Munglinup Graphite Project

Ecological Linkages/Biodiversity Corridors Impact Assessment Munglinup, Oldfield and Young River Corridors

For MRC Graphite Pty Ltd Munglinup Graphite Project

Ecological Linkages/Biodiversity Corridors Impact Assessment Munglinup, Oldfield and Young River Corridors

Prepared by

Nathan McQuoid, McQuoid Ecology and Design

20 Short Beach Rd Bremer Bay WA 6338, and

Simon Neville, Ecotones and Associates, Bell Rd William Bay WA 6333

Cover image: Broad-scale Vegetation and Habitat Map, Broad-scale Vegetation Survey, 2020

 This report is to be treated as confidential and may not be reproduced in part or whole by any electronic, mechanical or other means, including photocopying, recording or any information storage system without the express permission of McQuoid Ecology and Design, Ecotones and Associates, Integrate Sustainability Pty Ltd or MRC Graphite Pty Ltd.

This document should be cited as ‘McQuoid N. and Neville S. (2020) Ecological Linkages/Biodiversity Corridors Impact Assessment: Munglinup, Oldfield and Young River Corridors. Munglinup Graphite Project, MRC Graphite Pty Ltd’

Ecological Linkages/Biodiversity Corridors Impact Assessment Report 2 Munglinup Graphite Project Report revision

Report version Date Comment

MRC Ecological Linkages DRAFT 1 1 July 2020 Provided to ISPL and MR RG MRC Ecological Linkages DRAFT 2 9 July 2020 Provided to ISPL MRC Ecological Linkages FINAL 10 July 2020 Provided to ISPL

Ecological Linkages/Biodiversity Corridors Impact Assessment Report 3 Munglinup Graphite Project Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION 11

1.1 Background 11

1.2 Study Area 12

1.3 Assessment Design 14 1.3.1 Ecological Linkage/Biodiversity Corridor Assessment 14 1.3.2 Linkage Conservation Value Assessment 14 1.3.3 Linkage Physical Assessment 15 1.3.4 Composite Linkage Assessment 16

1.4 Modelling Methodology (MCAS-S) 18

1.5 Least Cost path as a linkage assessment tool 19

1.6 Personnel 19

2 METHODS 20

2.1 Desktop Study 20

2.2 Assessment Criteria 21

2.3 Field Assessment 24

2.4 Vegetation and Habitat Mapping 25

2.5 Determination of corridor use by fauna 25

2.6 MCAS-S Data Preparation 26

2.7 Linkage Comparative Assessment 26

2.8 Linkage Physical Assessment 27

3 LIMITATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS 31

4 RESULTS 33

4.1 Desktop Study 33

4.2 Field assessment 39

4.3 Broad-scale Vegetation Mapping 40

4.4 Linkage Physical Assessment 43 4.4.1 Linkage Values 43 4.4.2 Linkage Patch Values 43

Ecological Linkages/Biodiversity Corridors Impact Assessment Report 4 Munglinup Graphite Project

4.5 MCAS-S Value Modelling 46 4.5.1 Pre-Mine MCAS-S – Data Layers 46 4.5.2 Pre-Mine MCAS-S – Composite (Results) Layers 58 4.5.3 Post Mine MCAS-S – Data Layers 60 4.5.4 Post-Mine MCAS-S – Composite (Results) Layers 61

4.6 Linkage Value Assessment 63 4.6.1 Composite Linkage Values Map 64 4.6.2 Least Cost Path (LCP) 65

5 DISCUSSION 69

5.1 Desktop Study 69

5.2 Assessment Criteria 70

5.3 Field Assessment 70

5.4 Broad-scale Vegetation and Habitat Mapping 71

5.5 MCAS-S & LCP Linkage Values Assessment 71

5.6 Potential Management Measures 72

6 REFERENCES 73

7 APPENDICES 77

7.1 Appendix 1. Field Assessment Relevé Site and Ecological Data 78

7.2 Appendix 2. Study Area Broad-scale Vegetation and Habitat Map: Munglinup, Oldfield and Young River Linkage Corridors 79

Ecological Linkages/Biodiversity Corridors Impact Assessment Report 5 Munglinup Graphite Project List of Figures

Figure 1: Project Location ...... 11 Figure 2: Oldfield, Munglinup and Young River Linkage Outlines showing remnant vegetation and Mine Project Outline ...... 13 Figure 3: Assessment Model Top-Level Conceptual Framework ...... 17 Figure 4: Assessment Model Detailed Framework ...... 23 Figure 5: Linkage outlines as provided, showing DPIRD classified native vegetation ...... 28 Figure 6: Linkage outlines as amended, showing DPIRD classified native vegetation...... 28 Figure 7: Munglinup Linkage Boundary showing the Mine Project Outline – as used for the before- and after- mine scenarios ...... 29 Figure 8: Relevé Survey Sites showing Project Development Boundary ...... 39 Figure 9: Broad-scale Vegetation Mapping – Overall Community Types ...... 41 Figure 10: Broad-scale Vegetation Mapping – Presence of TEC ...... 41 Figure 11: Broad-scale Vegetation Mapping – Vegetation Condition ...... 42 Figure 12: Proportions of Community/Vegetation types in Munglinup Linkage – Pre and Post Mine...... 43 Figure 13: Pre-Mine Assessment of Composite Linkage Value - MCAS-S Diagram ...... 46 Figure 14: Criterion - Linkage Value ...... 47 Figure 15: Layer – Linkage Length ...... 47 Figure 16: Layer – Linkage Area ...... 48 Figure 17: Layer – Linkage Average Width ...... 48 Figure 18: Layer – Linkage Gaps ...... 49 Figure 19: Criterion – Patch Value ...... 49 Figure 20: Layer – Patch Exposure ...... 50 Figure 21: Layer – Patch Average Width ...... 50 Figure 22: Layer – Patch Area ...... 51 Figure 23: Criterion - Naturalness ...... 51 Figure 24: Layer - Condition ...... 52 Figure 25: Layer – Weed Presence ...... 52 Figure 26: Layer - Distance to Cleared Land ...... 53 Figure 27: Criterion - Rarity ...... 54 Figure 28: Composite Layer – Threatened Species ...... 54 Figure 29: Layer – Threatened Species ...... 55 Figure 30: Layer – Distance to flora ...... 55 Figure 31: Layer – Distance to Fauna ...... 56 Figure 32: Layer – Potential TEC ...... 56 Figure 33: Layer – Community Area ...... 57 Figure 34: Criterion - Diversity ...... 57 Figure 35: Pre-Mine Physical Assessment Composite ...... 58 Figure 36: Pre-Mine Biological Value Composite ...... 59 Figure 37: Pre-Mine Composite Linkage Value Map ...... 60 Figure 38: Post-Mine Assessment of Composite Linkage Value - MCAS-S Diagram ...... 61 Figure 39: Post Mine Physical Assessment ...... 62 Figure 40: Post-Mine Biological Value Component ...... 62 Figure 41: Post-Mine Composite Linkage Value Map ...... 63 Figure 42: Base Case Least Cost Path – Preferred Linkage Munglinup ...... 66 Figure 43: 20km into Young Least Cost Path – Preferred Linkage Munglinup ...... 66 Figure 44: Base Case Oldfield Linkage Least Cost Paths (1.75km and 2.5km into Oldfield linkage) ...... 67 Figure 45: Post Mine Least Cost Path – Preferred Linkage Munglinup...... 67 Figure 46: Post Mine Oldfield Linkage Least Cost Paths (1 km and 1.75km into Oldfield linkage)...... 68

Ecological Linkages/Biodiversity Corridors Impact Assessment Report 6 Munglinup Graphite Project List of Tables

Table 1: Composite linkage value evaluation criteria ...... 22 Table 2: Least Cost path value inversion table ...... 27 Table 3: Width measurement sections ...... 30 Table 4: Limitations and assumptions of the corridor linkage assessment ...... 31 Table 5: Desktop study sources, place and relevant findings ...... 34 Table 6: Threatened species of concern, other Conservation Significant fauna and Short Range Endemic fauna known or likely to use the Munglinup, Oldfield and Young River corridors, habitat preferences and map habitat occurrences...... 38 Table 7: Vegetation/habitat types recorded by the field assessment ...... 40 Table 8: Overall Community (vegetation type) statistics for the three Linkages ...... 42 Table 9: Overall Linkage Physical Parameters ...... 43 Table 10: Linkage Widths ...... 43 Table 11: Oldfield River Linkage – Patch Physical Parameters ...... 44 Table 12: Munglinup River Linkage – Patch Physical Parameters ...... 44 Table 13: Young River Linkage – Patch Physical Parameters ...... 45 Table 14 – Results from the Composite Linkage Value Model – Pre-Mine ...... 64 Table 15 - Results from the Composite Linkage Value Model – Post-Mine ...... 64 Table 16 - Results from the Biological Value Model – Pre-Mine ...... 65 Table 17 - Results from the Biological Value Model – Post-Mine...... 65

Ecological Linkages/Biodiversity Corridors Impact Assessment Report 7 Munglinup Graphite Project Summary

MRC Graphite Pty Ltd (MRCG) proposes to develop its Munglinup Graphite Project (the project) as mining activities encompassing a development envelope of some 650ha near Munglinup on the South Coast of Western Australia.

