DOCSLIB.ORG

EPBC Act Significance Tests

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
EPBC Act Significance Tests Atlas-Campaspe Mineral Sands Project Fauna Assessment Appendix D: EPBC Act significance tests Atlas-Campaspe Mineral Sands Project Fauna Assessment Contents Malleefowl (Leipoa ocellata) ................................................................................................................ D-1 Australasian Bittern (Botaurus poiciloptilus) ........................................................................................ D-8 Australian Painted Snipe (Rosostratula australis) .................................................................................. D-12 Regent Parrot (eastern subspepecies) (Polytelis anthopeplus monarchoides) ......................................... D-17 Corben’s Long-eared Bat (Nyctophilus corbeni) ................................................................................. D-21 D-i Atlas-Campaspe Mineral Sands Project Fauna Assessment Malleefowl (Leipoa ocellataata) The Malleefowl (Leipoa ocellatllata) is listed as Vulnerable under the Commonwonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999 (EPBC Act). This assassessment of impact significance has been conductected according to the Commonwealth Departmenent of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Populationion and Communities (SEWPaC) Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1: Matters of National Environmental Significance (Commonwealth Department off EEnvironment, Water, Heritage and the Arts [DEWHA] 2009) for vulnerable species. The Malleefowl is a large groundnd-dwelling, pheasant-like bird that occurs acrossss ssouthern Australia in temperate, semi-arid districts whwhere the annual rainfall is 200 to 450 millimetresres (mm) (Marchant & Higgins 1993). In New South WWales (NSW) it occurs west of the Great Dividiiding Range, from the Pilliga scrub south-west towardsrds to the districts of Griffith, Wellington, Balranalnald, and continuously into north-western Victoria andnd south-eastern South Australia (Morris et al. 1981; Marchant & Higgins 1993; NSW Office of Environment and Heritage [OEH] 2012). ThThe species is mostly sedentary and established pairss ttend to stay in the same area year-round. Locall movementsm do occur between seasons in some areas,as, and larger movements can occur in responsese to drought and fire (Marchant & Higgins 1993). ChChicks and juveniles disperse only a short distancance (rarely more than 20 kilometres [km] or so) from theirth incubation mound (Marchant & Higgins 1993993). The Malleefowl occurs mostlytly in mallee woodlands, but sometimes rangeges into surrounding woodlands or shrublands of otheroth sorts (Marchant & Higgins 1993; OEH 201012). The Malleefowl prefers taller mallee with a dedense but discontinuous canopy (to provide abubundant leaf-litter for mounds) and floristically rich shrubs and herb layers to provide food plants (e(e.g. Acacia, Cassia, Bossiaea and Beyeria spp.). Itt tendste to be less common in short or open mallellee woodlands with a spinifex (Triodia spp.) understortorey, but still occurs in such habitats. Lighter sandndy or loamy soils are preferred because they provide drdrainage, rather than ease of digging (Marchant & Higgins 1993). The home range size is not wellell known. Home ranges may be up to 100 hectartares (ha), but there is often considerable overlap betweween home ranges of different pairs. During the brbreeding season males stay close to the mound and usee a much reduced area (Benshemesh 2007). Homee range and density of breeding pairs may vary accordirding to a range of factors including climate (i.e..e. rainfall), vegetation type, season, recent conditions (e.g.(e drought) and condition of habitat (e.g. whethether grazed or not). For the purposes of this assessmentent, we have assumed a theoretical conservativee estimate of density, based on the area of potential priprimary habitat (1,575 ha) and the home range off thet species (100 ha), of about one pair per 100 ha. The Malleefowl builds a large momound of sand (with loam and pebbles) incorporatrating a litter of leaves, bark, twigs and small brancheshes, in which they incubate their eggs with thehe heat of fermenting vegetation. The organic contentnt varies considerably. Organic material is usuallylly collected from June to August and then mixed followowing spring rains to begin