fauna Survey April 2008, Version 1.1
Environmental and Biodiversity Services
4.5 Potential Impacts of the proposed Four Mile Prospect
Impacts are difficult to determine when the exact nature and location of the proposed development has not been specifically defined. Semi-arid rangeland ecosystems must rely on scarce resources and critical refuge for fauna can be limited. These ecosystems are fragile and the impacts of any construction can have a lasting effect, especially on threatened species. This section lists the possible general impacts of ‘any construction activities’ that might disturb fauna or fauna habitat in the Four Mile Prospect.
The main environmental impacts of the project and the associated mining operations upon the local landscape and/or individual species include:
• Vegetation clearance • Vehicle collisions • Introduced pest species (flora and fauna) • Creation of artificial watering points • Excessive dust • Noise, vibration and light pollution
32 Four Mile Prospect Baseline Fauna Survey April 2008, Version 1.1
Environmental and Biodiversity Services
5.0 Recommendations
The following recommendations have been made to avoid or minimize the potential impacts of the Four Mile Prospect mining operations on fauna species and fauna habitat. The recommendations are:
• If possible, avoid any disturbance to the Four Mile Creek (major drainage line) and associated minor drainage lines due to their habitat value and the higher diversity of species using them;
• Keep vegetation clearance and disturbance to all vegetation to the absolute minimum required to undertake the project;
• Ensure all areas, particularly new areas, are assessed prior to vegetation clearance by Heathgate Resources environmental staff;
• Implement weed and pest animal programs as required;
• Ensure dust (created by mining activities) levels are minimised;
• Keep potential artificial watering points to a minimum and rehabilitate all small dams as soon as they have been finished with to ensure they don’t fill during rainfall events;
• Fix any leaking water pipes, regardless of size of leak, as soon as possible to reduce availability of free water;
• Monitor kangaroo and euro numbers and implement a control program if numbers increase significantly;
• Ensure lights, machinery and equipment are turned off when not being used, particularly overnight, to reduce area avoidance behaviours of fauna species;
• Undertake staff training sessions to promote the awareness of fauna species and fauna habitat within the project area and their reliance on undisturbed habitat. Also reinforce the need to minimise impacts on these species through works undertaken on site. Also ensure all drivers are aware of speed limits and that fauna species regularly cross the roads;
• Implement an annual fauna monitoring program (similar to that undertaken for the Beverley Mine and Mine Extension areas) to monitor fauna populations in the area and to assess the impacts of the mining operations on the local fauna species.
33 Four Mile Prospect Baseline Fauna Survey April 2008, Version 1.1
Environmental and Biodiversity Services
6.0 References
Brandle, R. (2001). A Biological Survey of the Flinders Ranges South Australia. Department for Environment and Heritage, Adelaide.
Carter, S. (2004). Beverley Uranium Mine Biological Monitoring, October-November 2004. Heathgate Resources Pty Ltd.
Carter, S. (2005). Biological Survey 2005 – Fauna 28 October to 3 November 2005. Heathgate Resources Pty Ltd.
Ehmann, H. (2005). South Australian Rangelands and Aboriginal Lands Wildlife Management Manual. Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation, Adelaide.
EBS. (2006a). Southern EL 3251 Fauna Survey. A report prepared by Environmental and Biodiversity Services Pty Ltd for URS Australia Ltd.
EBS. (2006b). Beverley Uranium Mine Biological Survey 2006 – Fauna. A report prepared by Environmental and Biodiversity Services Pty Ltd for Heathgate Resources Pty Ltd.
EBS. (2007). Beverley Uranium Mine Biological Survey 2007 – Fauna. Draft Report. A report prepared by Environmental and Biodiversity Services Pty Ltd for Heathgate Resources Pty Ltd.
Fatchen, T. (2000). Beverley Uranium Mine Biological Monitoring, March 2000, Fatchen Environmental Pty. Ltd.
Fatchen, T. (2001). Beverley Uranium Mine Biological Monitoring, March 2001, Fatchen Environmental Pty. Ltd.
Fatchen, T. (2003). Beverley Uranium Mine Biological Monitoring, October-November 2002, Fatchen Environmental Pty. Ltd.
Gunninah Environmental Consultants (1997). Beverley Uranium Project South Australia, Fauna Baseline Survey. A report prepared for Heathgate Resources Pty Ltd.
Menkhorst, P., and Knight, F. (2004). A Field Guide to the Mammals of Australia. Oxford University Press, Melbourne.
34 Four Mile Prospect Baseline Fauna Survey April 2008, Version 1.1
Environmental and Biodiversity Services
Moseby, K. E., Brandle, R., and Adams, M. (1999). Distribution, habitat and conservation status of the rare dusky hopping mouse, Notomys fuscus (Rodentia: Muridae). Wildlife Research 26, 479-494.
Neagle, N. (2003). An Inventory of the Biological Resources of the Rangelands of South Australia. Department for Environment and Heritage, Adelaide.
Owens, H. (2000). Ed. Guidelines for Vertebrate Surveys in South Australia. Department for Environment and Heritage, South Australia.
South Australian Arid Lands NRM Board. (2007). The SAAL NRM Region. Online, accessed 19th November. Available at: http://www.saalnrm.sa.gov.au/AboutUs/AboutTheBoard/tabid/810/Default.aspx
Strahan, R. (1995). Ed. The Mammals of Australia. Reed Books, Chatswood, NSW.
Tattersall, G. (2004) Beverley Uranium Mine Biological Monitoring, September-October 2003. Heathgate Resources Pty Ltd.
35 Four Mile Prospect Baseline Fauna Survey April 2008, Version 1.1
Environmental and Biodiversity Services
7.0 Appendices
36 Four Mile Prospect Baseline Fauna Survey April 2008, Version 1.1
Environmental and Biodiversity Services
Appendix 1 Site photos
FOU001 Line A FOU001 Line B
FOU002 Line A FOU002 Line B
37 Four Mile Prospect Baseline Fauna Survey April 2008, Version 1.1
Environmental and Biodiversity Services
FOU003 Line A FOU003 Line B
FOU004 Line A FOU004 Line B
38 Four Mile Prospect Baseline Fauna Survey April 2008, Version 1.1
Environmental and Biodiversity Services
FOU005 Line A FOU005 Line B
FOU006 Line A FOU006 Line B
39 Four Mile Prospect Baseline Fauna Survey April 2008, Version 1.1
Environmental and Biodiversity Services
FOU007 Line A FOU007 Line B
FOU008 Line A FOU008 Line B
40 Four Mile Prospect Baseline Fauna Survey April 2008, Version 1.1