McQuoid Ecology and Design and Ecotones & Associates were contracted by MRCG, to conduct an assessment of the ecological linkage values of the Munglinup River Corridor and the potential impact of the proposed mine development on that linkage, compared to the Oldfield and Young River corridors located either side. This assessment was achieved through a desktop review, field assessment and quantitative analysis of physical and biological criteria for each corridor. The quantitative analysis was undertaken using MCAS-S. The objectives of the assessment were to:

 Assess the importance of Munglinup River remnant vegetation corridor as an import corridor for the movement of flora and fauna between the coast and the Great Western Woodland.  Assess the importance of the Munglinup Mining Reserve to known threatened species recorded in the region.  Rate if the Munglinup River remnant vegetation corridor is more or less important than the Oldfield River or the Young River remnant vegetation corridors as a link between the Coast and the Great Western Woodland.  Determine if the proposed Munglinup Graphite Project will directly or indirectly impact the ecological linkage values of Munglinup River remnant vegetation corridor or the Munglinup Mining Reserve and rate it significance.

Ecological linkages and corridors are networks of native vegetation that help maintain ecological functions, including the movement of species and gene dispersal, across otherwise fragmented landscapes. Corridors are generally linked vegetation, and linkages often wide, non-linear and substantial cross – landscape networks.

This assessment is to support the project assessment by Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) under Section 38 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (EP Act) and to Department Agriculture, Water and Environment (DAWE) under Section 68 or the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) referred in November 2018.

To determine responses to the project objectives, a desktop review of previous ecological assessments, surveys and records over the study area was completed and the information considered. There was much more data available for the proposed mine-site from the other studies associated with this proposal, than there is for the rest of the three corridors/linkages. Field assessments and broad-scale vegetation and habitat mapping were therefore undertaken to remedy this imbalance and to provide a consistent set of data for the three corridor/linkages for use in the MCAS-S assessment. Relevant biodiversity corridor studies were reviewed, and a set of biological and physical criteria were developed. The biological and physical criteria were used in the MCAS-S analysis.

This assessment and the MCAS-S analysis found:

 That the Oldfield, Munglinup and Young River corridors are important linkages between the coast and the Great Western Woodland.  As a link between the coast and the Great Western Woodland, the Munglinup River Remnant vegetation corridor is the largest of the three assessed corridors and has the highest linkage value.

Ecological Linkages/Biodiversity Corridors Impact Assessment Report 8 Munglinup Graphite Project  An analysis of previous studies, together with the field assessments undertaken by this study, found that six species of Conservation Significant fauna and a number of Short Range Endemic fauna are likely to use, and one species of Conservation Significant fauna may use, the three vegetation corridors due to the presence of suitable habitats.  Corridor path analysis indicates the Munglinup is the best linkage for movement of plants and animals, closely followed by the Oldfield River. The Young River Linkage is well behind both.  The modelling rates the Munglinup River as having a higher sum value (2.69 million) and a higher mean cell value (1.38) compared to the Oldfield river (0.87 million and a mean of 1.0) and Young River (1.5 million and a mean of 0.86) remnant vegetation corridors.  The Munglinup River remnant vegetation corridor is an important for the movement of flora and fauna between the coast and the Great Western Woodland due to the presence of a diversity of vegetation types, including the kwongkan shrubland of the Southeast Coastal Province Threatened Ecological Community and the outlier Jam wattle woodland, the range of habitats they form and the Conservation Significant and Short Range Endemic fauna they are likely to support.  The Munglinup Mining Reserve is inhabited by a number of Threatened and other Conservation Significant species (four such species occur, and two others are likely use the area, and Threatened Ecological Communities because of the presence of the kwongkan shrubland of the Southeast Coastal Province Threatened Ecological Community , as identified by previous studies.  The proposed Munglinup Graphite Project, if implemented could clear up to 350ha within the project development envelope of 650ha, this could directly impact the ecological linkage values of Munglinup River remnant vegetation corridor due to the removal of native vegetation for the mine, and indirectly due to isolating another area of native vegetation (approx. 1000 ha). It will impact the natural values of Munglinup Mining Reserve directly due to vegetation and habitat removal, (including a threatened ecological community) and indirectly by reducing the area of the vegetation and increasing exposure, and reducing the width of the corridor.  The significance of the impact of mining is rated as moderate, as it will reduce modelled values for the overall Munglinup Linkage by up to 10%. The time over which these impacts will reduce, and the extent of the reduction, will depend on the timing and quality of mine-site rehabilitation.  The impacts of the proposed Munglinup Graphite project may be mitigated or reduced by management measures including: restoration following mining and associated site damage, stewardship arrangements with landholders, connecting ecological corridor linkage gaps, and improved conservation security for parts of the three ecological corridor linkages.

Ecological Linkages/Biodiversity Corridors Impact Assessment Report 9 Munglinup Graphite Project Acknowledgements

Integrate Sustainability Pty Ltd, Belinda Bastow Director, for guidance and support during the development and implementation of this assessment.

Daniel Ball, Senior Geologist, MRC Graphite Pty Ltd for support during the field assessment.

Wilhelm and Brigitte Wallefeld of Munglinup for their support and hospitality during the field assessment.

Abbreviations

ABARES ...... Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics CENRM ...... Centre for Excellence in Natural Resource Management DAWE ...... Department of Agriculture, Water and Environment DPIRD ...... Department of Primary Industry and Regional Development DWER ...... Department of Water and Environmental Regulation DBCA ...... Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions GIS ...... Geographic Information System LCP ...... Least Costs Path analysis MCAS-S ...... Multi-Criteria Analysis Shell NCCARF ...... National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility NRM ...... Natural Resource Management SCNRM ...... South Coast Natural Resource Management SWCC ...... South West Catchment Council TEC ...... Threatened Ecological Community

Ecological Linkages/Biodiversity Corridors Impact Assessment Report 10 Munglinup Graphite Project 1. Introduction 1.1 Background The Munglinup Graphite Project (the Project) is located 105km west of Esperance, 85km east of Ravensthorpe and 4km north of the town of Munglinup in the South Coast region of Western Australia (Figure 1). The proposed activities encompass a development envelope of 650ha with an indicative disturbance footprint of 350ha within this development envelope.

The Project was referred to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) under Section 38 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (EP Act) and to Department of the Environment and Energy (now the Department of Agriculture, Water and Environment DAWE) under Section 68 or the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) in November 2018. On the 29 th of May 2019 the level of assessment was set at Assessment on Referral Information with additional information required and a 4-week public consultation period (EPA Assessment number 2206). The DAWE determined the Project is a controlled action and will be assess by the EPA on their behalf as an accredited assessment.

Figure 1: Project Location

Both the EPA and DAWE have indicated they are interested in understanding issues and impacts relating to connectivity of the vegetation corridor along the Munglinup River.

The vegetation along the Munglinup River forms a substantial ecological linkage corridor between several large tracts of native vegetation that span from the coastline in the south to the Great Western Woodlands in the north. It is considered possible that fragmentation or encroachment by the Project on this corridor could have potentially adverse effects on species and gene flow through this region,

Ecological Linkages/Biodiversity Corridors Impact Assessment Report 11 Munglinup Graphite Project particularly in relation to threatened fauna species usage, including Mallee-fowl, Chuditch, Red Tailed Phascogale and Black Cockatoos.

Ecological linkages and corridors are networks of native vegetation that help maintain ecological functions, including the movement of species and gene dispersal, across otherwise fragmented landscapes. Corridors are generally linked vegetation, and linkages often wide, non-linear and substantial cross – landscape networks.

In support of the Environmental Impact Assessment process, this study is to consider the ecological linkage function values for the conservation and movement of biota in the Munglinup River corridor, compared to the adjacent Oldfield River corridor to the west, and the Young River corridor to the east. 1.2 Study Area The study area covers the remnant vegetation corridors of the Oldfield, Munglinup and Young Rivers, on the central south coast, in the South Coast Region of Western Australia. It lies within the Esperance and Ravensthorpe Shires, the Munglinup River forming the boundary (Figure 2).

It sits within the Southeast Coastal Province of the South West Australian Floristic Region (Hopper and Gioia 2004; Gioia and Hopper 2017), and the Esperance 2 (ESP2 – Recherche subregion) of the Esperance Plains Bioregion (DEE 2016a). It is part of the ancient south western Australian landscape known for its relatively fragile botanical diversity, with long-evolved relationships and adaptations with particular landforms, soils and associated often-stable regeneration dynamics (Hopper 2009; Barrett et al 2009).

The Esperance plain bioregion is characterised by proteaceous scrub and mallee heaths on sandplain overlying Eocene sediments that are rich in endemics (Comer et al. 2001). Herbfields and heaths rich in endemics occur on abrupt granite and quartzite ranges that rise from the plain. Eucalypt woodlands occur in gullies and alluvial foot-slopes. Recherche Subregion has variable relief, comprising the Quaternary coastal sandplains and dunes overlying Proterozoic gneiss and granite as well as Eocene and more recent coastal limestones (Comer et al. 2001).