the fermentation procescess. Eggs are laid any time from mid-September to earlarly February, but usually in the spring through the early summer. The average size recorded for 34 clutclutches was 15 eggs (ranging from 3 to 33) (Marchahant & Higgins 1993). The species is mainly granivoroorous but berries, invertebrates, herbage (especiacially buds) and bulbs contribute to the diet. Acacia seedeeds are particularly important. Small congregationons have been reported feeding on crop stubble, such as barley. A source of surface water is not needed,ed, but individuals will drink readily when water is availaailable (Marchant & Higgins 1993). D-1 Atlas-Campaspe Mineral Sands Project Fauna Assessment Habitat loss and degradationn have caused extensive declines in Malleefoefowl abundance and distribution throughout its rangeran (Benshemesh 2007; Garnett et al. 201011). Higher rainfall (300-450 mm) mallee with the mmost diverse understory has been extensively cleareared for agriculture or grazed by stock. Competition witwith grazing stock (sheep [Ovis aries] and cattle [Bos taurus]) and feral animals (rabbits [Onyctologus cuniculus] and goats [Capra hircus]) reduces habiabitat viability because grazed mallee offers much lesss hherbage and seed for Malleefowl to feed on. Largrge fires also probably kill most Malleefowl in their wakake, as the birds are poor fliers. Fire in mallee has the effect off preventingp or reducing breeding for up to 20 orr 330 years, although in some instances breeding will resumeres after 6 years. Predation by foxes (Vulpes vulpes) is often high, particularly for eggs, chicks, juvjuveniles and even adults (Marchant & Higgins 11993; NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service [NPWPWS] 1999; Benshemesh 2007; Garnett et al. 2011)1). In the north-western edge of thehe Campaspe footprint, several observations of tracracks were made and a nesting mound found. At anothther location outside the Campaspe footprint but within the Mining Lease Application (MLA) 1 arearea, tracks were recorded. At one location in thee fofootprint of the Atlas Mine a nesting mound was founund. The proposed mine general arrangement wowould avoid these two nesting mounds1. Records of the Malleefowl, including footprints, mounds andd ssightings were made throughout the proposed offsett area.ar Two records made during the field survey anand three contained in the Atlas of NSW Wildlife Dataatabases came from further afield in the generall vvicinity of the Atlas- Campaspe study area. The MaMalleefowl has been recorded twice in recentt surveyss by Ecotone Ecological Consultants for the BalranaldB Mineral Sands Project. One Malleefowlwl was observed in the study area for the West Balranalnald Deposit and two active Malleefowl moundss werew recorded in the study area for the Nepean Depeposit (Ecotone Ecological Consultants 2012a; 22012b). No mounds, tracks or individuals were obseserved within the Ivanhoe Rail Facility study arearea and there are no database records within 20 km of the study area. Known breeding and foragingg habitatsh of the Malleefowl that occur in the AtAtlas-Campaspe Mine footprint and proposed offset arearea are Linear Dune Mallee and Sandplain Mallellee. Potential habitats (supplementary habitats that migight be used on occasions for foraging or disperpersal), include Belah- Rosewood Woodland, Acacia WWoodland/Shrubland, Disturbed Shrubland and Cleared Land during seeding and harvesting of crops.ps. Potential secondary or supplementary foragingg habitat exists within the Ivanhoe Rail Facility footprinrint, including Belah-Rosewood Woodland and Natative Grassland. An action is likely to have a significasign nt impact on a vulnerable species if thereere is a real chance or possibility that it will: Criterion 1: lead to a long-termm decreased in the size of an important populationn oof a species? The population in and around theth Atlas-Campaspe Mine study area is part off a broader population occurring on leasehold land in theth vicinity, containing some 300 pairs (Ewin 200707). Based on the area of potential primary habitat (1,5,575 ha) and the home range of the species (1000 ha), and assuming a density of breeding pairs of one per 100 ha, a conservative theoretical estimimate is that up to 15 breeding pairs could potentiallyly beb impacted by the Project. Despite this theoretictical estimate, detailed surveys over the Project area revealedrev only the two mounds proposed surfacee areaa and are avoided through revision of the mine ggeneral arrangement1; however, the Project iss likelyli to impact any individuals using those mounds. 