Terrestrial Vertebrate Fauna Monitoring Results for the Mount Gibson Iron Ore Mine and Infrastructure Project Version 3. February 2012 Prepared for: Mount Gibson Mining Limited PO Box 55 WEST PERTH WA 6872 and Extension Hill Pty Ltd PO Box 82 WEST PERTH WA 6872 By: Terrestrial Ecosystems 10 Houston Place Mt Claremont WA 6010 i RECORD OF DISTRIBUTION No. of Report File Name Report Status Date Prepared for: Initials copies Electronic 2011-0032-006-gt-V1 Draft 15/01/2012 Mount Gibson Mining GT Limited Electronic 2011-0032-006-gt-V1 Draft 15/01/2012 Extension Hill Pty Ltd GT Electronic 2011-0032-006-gt-V2 Draft 9/02/2012 Mount Gibson Mining GT Limited Electronic 2011-0032-006-gt-V2 Draft 9/02/2012 Extension Hill Pty Ltd GT Electronic 2011-0032-006-gt-V2 Final 10/02/2012 Mount Gibson Mining GT Limited Electronic 2011-0032-006-gt-V2 Final 10/02/2012 Extension Hill Pty Ltd GT DISCLAIMER This document is prepared in accordance with and subject to an agreement between Terrestrial Ecosystems and the clients, Extension Hill Pty Ltd and Mount Gibson Mining Limited. It has been prepared and is restricted to those issues that have been raised by the clients in its engagement of Terrestrial Ecosystems and prepared using the standard of skill and care ordinarily exercised by environmental scientists in the preparation of such reports. Persons or agencies that rely on or use this document for purposes or reasons other than those agreed by Terrestrial Ecosystems and its clients without first obtaining prior consent, do so at their own risk and Terrestrial Ecosystems denies all liability in tort, contract or otherwise for any loss, damage or injury of any kind whatsoever (whether in negligence or otherwise) that may be suffered as a consequence. Front cover: Woolley’s Pseudantechinus (Pseudantechinus woolleyae) ii TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction 2 1.1 Background 2 1.2 Site description 2 1.3 Potential impacts 3 1.4 Fauna monitoring strategy 3 2 Methods 5 1.5 Site selection 5 1.6 Trap design and layout 5 1.7 Animal ethics 6 1.8 Survey timing 7 1.9 Survey and reporting staff 7 1.10 Data analysis 7 1.10.1 Species richness and relative abundance 7 1.10.2 Species accumulation curves 7 1.10.3 Evenness 7 1.10.4 Diversity 8 1.10.5 Similarity and complementarity 8 1.10.6 Rehabilitation and Degradation Index 8 2 Results 9 2.1.1 Local environmental conditions during survey periods 9 2.1.2 Fauna assemblage structure 9 2.1.3 Fauna assemblage by trap type 10 2.1.4 Species accumulation curves 10 2.1.5 Diversity, similarity and evenness 17 2.1.6 RDI scores 18 2.2 Notable observations 20 2.1.1 Major Mitchell’s Cockatoo (Lophochroa leadbeateri) 20 2.1.2 Perentie (Varanus giganteus) 20 2.1.3 Malleefow (Leipoa ocellata) 20 2.1.4 Unknown mammal burrow 20 2.1.5 Additional species recorded 20 2.1.6 Woolley’s Pseudantechinus (Pseudantechinus woolleyae) 20 2.1.7 Feral animals 21 3 Discussion 22 3.1 Adequacy of the data 22 3.2 Trapping protocols 22 3.3 Fauna assemblages 22 3.4 Rehabilitation and Degradation Index 23 3.5 Timing of survey 23 3.5.1 Number of animals caught 23 3.5.2 Trap deaths 23 3.5.3 Optimum survey period 24 3.6 Major Mitchell’s Cockatoo 24 3.7 Malleefowl 24 3.8 Woolley’s Pseudantechinus (Pseudantechinus woolleyae) 24 3.9 Perentie (Varanus giganteus) 24 3.10 Unknown mammal 25 3.11 Newly recorded species 25 3.12 Species not recorded 25 3.13 Appreciable difference in species relative abundance 25 4 Summary and Recommendations 27 4.1 Summary 27 4.2 Future vertebrate assemblage monitoring program 27 5 References 29 iii Diagram 1. Trap layout at each site on the sand plain and eucalypt woodland Plate 1. A drift fence on the hill slope showing a series of paired funnel traps located either side of a fly-wire drift fence Tables 1. Attributes of various Rehabilitation and Degradation Index scores 2. Daily weather data for survey periods in 2008 and 2011 3. Number of individuals caught by species by habitat type in 2008 and 2011 4. Number of individuals caught by species by trap type in 2008 and 2011 5. Asymptotes for species accumulation curves and estimates of species richness for the combined data for control and impact sites for each of the habitat types 6. Morisita-Horn similarity scores for the combined control and impact sites for each of the three habitat types 7. Fisher’s alpha, recorded species richness and evenness scores for each of the sites on the sand plain and eucalypt woodland 8. Summary of RDI scores for the three habitat types for 2008 and 2011 9. The locations of Major Mitchell’s Cockatoo sightings 10. The locations of Perentie sightings 11. The location of a Malleefowl sighting Figures 1. Regional location 2. Site plan showing survey sites Appendices A. Article that explains the Rehabilitation and Degradation Index and how it is calculated B. Coordinates of survey sites iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY An approval condition for the development of the Mount Gibson Iron Ore Mine and Infrastructure project was the preparation of a Mine Fauna Management Plan that addressed the management and monitoring of fauna. An objective of the fauna monitoring program is to demonstrate that the effects of vegetation clearing, noise, vibration, light overspill and vehicle movement on the fauna, in particular on fauna of conservation significance [Egernia stokesii badia (Western Spiny-tailed Skink), Falco peregrinus (Peregrine Falcon), Lophochroa leadbeateri (Major Mitchell’s Cockatoo), Merops ornatus (Rainbow Bee-eater) and the Malleefowl (Leipoa ocellata)] are minimised. To partially satisfy this monitoring requirement, Terrestrial Ecosystems was commissioned by Mount Gibson Mining Limited (MGM) and Extension Hill Pty Ltd (EH) to undertake the second vertebrate fauna survey of the monitoring program. A 14 night terrestrial vertebrate trapping program was undertaken in December 2011 in each of the three major fauna habitat types (i.e. sand plain; eucalypt woodland; and iron stone ridges) around the mine. Five new impact survey sites were installed on the sand plain as the original sites have or will be lost with the construction of mine infrastructure. There was no obvious or significant change in the vertebrate fauna assemblage recorded in the eucalypt woodland or sand plain sites. Similarly, there was no obvious or detectable change in the vertebrate fauna assemblage on the impact ridge, except that Woolley’s Pseudantechinus is now present on the control ridge. However, it is difficult to detect any changes in vertebrate fauna on the impact ridge due to the small number of individuals that were trapped. It is likely that vertebrate fauna species and abundance on the control and impact ridges are lower than that on the sand plain and in the eucalypt woodland but higher than the trapping data indicate. The trapped fauna assemblages did not significantly differ between 2008 and 2011given anticipated seasonal and year-to-year variations. Rehabilitation and Degradation Index (RDI) scores for the sand plain and eucalypt woodland were similar to those calculated in 2008. The RDI score for the iron stone ridge was similar to 2008, but it is less reliable than those calculated for the other two habitats because of the low number of individuals caught. The following recommendations are made for future monitoring surveys: • The terrestrial fauna survey protocols utilized for the sand plain and the eucalypt woodland should be used for future surveys in these habitat types; • Future surveys should be undertaken in late spring (e.g. October or November); • Traps should cleared before and as close as possible to when the surface soil temperature reaches a temperature intolerable to most reptiles. This will mean that the start time will be adjusted daily according to ambient conditions and how long it takes to clear all traps; • Lids on all traps are checked at least annually at the end of winter; • Lids on all pit-traps that are showing signs of rust or UV deterioration are replaced after the next survey; and • Pit traps and funnel traps are installed and used on future surveys on the banded iron stone ridge control and impact sites. These traps should be set up in the similar format to those on the sand plain and eucalypt sites. 1 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background The Mount Gibson Iron Ore Mine and Infrastructure project was approved by the Minister for the Environment on 24 October 2007 (Ministerial Statement 753). Condition 12 of the Ministerial Statement required a Mine Site Fauna Management Plan be prepared prior to the commencement of ground disturbing activities that addressed the management and monitoring of fauna. An objective of the fauna monitoring program is to demonstrate that the effects of vegetation clearing, noise, vibration, light overspill and vehicle movement on the fauna, in particular on fauna of conservation significance [Egernia stokesii badia (Western Spiny-tailed Skink), Falco peregrinus (Peregrine Falcon), Cacatua leadbeateri (Major Mitchell’s Cockatoo), Merops ornatus (Rainbow Bee-eater) and the Malleefowl (Leipoa ocellata)] are minimised. To partially satisfy this monitoring requirement, Terrestrial Ecosystems was commissioned by Mount Gibson Mining Limited (MGM) and Extension Hill Pty Ltd (EH) to undertake the second vertebrate fauna survey in the monitoring program. The first survey was undertaken in January 2008 (Coffey Environments 2008). Terrestrial Ecosystems staff were responsible for the design, set up and implementing the first monitoring survey. There are three broad fauna habitats within and adjacent to the Mount Gibson Iron Ore Mine and Infrastructure project that are being impacted; sand plain, eucalypt woodland and a banded iron formation (BIF).