The climate of the study area is temperate Mediterranean with warm dry summers and mild to cool wet winters. Summer temperatures range from 16 ° to 38 ° C, and winter temperatures 6 ° to 17 ° C (MRC Graphite Pty Ltd 2018).

The study area is located along the northern edge of the Albany-Fraser province and the southern margin of the Yilgarn Craton regional geology. Local geology of the Graphite Project includes graphitic schists (MRC Graphite Pty Ltd 2018), with surrounding areas comprising exposures of Archean granites and Albany Fraser gneiss on rises and in valleys, laterite sheets; and Eocene Sedimentary rocks of the Plantagenet group underlying sandplains.

Landforms are generally subdued with broad plains interspersed by the three river valleys. The river valleys provide the most relief, with gentle to moderately steep falls to drainage beds, from flatter surrounding plains. In apparent incongruity, the subdued landforms are complex at a smaller scale, where a long and erosive climatic history has given rise to a range of soil types across subtle changes in geology, slope and aspect.

The study area comprises two broad soil/landscape zones, the South-eastern Zone of Ancient Drainage in the north, and the Esperance Sandplain in the south. Within these the soils are complex, although grouped generally into five principle types as: often alkaline grey deep sandy duplex soils in

Ecological Linkages/Biodiversity Corridors Impact Assessment Report 12 Munglinup Graphite Project the north; and grey deep sandy duplex, grey shallow sandy duplex, shallow gravel and calcareous deep sands in the south (Bowyer et al 2001; Massenbauer 2006).

Figure 2: Oldfield, Munglinup and Young River Linkage Outlines showing remnant vegetation and Mine Project Outline

Ecological Linkages/Biodiversity Corridors Impact Assessment Report 13 Munglinup Graphite Project 1.3 Assessment Design 1.3.1 Ecological Linkage/Biodiversity Corridor Assessment The project objectives require value assessments of remnant vegetation corridors. We have been tasked to assess both “ the importance of Munglinup River remnant vegetation corridor as an important corridor for the movement of flora and fauna between the coast and the Great Western Woodland”, and to “ Rate if the Munglinup River remnant vegetation corridor is more important or less important than the Oldfield River or the Young River remnant vegetation corridors as a link between the Coast and the Great Western Woodland” ( ISPL Scope of Works, 2019:3).

Conducting a comparative assessment of corridors in this way is unusual – we have not found any specific examples in the literature. We have however looked to two related bodies of work – conservation value assessment, and wildlife/conservation corridor assessment. In each body of work, we find lists of criteria used in assessments, although normally in more general terms. 1.3.2 Linkage Conservation Value Assessment There is a significant literature regarding criteria for assessment of conservation or biodiversity values. Much of this emerged in the 1980’s, for basic conservation value assessments, especially in relation to conservation reserve areas (Margules & Usher (1981), Margules et al (1982), Austin (1983), Margules and Nicholl (1988), Margules 1989).). This literature evolved in the 1990’s to cover the assessment and design of conservation corridors (Harris & Scheck 1991; Nicoles and Margules 1991), and the importance of corridors or linkages in conservation (Hobbs and Hopkins, 1991; Bennett 1997, 1999).

A wide range of criteria have been proposed for conservation value assessment. In 1981, Margules and Usher reviewed criteria for wildlife conservation potential in nine studies. They found that five criteria – diversity, rarity, naturalness, area, and threat of human interference – were used in at least six of nine studies. Four of these, they assert, can be assessed either by direct measurement or by estimation using data collected in the region. The fifth criterion - threat of human interference – they believe to be lacking an underlying scientific concept. (Margules and Usher, 1981). Other studies add replaceability to these criteria (Usher 1986). The authors of the current report have drawn from similar approaches used to evaluate conservation value of remnant vegetation in the south west (Neville, 2009, 2014).

Multi-criteria approaches for assessing these values have been compared to more traditional species- based assessment, and the classic criteria have had their relative importance quantified. In a 2004 study, Boteva et al. assessed the common criteria for nature conservation (diversity, rarity, naturalness, threat and replaceability) to determine conservation significance of sites in Crete, Greece. Their multi-criteria ratings compared well to other forms of assessment, and confirmed the value of the approach. In addition, they were able to evaluate weights for each criterion: Diversity 0.3, Rarity 0.33, Naturalness 0.27, threat 0.06 and replaceability 0.04 (Boteva, et al 2004).

A 2011 study of conservation values (Panitsa et al. 2011) carried out a similar comparison of a habitat- based multi-criteria approach to a species-based approach. This study concluded that the multi- criteria approach was more effective, and again evaluated the relative importance of the criteria used: establishing weights of Diversity 0.28, Rarity 0.3, Naturalness 0.25, Threat 0.06, Replaceability 0.04 and Endemism 0.28.

Ecological Linkages/Biodiversity Corridors Impact Assessment Report 14 Munglinup Graphite Project The South Coast NRM Biodiversity Reference Group, a collection of professionals working in NRM and nature conservation, identified a similar set of criteria for biodiversity assessment in the South Coast region (South Coast NRM 2011:3):

 Uniqueness  Representativeness  Diversity  Naturalness/condition  Connectivity  Special features

In 2014, one of the authors carried out conservation and biodiversity value assessment for South Coast NRM (Neville 2014), and the analysis used the following criteria as a guide:

 Diversity (30%)  Rarity (33%)  Naturalness (26%)  Area  Threat/replaceability (9%)

Following our search of the literature, we have adapted these criteria, for the current assessment and are using Naturalness, Rarity and Diversity as our key indicators of biological (conservation/biodiversity) value. The actual parameters (sub-criteria) used in each of these areas are affected by the size of the study (resources) and the available datasets.

The biological assessment is only a part of an assessment of Linkage value, but is critical, as conservation reserve values are a foundation of the purpose of a linkage: “ a network of native vegetation which helps to maintain ecological functions” (MRC, 2019:2). These ecological functions are exactly what reserves are designed to provide, encouraging the long-term survival of species within by “maintaining natural processes and viable population levels, and by excluding threats to their existence” (Crossman et al 2007:2, Soule’ 1987). 1.3.3 Linkage Physical Assessment An additional range of criteria are required for corridor or linkage assessment, where conservation of biodiversity value is only part of the set of values being assessed. The other set of values relate to the capacity of the linkage to function over time, and the act as a connector between larger repositories of biodiversity – in this case the coast and the Great Western Woodlands. In 1997, at the World Commission of Protected Areas (WCPA) Symposium in Albany, Western Australia, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN ), endorsed a global strategy for bioregional initiatives using macro-scale corridors (Miller & Hamilton 1997). The intention was to maintain biological diversity across landscapes. Key elements of the approach included well-protected core areas and corridors that connected them (Wilkins et al, 2006). The use of cores – larger patches in a linkage or corridor – is common in linkage design (e.g. Brown et al 2009, Neville 2014).

Linkage design uses these elements in trying to connect significant areas of vegetation where size is important. Wilkins et al (2006) note in the key assumptions underlying the South- Coast “Macro - Corridor” network, that landscape patterns that promote connectivity are critical as “a key element in nature conservation” (2006:12), and that “po pulations, communities and ecological processes are more likely to be maintained in landscapes that comprise an interconnected system of habitats” (2006:12). They go on to identify specific criteria based on these key understandings, including patch

Ecological Linkages/Biodiversity Corridors Impact Assessment Report 15 Munglinup Graphite Project size (remnants below 20ha were generally degraded, core patches were considered to be above 1500ha); and patch proximity (preferably less than 1000m between patches).

It is not just patch size that is important: it is “generally accepted that tract size has a positive relationship with the viability of populations within a tract, and where the shape allows , decreases the impact of edge effects” (DES 2018:2, emphasis added). So the overall area is significant, as are the sizes of the connected patches (Davis 2009). But shape is also important – large but long and thin patches with extended boundaries are not as viable in the long term as relatively square or round patches. Areas with extended boundaries are more subject to invasive species and other possible impacts (e.g. illegal clearing, fire). These edge effects have an impact on the use of corridors by wildlife (Lindenmayer & Fischer (2006) cited in Davis (2009)) and can be expected to be increased in the long sinuous vegetation shapes found in the study area. Width and length of the overall corridor are also considered significant (Davis 2009, McKenzie and Bio ND), and will be related to size and shape.

Another common criterion is connectivity, or the extent to which landscape components interact with one another (Wilkins et al 2006, DES 2018, NCCARF, ND). Large-scale analysis has produced a connectivity dataset that cover all vegetation areas within South West WA, and the extent to which connections can be traced between them 1. However this is more appropriate at larger scales than the current project, where there is very little difference in this large-scale connectivity between the three linkages. Contiguous vegetation is still considered as important in corridor selection (Davis 2009, Wilkins 2006), and connectivity can still be included as a differentiating criterion by assessing the extent to which the linkages are fragmented (ie have gaps) (Davis 2009).

As a result of the literature review, we have identified two complementary ways in which we can assess the physical suitability of the three linkages – in terms of overall parameters (length, size, width and connectivity (gaps)); and in terms of the component patches (patch size, patch shape, and patch size and patch width). 1.3.4 Composite Linkage Assessment As a result of this literature review, and building on our previous experience, it was decided to assess the three linkages using two main classes of criteria:

 biological values, and  linkage (or physical) values.