1 The mine plan has been refined to avoivoid a Malleefowl nesting mound and two Cobar Greenhood Orchichid locations recorded during surveys. Given this commitment was mamade immediately prior to the finalisation of this report, and resultedted in a change to the proposed surface development area, figures withinin the main body of this report (such as Figure 15) were amended to reflect this change. It should be noted however, that the figures in AppendixAp C of this report (Seven Part Tests) have not been updated,d, on the basis that at the scale presented, the relevant changes would hahave been immaterial. For clarity, the figures in the main body of thithis report provide the accurate representation
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Australasian Bat Society Newsletter, Number 31, Nov 2008
    The Australasian Bat Society Newsletter, Number 31, Nov 2008 The Australasian Bat Society Newsletter Number 39 November 2012 ABS Website: http://abs.ausbats.org.au ABS Discussion list - email: [email protected] ISSN 1448-5877 © Copyright The Australasian Bat Society, Inc. (2012) The Australasian Bat Society Newsletter, Number 31, Nov 2008 The Australasian Bat Society Newsletter, Number 39, November 2012 – Instructions for Contributors – The Australasian Bat Society Newsletter will accept contributions under one of the following two sections: Research Papers, and all other articles or notes. There are two deadlines each year: 10th March for the April issue, and 10th October for the November issue. The Editor reserves the right to hold over contributions for subsequent issues of the Newsletter, and meeting the deadline is not a guarantee of immediate publication. Opinions expressed in contributions to the Newsletter are the responsibility of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Australasian Bat Society, its Executive or members. For consistency, the following guidelines should be followed: Emailed electronic copy of manuscripts or articles, sent as an attachment, is the preferred method of submission. Faxed and hard copy manuscripts will be accepted but reluctantly! Please send all submissions to the Newsletter Editor at the email or postal address below. Electronic copy should be in 11 point Arial font, left and right justified with 16 mm left and right margins. Please use Microsoft Word; any version is acceptable. Manuscripts should be submitted in clear, concise English and free from typographical and spelling errors. Please leave two spaces after each sentence.
    [Show full text]
  • Chiropterology Division BC Arizona Trial Event 1 1. DESCRIPTION: Participants Will Be Assessed on Their Knowledge of Bats, With
    Chiropterology Division BC Arizona Trial Event 1. DESCRIPTION: Participants will be assessed on their knowledge of bats, with an emphasis on North American Bats, South American Microbats, and African MegaBats. A TEAM OF UP TO: 2 APPROXIMATE TIME: 50 minutes 2. EVENT PARAMETERS: a. Each team may bring one 2” or smaller three-ring binder, as measured by the interior diameter of the rings, containing information in any form and from any source. Sheet protectors, lamination, tabs and labels are permitted in the binder. b. If the event features a rotation through a series of stations where the participants interact with samples, specimens or displays; no material may be removed from the binder throughout the event. c. In addition to the binder, each team may bring one unmodified and unannotated copy of either the National Bat List or an Official State Bat list which does not have to be secured in the binder. 3. THE COMPETITION: a. The competition may be run as timed stations and/or as timed slides/PowerPoint presentation. b. Specimens/Pictures will be lettered or numbered at each station. The event may include preserved specimens, skeletal material, and slides or pictures of specimens. c. Each team will be given an answer sheet on which they will record answers to each question. d. No more than 50% of the competition will require giving common or scientific names. e. Participants should be able to do a basic identification to the level indicated on the Official List. States may have a modified or regional list. See your state website.