The biological values, coming out of conservation value assessments, use criteria relating to the biota. The physical linkage values come from an assessment of the geography of the vegetation making up the linkage. The conceptual framework for the linkage values assessment is shown in Figure 3. These criteria will be used to assess each linkage as well as providing before/after evaluations of the Munglinup River corridor linkage, taking into account the potential impacts of the proposed mine and associated development .

1 The Connectivity Potential dataset was produced by the Australian Government Department of the Environment in 2013, using Least Cost Path methods.

Ecological Linkages/Biodiversity Corridors Impact Assessment Report 16 Munglinup Graphite Project

Linkage

Physical Assessment

Component Veg Patches

Composite Linkage Value

Naturalness Biological Values

Rarity

Community Diversity

Figure 3: Assessment Model Top-Level Conceptual Framework

Each of the top-level criteria is assessed using a range of datasets, some of which are effectively surrogates for the overall criteria. The development of these required further analysis, both of the vegetation comprising each linkage, as well as of the results of the vegetation survey carried out for this project. In some cases, other datasets have been used as required. The more detailed development of the assessment framework is discussed in the Methods section below. The finalisation of the assessment framework allowed us to proceed towards assessment, but still required the selection of an appropriate modelling tool to carry out the assessment. This is covered below.

Ecological Linkages/Biodiversity Corridors Impact Assessment Report 17 Munglinup Graphite Project 1.4 Modelling Methodology (MCAS-S) Integration of spatial data with spatial modelling, risk assessment frameworks and policy decision- making has been carried out in very broad variety of ways for the last 30 years. Early work in spatial environmental modelling was carried out for conservation assessment reserves in the 1980’s (Margules and Usher, 1981; Margules and Nicholls, 1988; Margules, 1989). With the development of GIS techniques, more complex tools were created, and by the 2000’s a very wide range of tools and techniques were being used. For example: Ortigosa et al (2000) developed a program (VVF) to integrate a range of suitability models into GIS; Heidtke and Auer (1993) created a GIS-Based Nonpoint Source Nutrient Loading Model; Boteva et al (2004) used multi-criteria evaluation to determine conservation significance of vegetation communities; Panitsa et al (2011) integrate species and habitat-based approaches to conservation value assessment within GIS. The large range of approaches use both built-in tools and customised tools for a very broad range of applications – from conservation value investigations to modelling of nutrient risk (Neville et al 2008) to modelling of ecological risk (Bartolo et al 2012). As part of these, GIS has been used as a base for a wide range of environmental models.

However, the incorporation of attitudes and preferences into modelling requires more specific tools, especially where the choices are, in effect, being made on the basis of judgements and opinions rather than quantifiable data. This is often the case in NRM policy-making, and is the case in the current situation, where we need to use a modelling tool that fulfils two functions:

 It must allow the use of varying qualities and types of data; and  It must allow the combination of criteria based on anything from hard science to judgements based on experience and belief.

Multi-criteria analysis (MCA) is one such framework, and with its incorporation into the package MCAS-S (Multi Criteria Analysis Shell for Spatial Decision Support - ABARES, (2011)), it brings this framework to spatial decision making, suitable for cost-effective application.

MCAS-S is a spatial software shell which can display spatial data but does not have full GIS functionality. The software allows rapid combination of spatial datasets & criteria specification, and thus allows real-time development with interested parties/experts etc. Usage of MCAS-S has been developing constantly since it was released in 2000 to allow the use of Multi-Criteria analysis in a spatial context (ABARES, 2011). It has been chosen for a wide range of studies 2: in the areas of biodiversity assessment (Neville 2014 & 2014a; DES 2018), natural resource management (Neville 2014 & 2014a), climate and species distribution modelling (EcoCloud, 2018), ecological futures (National Environmental Research Program, UTAS, 2011-2014), soil condition assessment, catchment management, revegetation priority assessment (Neville 2009), pest species and disease assessment, climate impact modelling (Neville 2015) and land conservation value assessment (Mackey et al 2010).

A key reason for using MCAS-S in the current project is that it explicitly allows for the incorporation of different levels of information in the same analysis. It does this through rendering all inputs into the same scale through a process of “fuzzification” – converting data values to 0 to 1, representing the extent of satisfaction of the intended purpose. Its spatial presentation of the process allows the representation of each of the input criteria, and the use of explicit classification for input data layers being used to reflect these criteria. We ascribe specific weightings of each data layer in the production

2 See https://www.agriculture.gov.au/abares/aclump/multi-criteria-analysis for a further range of applications.

Ecological Linkages/Biodiversity Corridors Impact Assessment Report 18 Munglinup Graphite Project of an overall output, and the software maintains all of the assumptions and inputs, and ensures transparency in the production of the final results. 1.5 Least Cost path as a linkage assessment tool Least cost path (LCP) analysis is usually used for calculating the least cost route through a cost surface, such as for locating transport routes. An LCP model simulates the most likely route of travel by selecting combinations of cells that represent the least resistance with the shortest distance between start and finish points (Larkin et al., 2004). But it can also be used for identifying wildlife corridors (Larkin et al 2004, LaRue et al 2008, Li et al 2010, Neville 2019), where the value surface reflects suitability for corridors. In this case, an additional stage of the process is to reclassify the value surface into resistance categories based on the value of each cell. Higher suitability values are given lower LCP costs. While the mechanism we use to create the value surface for the LCP analysis (MCAS-S) is different to that used in other studies (such as Li et al 2010), the underlying logic is the same.

In other studies, the LCP analysis is being used to find the best corridor or linkage; whereas here we are using the technique to evaluate the best link from three pre-set choices. We have adapted this technique to represent one way of assessing the most suitable linkage for the movement of flora and fauna between the Coast and the Great Western Woodlands. 1.6 Personnel Nathan McQuoid has a long experience of over 35 years in nature conservation management and investigation in southern Western Australia. He has expertise in field assessment and survey for flora and vegetation, landscape ecology, taxonomic study and interpreting the natural complexities of the south west Australian nature to the community. He has particular experience of the Western Australian South Coast Region from Walpole to Esperance, including the study area.

Simon Neville trained as a geographer at UWA, and since 1988 has run a small consultancy working on projects mainly associated with spatial data and modelling of environmental issues. Recent projects include spatial multi-criteria analysis using MCAS-S on a range of NRM projects relating to climate change impact assessment; the development of a regional revegetation strategy covering the Great Southern Region for Main Roads WA; and a position as Senior Researcher at the Centre for Excellence in Natural Resource Management at UWA.

Ecological Linkages/Biodiversity Corridors Impact Assessment Report 19 Munglinup Graphite Project 2 Methods The central approach of this linkage assessment in response to the objectives, is an MCAS-S analysis. To support the MCAS-S analysis, information was reviewed and gathered from desktop studies of previous ecological and related studies of the area and the literature on the use of the MCAS-S process for ecological assessment, location records of flora and fauna, and site-based data of the field assessment from across the three corridors. 2.1 Desktop Study A desktop study was undertaken prior to commencement of field assessments and during the assessment and report development process, to: • consider foundational legislative and policy guidance; • support the methodical and safe undertaking of the field assessment; • review and develop aerial imagery and maps to support the field assessment; • review relevant previous ecological investigations of the study area; • consider Conservation Significant flora, fauna and ecological communities recorded in the study area; • review relevant corridor linkage studies; • review the use of MCAS-S in similar or related ecological studies; • consider any other relevant information that may assist the assessment; and • identify any information gaps that may exist.

The assessment was undertaken in accordance with relevant Environmental Protection Authority of WA (EPA) guidance statements (EPA 2018; EPA 2016a; 2016b) and EPBC Act conservation advices and associated information (DAWE 2020).

A Field Safety Plan was developed in consultation with Integrate Sustainability Pty Ltd and MRC Graphite Pty Ltd to support the contractor during the field assessment.

Aerial imagery and maps of the three corridor linkages was developed and provided by Ecotones & Associates to aid field and further assessment. Maps printer at A2 size showed the remnant vegetation linkages of the three corridors, public and private tenure, road network, drainages and contours, which were used to help consider coverage and select public access to data capture (relevé) sites. A series of maps at A4 size was produced for each linkage. These combined roads and hydrology with aerial imagery and the linkage outlines, and were used to determine apparent vegetation types and habitat patterns visible and accessible by public access, to select and locate relevé sites. Delineated vegetation boundaries were drawn on digital, geo-referenced versions of these maps for the digitising process.

Relevant information (data and reports from previous studies of the area and regional records of significant flora, fauna and ecological communities) was provided by Integrate Sustainability Pty Ltd. This information was reviewed to support the field assessment, MCAS-S process and combined study as the linkage assessment.

Records of Conservation Significant flora, fauna and ecological community occurrences in the study area were reviewed as accessed from relevant previous studies and data supplied by Integrate Sustainability Pty Ltd. Of particular interest were records and locations of threatened fauna including Mallee-fowl, Chuditch, Red-tailed Phascogale and Carnaby’s Black Cockatoos, Conservation Significant flora, and the Kwongkan Shrubland Threatened Ecological Community (TEC) (MRC 2018; Western Ecological 2020; Woodman Environmental 2020). This information was used to determine which

Ecological Linkages/Biodiversity Corridors Impact Assessment Report 20 Munglinup Graphite Project relevant taxa and communities were present and in or as what vegetation types and habitats to support the field assessment (DOEE 2016; EPA 2016a, 2016b).

Records of the locations of Conservation Significant flora, fauna and communities was included in the data input into and utilised by the MACS analysis.

Relevant ecological corridor linkage studies and associated information were reviewed to assess their application to guide the MCAS-S analysis, including the development of assessment criteria (as discussed in Section 1). 2.2 Assessment Criteria In planning the field assessments and to support the MCAS-S analysis to meet project objectives, a set of overall assessment criteria was developed from the review of the corridor and linkage literature as discussed in Section 1 (see Figure 3, see also Table 5). This set includes ecological and physical values 3 and takes account of guidance information in considering ecological integrity (EPA 2018a) and vegetation characteristics (EPA 2016b). It amounts to a set of criteria for assessing each linkage in terms of biological/ecological and physical characteristics.

These criteria required selection (or collection) of data to allow evaluation against these criteria within MCAS-S. To do this, a more developed set of draft criteria were designed to ensure that data collected in the field survey were relevant to meet the broader assessment needs. The assessment criteria were used in draft form to support the field assessment (Appendix 1) and the broad-scale vegetation/habitat mapping (Appendix 2). These criteria included vegetation types, habitat types, habitat values, TEC distribution, Conservation Significant flora and fauna locations, condition, invasive species presence and physical factors such as connectivity and dimensions (EPA 2016a, 2016b). In addition, we began the investigation of datasets available that could supplement the data collected in the field or derived from the physical characteristics of the linkage envelopes.

To implement the overall assessment criteria in MCAS-S, the datasets were chosen to fulfil each overall criterion, and are listed and explained in Table 1 (they are listed in terms of how they appear in the MCAS-S model).

The detailed model diagram is presented in Figure 4.

3 Tenure was considered for inclusion as a value criterion, in so far as different tenures may have different levels of security in the long term (see Watson (1991). It was not included due to its practical limitations, such as whether protected tenure is actually more secure in management and its values to the biota.

Ecological Linkages/Biodiversity Corridors Impact Assessment Report 21 Munglinup Graphite Project

Table 1: Composite linkage value evaluation criteria

Criterion/Focus Values Evaluation Source Physical Characteristics Overall Linkage Shorter is better for the overall movement Length of linkage Measured length in m GIS analysis of shapefile of biota; better connectivity; relative values larger is better for biological health and GIS analysis of shapefile Area of Linkage Measured length in ha natural processes; relative values Wider is better for biological health and GIS analysis of shapefile Average Width of Length -weighted width in m natural processes and for reducing external Linkage impacts; relative values Measured length of gap along Shorter is better overall movement of biota; GIS analysis of shapefile Gaps linkage axis in m better connectivity; relative values Contiguous Patches of Vegetation Larger is better for biological health and GIS analysis of shapefile Area Measured length in ha natural processes ; better integrity Length -weighted width for Wider is better for biological health and GIS analysis of shapefile Average Width each patch of contiguous natural processes and for reducing external vegetation impacts within the individual patch Larger number indicates better shape, GIS analysis of shap efile better long -term capacity to maintain Exposure Index of exposure biological values and provide species refugia; and for reducing external impacts within the individual patch Biological Characteristics Naturalness Field assessment of multiple factors (and susceptibility) for that general Community type - Vegetation and habitats; Presence of weeds; Presence of Phytophthora dieback; Vegetation Condition Community type Condition Vegetation Survey Burn history Assess on a categorical scale: Pristine, excellent, very good, good, degraded, very degraded. Pristine is best. Presence of invasive weeds, feral animal Weeds (Invasive Presence/absence occurr ence or Phytophthora dieback in Vegetation Survey Species) specific community patch. Longer distance better (up to 500m). For GIS analysis (Euclidean Exposure Distance to cleared land any grid cell, longer distances represent distance) relative absence of external impacts. Rarity Field assessment of suitable habitat Threatened Species Presence/Absence/Likelihood Vegetation Survey presence. Distance in meters from rare and Distance from Proximity to collection endangered flora – both State and Federal ISPL -supplied dataset threatened Flora lists. (Master Threatened Distance in meters from rare and and Significant Flora Distance from Proximity to collection/sighting endangered fauna – both State and Federal and Fauna DBCA.shp) threatened Flora lists. GIS analysis of community area from Local Rarity of Community Community Rarity Vegetation Survey – locally rare Vegetation Survey Type communities score higher Vegetation type and habitat constitutes the Potential TEC Presence/absence Vegetation Survey Kwongkan TEC Diversity Essential conservation value criterion, GIS analysis of Diversity Community Type Diversity surrogate for habitat complexity and niche Community Type from opportunity Vegetation Survey

Ecological Linkages/Biodiversity Corridors Impact Assessment Report 22 Munglinup Graphite Project

Length

Area

Linkage

Avewidth

Gaps Physical Assessment

Area Component Veg Patches

Avewidth

Exposure

Composite Linkage Value NMVS Condition

NMVS Disease Naturalness

NMVS Threatened Exposure Species

Flora Distance Threatened Species Biological Values

Rarity NMVS Community Fauna Distance Rarity

NMVS Potential TEC

Community Diversity

Figure 4: Assessment Model Detailed Framework

The draft criteria were included in the field assessment spreadsheet as a separate tab, to which the MCAS-S analysis could be linked and interpreted (Appendix 1).

The criteria were reviewed during the desktop study of previous investigations and finalised during the MCAS-S analysis finalisation session June 18 and 19, where an iterative process was followed to develop criteria classifications and weightings.

Finalised criteria were used by the MCAS-S analysis to assess each corridor linkage at both local and regional scales, compare corridor linkages, and to provide an evaluation of the Munglinup River corridor linkage status in the event of the proposed mine being developed.

Ecological Linkages/Biodiversity Corridors Impact Assessment Report 23 Munglinup Graphite Project 2.3 Field Assessment Two days were allocated for the field assessments of each corridor linkage, undertaken in the Oldfield and Munglinup River corridors over four days April 16 th – 19 th , 2020, and in the Young River corridor over May 8 th and 9 th , 2020. An additional trip was undertaken on May 23 rd , 2020 to access parts of the Young River corridor inaccessible on May 9 th , 2020. The Field Safety Plan was implemented throughout, including text notifications at the commencement, during and at the end of each field day, and at the safe arrival back at the contractor’s residence after each trip.

Field assessments of the three corridor linkages was undertaken to gain an understanding of the vegetation types and habitats present across the study area, and to determine and record occurrences of conservation significant flora, fauna and ecological communities (EPA 2018; 2016a, 2016b).

Relevé sites were selected to capture the spread of representative vegetation types across the corridor linkages visible on the aerial imagery, able to be accessed from public roads and lands. Private property was not traversed to locate or access sites.

Ecological data was recorded at relevé sites across the three corridor linkages, including location, site number, site characteristics, vegetation structure and composition and condition, on field data sheets using the modified Perth Bushlands method (Keighery 1994; EPA 2016b; Appendix 1). Sites were generally located close to public road access or by walking short distances, to maximise time available to cover the study area.

Relevé sites were recorded as waypoints in GDA 94 using a Garmin 76 GPS receiver, downloaded using Mac GPS Pro software onto a Mac computer. Waypoints were saved as KML files into an Excel spreadsheet, and provided to Ecotones and Associates for mapping and to support the MCAS-S analysis (Appendix 1).

Field assessment relevé site data, including GPS data, was digitised into an Excel spreadsheet (Appendix 1). Data collected was entered into a spreadsheet (Appendix 1), rather than digitised into separate record sheets as is often typical (e.g. Woodman Environmental 2020, Western Ecological 2020), as the Excel spreadsheet program was required as a basis for data provision for the MCAS-S analysis.

Images of sites were obtained using an Olympus Tough TG5 digital camera, saved into folders for each field trip, with backups into additional folders.

Ecological and site data was used to determine the pattern of vegetation types and habitats for broad scale vegetation type and habitat mapping, and to support the MCAS-S analysis.

Relevé data sites were places along each river corridor to ensure the range of vegetation types, terrain and spread of remnants was covered (EPA 2018; EPA 2016b), within the constraint of two days field time allocated for each corridor.

Dieback occurrences and status of remnant native vegetation were located and assessed using the DIDMS website and system (Project Dieback 2017).

An additional factor of outlier plant communities was included in the assessment design. This community relates to a stand of Mangart or Jam Wattle ( Acacia acuminata ) occurred in the study area outlying its typical distribution to the west and north. These stands have conservation and cultural value, although are not listed as conservation significant (DBCA 2018), as such they were included as significant and to be mapped and used in assessment criteria.