    [Show full text]
  • Timothy Wilson Roads and Maritime Services Level Ground 1 Simmons Street, Wagga Wagga NSW 2650
    P.O. Box 1088 Newport, Victoria 3015 Phone: 03 9391 4749 Mobile: 0414 689 853 Email: [email protected] ABN: 811 5163 3797 Timothy Wilson Roads and Maritime Services Level Ground 1 Simmons Street, Wagga Wagga NSW 2650 5/04/2015 RE: Echuca Bat Call Peer Review; Contract No. 15.2571.0265 Dear Timothy, As requested, I have undertaken a review of the bat sonograms that were attributed to Nyctophilus corbeni following the survey undertaken at the site of the proposed new Echuca - Moama Bridge. I am of the belief that the call parameter employed by Dr Greg Richards to identify Nyctophilus corbeni sonograms (minimum frequency of 35kHz) is not a reliable identification parameter. The reference calls of two species, being N. geoffroyi and N. gouldi (captured in the Echuca - Moama region) also display calls at a minimum frequency of 35kHz or lower. Six subject matter experts were consulted on whether individual Nyctophilus species could be identified from a specific call parameter. All six experts were of the opinion that with the current technology available for recording bat calls, it is not possible to identify Nyctophilus from their call alone. A review of the Victorian Biodiversity Atlas, BioNet Wildlife Atlas of NSW and Atlas of Living Australia provided historical records of N. corbeni. With the exception of the record submitted by Dr Richards to the BioNet Atlas of NSW, the next nearest individual records to the site are near Deniliquin in NSW (70km north of Echuca) and Mitiamo in Victoria (50km west of Echuca). A number of the subject matter experts with whom I consulted during the preparation of this review have extensive trapping experience in the Echuca – Moama region, and are yet to record N.
    [Show full text]
  • Review of Australian Greater Long-Eared Bats Previously Known As Nyctophilus Timoriensis (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae) and Some Associated Taxa H
    A taxonomic review of Australian Greater Long-eared Bats previously known as Nyctophilus timoriensis (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae) and some associated taxa H. E. Parnaby Hon. Research Associate, Mammal Section, Australian Museum, 6 College Street, Sydney NSW 2010, Australia. Email: [email protected]; and Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water NSW, PO Box 1967, Hurstville NSW 2220, Australia; and formerly BEES, University of New South Wales, Sydney NSW 2052. A comparative morphological and morphometric assessment was undertaken of material from mainland Australia, Tasmania and Papua New Guinea that has previously been referred to as the Greater Long-eared Bat Nyctophilus timoriensis (Geoffroy, 1806). Five taxa are recognised: N. major Gray, 1844 from south-western Western Australia; N. major tor subsp. nov. from southern Western Australia east to the Eyre Peninsula, South Australia; N. corbeni sp. nov. from eastern mainland Australia from eastern South Australia, through Victoria to Queensland; N. sherrini Thomas, 1915 from Tasmania, and N. shirleyae sp. nov. from Mt Missim, Papua New Guinea. Vespertilio timoriensis Geoffroy is regarded as nomen dubium due to uncertainty surrounding provenance of the original specimen(s), the lack of a definite type specimen, and lack of sufficient detail in the original description and illustration to relate the name to a singular, currently recognised species. This review required a consideration of two taxa not usually associated with timoriensis: bifax Thomas, 1915 from eastern Australia and New Guinea, and daedalus Thomas, 1915, previously treated as the western subspecies of bifax, occurring from western Queensland, the northern part of the Northern Territory, and northern Western Australia.