Ecological Linkages/Biodiversity Corridors Impact Assessment Report 24 Munglinup Graphite Project 2.4 Vegetation and Habitat Mapping Broad scale vegetation and habitat mapping was undertaken using the method of previous mapping studies (Craig et al 2008), site relevé data, consideration of vegetation types and habitats by previous studies (Western Ecological 2020, Woodman Environmental 2020), and by extrapolation using available aerial imagery (EPA 2016b). The broad scale approach was considered appropriate to identify the general range of vegetation types visible from available aerial imagery across the study area, from which to derive adequate vegetation maps, within time constraints.

Habitats were identified by the surrogate of vegetation types and from habitats identified by previous studies (EPA 2016a, 2016b; Western Ecological 2020; Woodman Environmental 2020). Vegetation types and the habitats they form were considered a surrogate for application across the three corridor linkages, as identified for the presence and requirement of Conservation Significant flora, fauna and ecological communities and Short Range Endemic Invertebrates, as identified by the previous surveys and assessments of the proposed mining area in the Munglinup corridor (MRC 2018; Invertebrate Solutions 2020; Western Ecological 2020; Woodman Environmental 2020).

Condition was recorded at relevé sites (EPA 2016b), and included in mapping where condition status was known as the presence of weeds, evidence of ground disturbance or recent fire, or could be seen using available aerial imagery. 2.5 Determination of corridor use by fauna Use of the three corridors by fauna, as sought by the objective ‘ Describe the fauna likely to use corridors and rate the importance to the species, taking into consideration previous survey ass ociated with each corridor ’, was determined by:  Taking into consideration the findings of previous surveys (Ecoscape 2017; MRC 2018; Invertebrate Solutions 2020; Western Ecological 2020; Woodman Environmental 2020);  the specific requirements of the EPA and DAWE in their consideration of potential impacts on four threatened fauna species of particular concern in the Munglinup River corridor, as outlined in the project Scope of Works;  the Commonwealth Department of Agriculture, Water and Environment Conservation Advice and related information for the EPA and DAWE fauna of concern (Western Ecological 2020; Benshemesh 2007; DEC 2012; DPW 2013; DoEE 2016b);  reviewing known occurrences of principally Conservation Significant fauna from across the three corridors (Ecoscape 2017; Western Ecological 2020; Woodman Environmental 2020), and the MCAS-S analysis of these as it relates to the three corridors;  accounting for the limitations of information from negligible previous survey effort in corridor sections and corridors beyond the proposed mining area in the Munglinup corridor;  reviewing the literature relating to corridor usage by the EPA and DAWE fauna species of particular concern;  the results of the field assessment, principally its broad-scale vegetation and habitat mapping, in identifying the habitats of the three corridors, particularly as they relate to the four threatened fauna species of concern to the EPA and DAWE, and other Conservation Significant fauna known from the area; and  consideration of the practicalities of identifying corridor use and rating the importance to species across a large number of fauna classes and taxa by a limited assessment.

It should be noted that detailed data collected during other Project studies was considered for the current analysis. However it was not specifically incorporated into the MCAS-S assessment as it would

Ecological Linkages/Biodiversity Corridors Impact Assessment Report 25 Munglinup Graphite Project have placed greater and undue emphasis on the Munglinup Project Area. The analysis undertaken instead used datasets of similar scale and quality across the three areas. 2.6 MCAS-S Data Preparation MCAS-S renders the datasets used as grids or rasters, which must conform in spatial extent and projection, and requires GIS software for data preparation. ArcGIS and QGIS were used in this project for raster processing.

There were a variety of ways in which the datasets were processed; the major components of the workflow were:

 Identify the dataset required (or available) to evaluate criteria o Identify the way in which it will be used – as continuous data or categorical data.  Pre-Processing - Undertake any necessary initial processing, such as o Conversion from shapefile to raster (custom tool using Feature to Raster in ArcGIS). o Re-classification (r.reclass in QGIS). o Euclidean distance for proximity features (Proximity (raster distance) in QGIS) o Variety analysis for diversity rasters (r.neighbors in QGIS) o Calculations on fields (such as area to create rasters of area).  MCAS-S Processing o Sample or re-sample the dataset to the standard resolution and location (r.resample in QGIS) o Re-project the raster during re-sampling or export o Output coordinates [GDA_1994_MGA_Zone_51] o Cell size fixed at 10m o Export the raster to the appropriate MCAS-S Folder.

For this study, the use of a 10m grid cell allowed for high resolution data analysis at the whole of region scale: each cell is 100m 2 or 0.01ha in size, a very small area at the linkage scale. Each grid is 8044 cells wide x 6847 cells high, or just over 55 million pixels. 2.7 Linkage Comparative Assessment The results of the MCAS-S modelling were used to carry out the assessment of the relative importance of the linkages. The model results have been assessed in three ways:

1) By mapping to visualise the model results;

2) By summing the Composite Linkage values for each linkage and comparing the summed results; and

3) By running Least Cost Path analyses using Composite Linkage values to find the best path between the coastal zone and the Great Western Woodlands. This is analogous to the best linkage.

The Munglinup Linkage has been modelled both before and after changes associated with mining.

Least Cost Path Assessment We used the least cost path algorithm in QGIS to calculate the best path through a value surface by re-classifying the Composite Linkage Value model values. The MCAS-S Composite Linkage Value Model exports a classified grid, with number values 1-10. These numbers indicate the Composite Linkage

Ecological Linkages/Biodiversity Corridors Impact Assessment Report 26 Munglinup Graphite Project Value for each cell, and need to be converted to cost values for the least cost path analysis. The values used for costs are shown in the table below:

Table 2: Least Cost path value inversion table

MCAS -S Value MCAS -S Meaning LCP Value LCP Meaning 1 Composite Linkage Value - No 50 Highest Least Cost Path resistance – vegetation. algorithm will try to avoid such areas. 2 Lowest value cell with 20 High resistance to path – least vegetation preferred path. 3 10 4 8 5 6 6 4 7 3 8 2 9 Highest value cell with 1 Lowest Resistance to Least Cost Path – vegetation most preferred vegetation 10 Coastal block and Great 0 No resistance to Least Cost Path – will Western Woodlands – added not have an effect on route. after Composite Linkage Value calculated 2.8 Linkage Physical Assessment Linkage Preparation A shapefile of the three linkages was provided by ISPL as shown in Figure 5 . Each linkage was edited to remove areas within the linkage shapefile (as provided) that did not contain native vegetation, or which contained vegetation too degraded to meet the standards of the Department of Primary Industry and Regional Development (based on the most recent DPIRD “Native Vegetation Extent” dataset, 2019).

In addition, the Munglinup linkage was extended to the north so as to complete the link between the coast and the Great Western Woodlands. This is entirely consistent with the mapping of both the Young and Oldfield linkages: the Young extends over un-vegetated land down to the coast, and the Oldfield is continued through areas in the north/middle section that do not contain native vegetation. The Munglinup Linkage was also edited to remove a single patch of vegetation that it separated by a road parallel with the linkage axis 4. Each linkage was also edited to stop when one of the two estuaries had been reached (i.e. the coast). All linkages have areas where vegetation is missing, and all have roads crossing the linkage axis – both of these features cut vegetation into discontinuous patches. The final linkage outlines used are shown in Figure 6.

4 Both the Oldfield and the Young linkage shapes provided have been drawn to remove adjacent vegetation. In one case on the east of the Young this coincides with a road parallel to the linkage axis, in other cases in both Young and Oldfield the omissions appear relatively arbitrary.

Ecological Linkages/Biodiversity Corridors Impact Assessment Report 27 Munglinup Graphite Project

Figure 5: Linkage outlines as provided, showing DPIRD classified native vegetation

Figure 6: Linkage outlines as amended, showing DPIRD classified native vegetation

Ecological Linkages/Biodiversity Corridors Impact Assessment Report 28 Munglinup Graphite Project The area and perimeter of native vegetation components of each linkage were measured, and an index calculated to assess polygon shape and size. The index is [Area / Boundary 2 x (Area / Boundary) ], and provides a good identification of the relative exposure of an area of vegetation (Neville, 2014) 5. This measure provides an important indicator both of existing naturalness value and potential to maintain values over time. A linkage path was calculated (as outlined below) to assess overall linkage length and linkage gaps. Munglinup Linkage: Post mine In order to carry out the project objective we have made two assumptions about the impact of the mine on the Munglinup corridor:

 That the mine site and the access road easement running north at the western end of the mine site act as a boundary for the linkage; and  That the vegetation to the east of the mine and the easement road are effectively removed from the linkage.

The effect of these two assumptions is shown in Figure 7 below, showing the shape used in the post- mining analysis. These assumptions are considered to constitute a worse-case scenario.

Pre -Mine Boundary Post -Mine Boundary

Figure 7: Munglinup Linkage Boundary showing the Mine Project Outline – as used for the before- and after- mine scenarios

Linkage width assessment A GIS extension running in ArcGIS (XTools) was used to measure linkage width at a large number of places for each linkage (see Table 3), in the process calculating centre-points along the linkage. A linkage path was drawn based on these measurement/centre points. The length of each section of linkage path was calculated, and a length-weighted width calculated.

5 This index scores areas of contiguous vegetation high if they are small with a good shape (close to round or square), moderate sized with reasonable shape, or they are very large irrespective of shape. It ranks areas low if they are very small, with anything other than very good shape, or are moderate sized with poor shape. The index has been used to assess each contiguous area of vegetation in each linkage (areas are usually cut by roads, or where clearing has cut through the river linkage), as well as each entire linkage. In the latter case, each linkage is combined into a single polygon using fine connectors. These connectors, being very narrow, reflect the impact of gaps in a linkage by reducing the linkage shape qualities.

Ecological Linkages/Biodiversity Corridors Impact Assessment Report 29 Munglinup Graphite Project

Table 3: Width measurement sections

Number of width Linkage measurements Munglinup 274 Munglinup (after mine) 307 Oldfield 356 Young 345 The area, average width and shape index values were also calculated (also within ArcGIS) for each contiguous area of native vegetation in each linkage using the same methods.

Ecological Linkages/Biodiversity Corridors Impact Assessment Report 30 Munglinup Graphite Project 3 Limitations and Assumptions Some assumptions were made in designing and undertaking the study. A number of limitations presented and were encountered during the study.

Assumptions included:  Assessment focus was on remnant vegetation as habitat, rather than physical habitats as riverbeds, wetlands, pools etc.  The area east of proposed mine site would be removed from linkage by the development.

Table 4 presents study limitations in accordance with EPA (2016a).

Table 4: Limitations and assumptions of the corridor linkage assessment

Limitation Impact on assessment Qualification / Context Significance Only the proposed mine site Information potentially biased to Extent and quality of information High and its vicinity had detailed one location compared to whole from proposed mine site was on -ground ecological study area. nevertheless useful in determining assessment. broader use through habitat identification . Data collection was undertaken to pr ovide equivalent data for all linkages. Time and resource Gaps in field assessment data. Baseline data set was adequate for Moderate constraints allowed for Particularly no sites in this study, and, importantly, was limited data collection for a Cheadanup Nature Reserve. consistent across the three linkages baseline dataset for all three corrido rs. Aerial imagery available for Vegetation type/habitats Available aerial imagery was Low mining reserve was visibility from broad coverage adequate for this study, and, significantly bett er than mapping was not as good as that importantly, was consistent across remainder of study area. from the high - resolution the three l inkages. imagery for the proposed mine site. Vegetation types and The limited information from The surrogate of vegetation types High habitats were used as previous surveys, and available and habitats is considered adequate surrogates for the other from the field assessment, for this study, and, was consistent linkage corridors and parts require d that the assessment across the three linkages to determine fauna design use vegetation types and potential presence and habitats as a determinant of usage. fauna use likelihood, rather than the results of a comprehensive detailed survey equivalent to that of the proposed mine site. Broadscale kwongkan Broadscale kwongkan mapping Widespread kwongkan ma pping is Low mapping. shows this vegetation not comparable to the kwongkan type/habitat to be widespread. mapping in Mining Reserve due to the increased survey effort. Native vegetation on private The values of the corridor A number of areas of other Moderate lands was not included in the linka ges may have been vegetation were excluded by ISPL in corridor linkages, despite its increased if relatively large areas their init ial delineation of the relative abundance and of private natural lands were linkages. ecological contribution. included. Not aquatic fauna Aquatic fauna not included i n The proposed mine development Low assessment as representative of would not sever the waterway link several classes of fauna. or the use by it of aquatic fauna.

Ecological Linkages/Biodiversity Corridors Impact Assessment Report 31 Munglinup Graphite Project

Limitation Impact on assessment Qualification / Context Significance No waterways or wetlands Waterways and wetlands as The proposed mine development Low physical habitats, beyond would not sever the waterway link in vegetation/habitat surrogates, the Munglinup River corridor. were not included. Large number of fauna As the pr evious studies had been Moderate classes requiring so limited outside the proposed consideration to meet mine site, to fully address objective 4, if taken literally. objective 4 comprehensive, detailed studies would need to have been completed outside the proposed mine site. Surrogates as habitat were used instead. Fauna f or Objective 4 limited As above. The concerns and Moderate to Conservation Significant requirements of the DAWE and fauna specifically of concern EPA for Conservation Significant to the EPA and DAWE and Fauna led the study towards recently recorded. considering the m, and their habitats, as further surrogates for the conservation of other classes of fauna. No field assessment sites in Limits demonstrable coverage of Field assessment of Cheadanup Low Cheadanup Nature Reserve. study area. Although vegetation Nature Reserve was not possible in mapping was possible using the the field time allo cated . same method as throughout. Notwithstanding, information from this a nd other studies was used for the vegetation mapping . . Use of MCAS -S multi -criteria The use of MCAS -S approach Multi -criteria analysis and Least Cost High analysis with specific criteria with Least Cost Path is key to Path analysis are used in other and limited datasets. allowing an explicit/transparent studies to rate conservation value comparati ve assessment of three and identify corridors for wildlife. corridor linkages. The values are Our adaptation t o rate three subject to the nature of the corridors/linkages, although novel, analysis. is consistent with other studies. Conversion from MCAS -S The values in the Least Cost path Our conversion table is similar to Moderate values model to least cost value conversion table have an other studies using multi -criteria path cost surface. effect on the least cost path analysis and least post path analysis analysis. to rate conservation value and identify corridors for wildlife.

The MCAS -S Post -mine Worst -case assessment does not No provision in scope for other than Low assessment is an assessment account for changes and static assessment. of full mine impacts only. recovery post mine. Post mine assessment This area is taken as cleared in Precautionary approach. Low assumes compl ete MRC the MCAS -S and Linkage Analysis. development area (650 ha) is removed from Munglinup linkage. Post mine assessment This area is taken as cleared in Precautionary approach. Low assumes area to the east of the MC AS -S and Linkage Analysis. the MRC development area (999.96 ha) is isolated from Munglinup linkage.

Ecological Linkages/Biodiversity Corridors Impact Assessment Report 32 Munglinup Graphite Project 4 Results 4.1 Desktop Study The desktop study identified relevant previous surveys and assessments, records of ecological values and Phytophthora dieback occurrences from across the three corridor linkages; relevant biodiversity corridor and linkage studies; and supporting legislative and policy founded conservation guidance (Table 5).

The studies selected (see Section 1 and Table 5) informed the design and implementation of the field assessment, supported the MCAS-S analysis, the use of corridors by fauna evaluation (Table 6), and informed the development of potential management measures.

The study selected the preferred habitats for Conservation Significant and Short Range Endemic Fauna in the proposed mining area, as identified by the recent ecological studies (MRC 2018; Invertebrate Solutions 2020; Western Ecological 2020; Woodman Environmental 2020). These habitats were considered to be suitable surrogates for the preference of the same fauna for their presence and use of the three corridor linkages (Table 6Table 6).

The location records for Conservation Significant flora, fauna and communities listed by both Western Australian and Commonwealth Government legislation within the study area (MRC 2018; Western Ecological 2020; Woodman Environmental 2020), as supplied by Integrate Sustainability Pty Ltd, were used as part of the MCAS-S analysis.

Ecological Linkages/Biodiversity Corridors Impact Assessment Report 33 Munglinup Graphite Project

Table 5: Desktop study sources, place and relevant findings

Source Place Relevant findings Ecological linkage , corridors, connectivity Sprlyan J. (2019) Biodiversity Corridors - The role they play in a fragmented South West Australia Corridor types, connectivity concepts, ecological linkage concepts and landscape . Integrated Sustainability Pty Ltd, Environment. definition, linkage function.

Davis, D. A. (2015). Scientific criteria and guidelines for Ecological Linkages . Perth: Perth Western Australia Primarily aimed at birds, linkage criteria, composition of the linkage matrix, The University of Western Australia. corridor/linkage value to biota, factors that influence linkage use, linkage function, linkage spatial dimension, implications of gaps, exotic plantations as habitat, revegetation value, guiding principles.

Guthrie, N. (2010). A preliminary investigation of Ecological Linkages for the Northern Wheatbelt Identification of linkages, linkage selection criteria, priority inclusions into Geraldton Regional Flora and Vegetation study area . West Leederville, WA: Western Aus tralia linkages, regional linkages, local linkages WALGA.

Molloy, S., Wood, J., Hall, S., Walldrodt, S., & Whisson, G. (2009). South West South West Catchments Concepts of ecological linkages in land use planning, regional ecological Regional Ecological Linkages Technical Repo rt . Perth: Western Australian Local Council Region, linkages, methodolog y for identifying regional ecological linkages, support for Government Association and Department of Environment and Conservation Western Australia the retention of viable ecological linkages, spatial identification of the regional linkages, policy recommendations for retention and reconnection of ecological linkage and function.

Wilkins, P., Gilfillan, S., Watson, J. and Sanders, A. (ed). (2006). The Western South Coast Western Regional ecological corridor concept and design, landscape scale ecological Australian South Coast Macro Corridor Network – a bioregional strategy for Australia conservation, landscape connectivity, prioritising of nature conservation nature conservation , Department of Conservation and Land Management (CALM) values for corridor va lue, early recognition of vegetation (conservation) and South Coast Regional Initiati ve Planning Team (SCRIPT), Albany, Western corridors of the WA south coast, fragmentation and isolation as nature Australia. conservation challenges.