    [Show full text]
  • How to Cite Complete Issue More Information About This Article
    Therya ISSN: 2007-3364 Centro de Investigaciones Biológicas del Noroeste Woinarski, John C. Z.; Burbidge, Andrew A.; Harrison, Peter L. A review of the conservation status of Australian mammals Therya, vol. 6, no. 1, January-April, 2015, pp. 155-166 Centro de Investigaciones Biológicas del Noroeste DOI: 10.12933/therya-15-237 Available in: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=402336276010 How to cite Complete issue Scientific Information System Redalyc More information about this article Network of Scientific Journals from Latin America and the Caribbean, Spain and Portugal Journal's homepage in redalyc.org Project academic non-profit, developed under the open access initiative THERYA, 2015, Vol. 6 (1): 155-166 DOI: 10.12933/therya-15-237, ISSN 2007-3364 Una revisión del estado de conservación de los mamíferos australianos A review of the conservation status of Australian mammals John C. Z. Woinarski1*, Andrew A. Burbidge2, and Peter L. Harrison3 1National Environmental Research Program North Australia and Threatened Species Recovery Hub of the National Environmental Science Programme, Charles Darwin University, NT 0909. Australia. E-mail: [email protected] (JCZW) 2Western Australian Wildlife Research Centre, Department of Parks and Wildlife, PO Box 51, Wanneroo, WA 6946, Australia. E-mail: [email protected] (AAB) 3Marine Ecology Research Centre, School of Environment, Science and Engineering, Southern Cross University, PO Box 157, Lismore, NSW 2480, Australia. E-mail: [email protected] (PLH) *Corresponding author Introduction: This paper provides a summary of results from a recent comprehensive review of the conservation status of all Australian land and marine mammal species and subspecies.
    [Show full text]
  • Species Credit
    ‘Species credit’ threatened bats and their habitats NSW survey guide for the Biodiversity Assessment Method © 2018 State of NSW and Office of Environment and Heritage With the exception of photographs, 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 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 their specific needs. All content in this publication is owned by OEH and is protected by Crown Copyright, unless credited otherwise. It is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0), subject to the exemptions contained in the licence. The legal code for the licence is available at Creative Commons. OEH asserts the right to be attributed as author of the original material in the following manner: © State of New South Wales and Office of Environment and Heritage 2018. Published by: Office of Environment and Heritage
    [Show full text]
  • Extent, Configuration and Diversity of Burned and Forested Areas Predict
    Landscape Ecol https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-021-01204-y (0123456789().,-volV)( 0123456789().,-volV) RESEARCH ARTICLE Extent, configuration and diversity of burned and forested areas predict bat richness in a fire-maintained forest Rachel V. Blakey . Elisabeth B. Webb . Dylan C. Kesler . Rodney B. Siegel . Derek Corcoran . Jerry S. Cole . Matthew Johnson Received: 24 February 2020 / Accepted: 28 January 2021 Ó The Author(s) 2021 Abstract richness was most strongly related to extent, config- Context Fire transforms, fragments and sometimes uration, and diversity measures of landscape-level maintains forests, creating mosaics of burned and habitat. unburned patches. Highly mobile animals respond to Methods We used multi-species hierarchical occu- resources in the landscape at a variety of spatial scales, pancy modelling to relate bat richness to landscape yet we know little about their landscape-scale rela- variables at 10 spatial scales, based on acoustic data tionships with fire. collected in the Sierra Nevada, United States. We also Objectives We aimed to identify drivers of bat assessed redundancy among landscape variable type richness in a landscape mosaic of forested and burned (extent, configuration, and diversity) and between areas while identifying spatial scales at which bat focal patch types (forested and burned). Results Bat richness was positively associated with heterogenous landscapes, shown by positive associa- Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/ tions with pyrodiversity, extent and mean area of s10980-021-01204-y. R. V. Blakey (&) E. B. Webb Missouri Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, U.S. Geological Survey, Missouri Cooperative Fish and School of Natural Resources, University of Missouri, Wildlife Research Unit, School of Natural Resources, Busch Natural Resources Building, 302 Anheuser, University of Missouri, Busch Natural Resources Columbia, MO 65211, USA Building, 302 Anheuser, Columbia, MO 65211, USA e-mail: [email protected] D.
    [Show full text]
  • APPENDIX 11 ARROW LNG PLANT Terrestrial Ecology Supplementary EIS Study
    APPENDIX 11 ARROW LNG PLANT Terrestrial Ecology Supplementary EIS Study Arrow Curtis Island LNG Facility Terrestrial Ecology Supplementary EIS Study and Gap Analysis Prepared by 3d Environmental / Ecosmart Ecology For Coffey Environments Australia Pty Ltd Final: December 10, 2012. f o NOTICE TO USERS OF THIS REPORT Purpose of the report: 3D Environmental has produced this report in its capacity as {consultants} for and on the request of Coffey Environments Australia Pty Ltd (the "Client"). The information and any recommendations in this report are particular to the Specified Purpose and are based on facts, matters and circumstances particular to the subject matter of the report and the Specified Purpose at the time of production. This report is not to be used, nor is it suitable, for any purpose other than the Specified Purpose. 3D Environmental disclaims all liability for any loss and/or damage whatsoever arising either directly or indirectly as a result of any application, use or reliance upon the report for any purpose other than the Specified Purpose. Whilst 3D Environmental believes all the information in it is deemed reliable at the time of publication, it does not warrant its accuracy or completeness. To the full extent allowed by law, 3D Environmental excludes liability in contract, tort or otherwise, for any loss or damage sustained by any person or body corporate arising from or in connection with the supply or use of the whole or any part of the information in this report through any cause whatsoever. 2 Executive Summary Arrow CSG (Australia) Pty Ltd (Arrow Energy) proposes to develop a liquefied natural gas (LNG) plant on Curtis Island off the central Queensland coast, near Gladstone.
    [Show full text]
  • A Survey of the Bat Fauna
    __________________________________________________________________________________ Monitoring of the microbat fauna of the Ulan Coal Mine lease during 2015. Microbat Monitoring of the Ulan Coal Mine Lease during 2015 A report to Ulan Coal Mines Limited G.A. Hoye & M.M. Hoye Fly By Night Bat Surveys Pty Ltd ABN 48 068 562 005 PO Box 271 BELMONT NSW 2280 Tel 4947 7794 Fax 4947 7537 January 2016 January 2016 Fly By Night Bat Surveys Pty Ltd __________________________________________________________________________________ 1 __________________________________________________________________________________ Monitoring of the microbat fauna of the Ulan Coal Mine lease during 2015. 1 INTRODUCTION This report details the results of microbat monitoring undertaken during 2015 in accordance with the Biodiversity Management Plan (BMP) (ULN SD PLN 0026). The Project Area comprises a total of 13,435 hectares and includes areas referred to in the Environmental Assessment (Umwelt 2009) and the subsequent BMP. This area consists of the Ulan West and No. 3 underground areas, as well as the open cut. They include; Open Cut Extension – the extent of the recently approved open cut operations, being approximately 239 hectares; Previous Open Cut Mining Areas – covers approximately 475 hectares of previously open cut mining areas that have been rehabilitated and final voids that remain to support future mining activities (i.e. water storage, tailings disposal, underground access etc.); Surface Infrastructure Area – the 169 hectare disturbance area required for construction of underground service infrastructure; Residual Project Area – the remainder of the Project Area that is not subject to the current project. This includes large areas that have been previously undermined, agricultural grazing land, irrigation pivots and large areas of remnant native vegetation; Biodiversity Offset and Management Areas – land that has been approved for Biodiversity Offset and Management Areas for the Project, being: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Moolarben Coal Complex UG4 Ancillary Works Modification
    Moolarben Coal Complex UG4 Ancillary Works Modification Modification Report APPENDIX B BIODIVERSITY DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT REPORT Moolarben Coal Complex UG4 Ancillary Works Modification Biodiversity Development Assessment Report Moolarben Coal Operations Pty Ltd © ECO LOGICAL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD 1 Biodiversity Development Assessment Report DOCUMENT TRACKING Project Name Moolarben Coal Complex UG4 Ancillary Works Modification Project Number 13676 Date 26 September 2019 Project Manager Kalya Abbey Prepared by Cheryl O'Dwyer, Emily Bathgate Reviewed by Kalya Abbey, Meredith Henderson Approved by Daniel Magdi Status Draft Version Number V3 Last saved on 1 October 2019 This report should be cited as ‘Eco Logical Australia 2019 Moolarben Coal Complex UG4 Ancillary Works Modification. Prepared for Moolarben Coal Operations Pty Ltd.’ ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This document has been prepared by Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd with support from Moolarben Coal Operations Pty Ltd Disclaimer This document may only be used for the purpose for which it was commissioned and in accordance with the contract between Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd and Moorlarben Coal Operations. The scope of services was defined in consultation with Moorlarben Coal Operations, by time and budgetary constraints imposed by the client, and the availability of reports and other data on the subject area. Changes to available information, legislation and schedules are made on an ongoing basis and readers should obtain up to date information. Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for or in respect of any use of or reliance upon this report and its supporting material by any third party. Information provided is not intended to be a substitute for site specific assessment or legal advice in relation to any matter.
    [Show full text]
  • A New Bat Species from Southwestern Western Australia, Previously Assigned to Gould’S Long-Eared Bat Nyctophilus Gouldi Tomes, 1858
    Records of the Australian Museum (2021) Records of the Australian Museum vol. 73, issue no. 1, pp. 53–66 a peer-reviewed open-access journal https://doi.org/10.3853/j.2201-4349.73.2021.1766 published by the Australian Museum, Sydney communicating knowledge derived from our collections ISSN 0067-1975 (print), 2201-4349 (online) A New Bat Species from Southwestern Western Australia, Previously Assigned to Gould’s Long-eared Bat Nyctophilus gouldi Tomes, 1858 Harry E. Parnaby , Andrew G. King , and Mark D. B. Eldridge Australian Museum Research Institute, Australian Museum, 1 William Street, Sydney NSW 2010, Australia Abstract. A distributional isolate in southwestern Western Australia previously assigned to Gould’s Long-eared Bat Nyctophilus gouldi Tomes, 1858 is demonstrated to be a distinct and previously unnamed cryptic species, based on a lack of monophyly with eastern populations and substantial DNA sequence divergence (5.0 %) at the mitochondrial gene COI. Morphologically both species are alike and overlap in all measured characters but differ in braincase shape. The new species has one of the most restricted geographic ranges of any Australian Vespertilionidae and aspects of its ecology make it vulnerable to human impacts. Introduction to Hall & Richards (1979). Consequently, although specimens of N. gouldi from WA existed in research collections including Long-eared bats of the genus Nyctophilus are small the Australian Museum (AM) in the early 20th century, they to medium-sized species of the cosmopolitan family remained unrecognized and were assigned to N. timoriensis. Vespertilionidae. The genus is centred on mainland Australia Tomes (1858) based his description of N.
    [Show full text]
  • Mid-West 2 Detailed Flora, Fauna, Native Vegetation & Net Gain
    MID-WEST 2 MURRAY RIVER CROSSING AT ECHUCA–MOAMA DETAILED FLORA, FAUNA, NATIVE VEGETATION AND NET GAIN ASSESSMENT VicRoads 25 Burwood Road, Hawthorn, Vic. 3122 P.O. Box 74, Richmond, Vic. 3121 Ph. (03) 9815 2111 Fax. (03) 9815 2685 April 2013 Report No. 8194 (3.8) Mid-West 2 Murray River Crossing –Flora, Fauna and Native Vegetation Assessment Report No. 8194 (3.8) CONTENTS 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................... 1 2. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 8 3. EXISTING INFORMATION ................................................................................................ 11 3.1. National level.......................................................................................................... 11 3.2. State level ............................................................................................................... 11 3.2.1. Victorian portion of the study area ............................................................... 11 3.2.2. NSW portion of the study area ...................................................................... 12 4. FIELD METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................... 13 4.1. General methods ................................................................................................... 13 4.1.1. Initial Flora and Fauna Field Survey ............................................................
    [Show full text]