Merriam G., and Saunders D.A. (1993) Corridors in Restoration of Fragmented South Western Carnaby’s black cockatoo habitat requirements and corridor use. Landscapes. Nature Conservati on 3: Reconstruction of Fragmented Ecosystems , Australia, Ontario pp 71 – 87. Eds. D. A. Saunders, R.J. Hobbs and P. R. Ehrlich, Surrey Beatty & Sons, Canada. Sydney New South Wales

Saunders D.A. and Hobbs R.J. (1991) The role of corridors in conservation: what International, focus on Values of corridors; need for inventory and assessment of corridors; do we know and where do we go? Pages 421 – 427 in Nature Conservation 2: The south west Australia movement of biota; corridor management – establishment, mainten ance, Role of Corridors , ed. by Denis A. Saunders and Richard J. Hobbs, Surrey Beatty rehabilitation, guidelines and Sons, 1991

Ecological Linkages/Biodiversity Corridors Impact Assessment Report 34 Munglinup Graphite Project

Source Place Relevant findings Saunders D.A. (1991) The Effect of Land Clearing on the Ecology of Carnaby’s Sou th western Carnaby’s Cockatoo historical distribution; effects of clearing and Cockatoo and the Inland Red -tailed Black Cockatoo in the Wheatbelt of Western Australia, wheatbelt fragmentation; breeding; food requirements. Australia . ACTA XX Congressus Intenationalis Ornithologici 1991

Saunders, Hobbs and Margules (1991) Biological Consequences of Ecosystem Worldwide, focus on Physical factors, isolation, fragmentation, connectivity in landscapes; remnant Fragmentation: A Review. Conservation Biology. Mar 1991 , Vol 5 No 1. Wiley South West Australia, size, shape, position in landscape; management of fragmented systems; early Society for Conservation. Wheatbelt review of linkage ecology from which recent perspectives continue.

NCARF (No date) Wildlife Corridors and Climate Change. Information Sheet Seven . Australia Biodiversity corridors; corridors and climate change; corridor types, design National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility. Adaptation Network, and size; implications for managers Terrestrial Biodiv ersity, James Cook University, Townsville.

Ecological assessment and survey Woodman Environmental (2020) Munglinup Graphite Project. Detailed Flora and Munglinup Graphite Flora and vegetation, detailed survey of proposed mine site and surrounding Vegetation Assessment . MRC Graphite Pty Ltd. Project proposed mine reserve, desktop of surroundi ng region. Significant flora, vegetation units and site and region. TEC survey ; vegetation mapping, habitats.

Western Ecological (2020) Lev el 2 Fauna Survey – Munglinup Graphite Project. Munglinup Graphite Terrestrial vertebrate fauna; targeted survey for significant fauna; level 2 March 2020 Final Report. Prepared for MRC Graphite Pty Ltd Projec t proposed mine detailed fauna survey; observations of significant fauna; habitat site and region. requirements; fauna conservation impact implications.

Invertebrate Solutions (2 020) Survey for Short Range Endemic Fauna for the MRC Munglinup Graphite Short range endemic (SRE) invertebrate fauna; level 2 SRE invertebrate fauna Graphite Project, Munglinup Western Australia . Unpublished report to MRC Project proposed mine survey; habitat requirements; SRE conservation impact implications. Graphite Ltd, March 2020 site.

MRC Graphite Pty Ltd (2018). Munglinup Graphite Project – S38 & EPBC Referral: Munglinup Graphite Assessment context and o verview; flora, vegetation and fauna, and Supporting Information Project proposed mine environmental principles and factors relating; Appendices for Previous flora, site. vegetation and fauna studies, Kwongkan Shrubland TEC survey.

EPA (2018b). Public Record pursuant to s39 (1), CMS 17509, MRC Graphite Pty Munglinup Graphite Potential impacts on vegetation, flora and fauna. Ltd . Environmental Protection Authority, 12 -11 -2018. Perth, Western Australia Project proposed mine site.

Ecoscape (2017) State Barrier Fence Biological Sur veys. Department of Ravensthorpe to Flora, vegetation, fauna and ecological communities, significant flora and Agriculture and Food Western Australia Esperance Region, fauna northern section of study area

Ecological Linkages/Biodiversity Corridors Impact Assessment Report 35 Munglinup Graphite Project

Source Place Relevant findings EPA (2003) Ravensthorpe Nickel Project, Change to Environmental Conditions. Ravensthorpe, Mine expansion in natural area nearby; impacts on significant flora, Ravensthorpe Nickel Operations Pty Ltd. Section 46 Report and Bandalup Hill, west of vegetation and fauna, endemic flora and communities; Bandalup corridor. Recommendations of the Environmental Protection Authority . Environmental study area Protection Authority, Perth Western Australi a

Burgman M. A. (1988), Spatial analysis of vegetation patte rns in southern Northern section and Reserve design to conserve optimum plant diversity; spatial turnover of Western Australia: implications for reserve design. Australian Journal of Ecology adjacent lands of the floristic an d vegetation type diversity. (1988) 13, 415 -429 study area.

Project Dieback (2017 ) https://didms.gaiaresources.com.au . Dieback South West Australia, Dieback infestation locations; dieback status. Information Delivery and Management System (DIDMS). Project Dieback , Natural covers study area Resource Management Western A ustralia,

Study area previous river, corridor or catchment studies McQuoid N . (2017) Oldfield River Drooping Tree Pear (Opuntia monocantha) Oldfield River corridor, Distribution and abundance of Opuntia monocantha in Oldfield River corridor, Survey. Ravensthorpe Agricultural Initiative network and Southern Biosecurity within study area. management recommendations ; other ecological features of the river Group, Ravensthorpe Western Australia corridor including vegetation.

Cook, B. A., Janicke, G. & Maughan, J. (2008). Ecological values of waterways in South Coast Western River systems; foreshore vegetation abundance and condition; riparian the South Coast Region, Western Australia . Report No CENRM079, Centre of Australia, includes habitat; ecologi cal value ranking. Excellence in Natural Resourc e Management, University of Western Australia. Oldfield, Munglinup and Report prepared for the Department of Water. Young Rivers.

Chapman A. (2008). Discover the Young River: An assessment of values, condition Young River corridor, Riparian vegetation, condition, habitat values; bird usage; degradation; and threats . Esperance Regional Forum, Department of Water, Esperance within study area corridor ecological value. Western Australia

Bowyer, J . (WA). (2001). Lort and Young Rivers Catchment: catchment appraisal Young River catchm ent, Climate, g eology, landforms , soils; limited vegetation, regional context. 2001 . Department of Agriculture and Food, Western Australia, Perth. Report 231. within study area

Massenbauer, A. (2006), Ravensthorpe area catchment appraisal 2006 . Oldfield and Young Climate, g eology, landforms , soils; limited vegetation, regional context. Department of Agriculture and Food, Western Australia, Perth. Report 311. River catchments, within study area.

Craig G (1998) Oldfield Catchment 1998 . Report prepared for the Oldfield Oldfield River Catchment vegetation, flora fauna, rare flora; native vegetation condition ; Landcare Group and Agriculture Western Australia Catchment, within 1998 records . study area.

Ecological Linkages/Biodiversity Corridors Impact Assessment Report 36 Munglinup Graphite Project

Source Place Relevant findings Watson J. (1991) The identification of river foreshore corridors for nature South Coast Western River corridors for nature conservati on, provision of corridor linkages conservation in the South Coast Region of Western Australia. Pages 63 - 68 in Australia. Oldfield, between conservation reserves on the coast and unallocated Crown land in Nature Conservation 2: The Role of Corridors , ed. by Denis A. Saunders and Munglinup and Young the north; corridor quality factors and criteria, conservation value of remnants Richard J. Hobbs, Surrey Beatty and Sons, 1991. River corridors. in their own right.

Conservation advice, recovery plan, or related information Benshemesh, J. (2007). National Recovery Plan for Malleefowl . Department for Australia Critical habita t; limiting factors as habitat fragmentation and isolation, Environment and Heritage, South Australia pr edation impacts; monitoring, adaptive management.

Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) (2012). Chuditch (Dasyurus Australia (former Retention of critical habitat; impacts from predation; p op ulation distribution; geoffroii) Recovery Plan. Wildlife Management Program No. 54 . Department of range ); focus on south monitoring. Environment and Conservation, Perth, Western Australia. west Australia.

Department of Parks and Wildlife (DPW) (2013). Carnaby’s cockatoo South west Australia Critical habitat for feeding, nesting and roosting; enhancing habitat; breeding (Calyptorhynchus latirostris) Recovery Plan . Department of Par ks and Wildlife, and non -breeding range ; monitoring, research to inform management. Perth, Western Australia.

Department of the Environment and Energy (DEE) (2016b). Conservation Advice, Australia Habitat requirements, habitat fragmentation; habitat management support Phascogale calura - red -tailed phascogale . Department of Environment and (infrequent fire); predation exposure in some habitats. Energy, Canberra Australian Capital Territory

Ecological Linkages/Biodiversity Corridors Impact Assessment Report 37 Munglinup Graphite Project

Table 6: Threatened species of concern, other Conservation Significant fauna and Short Range Endemic fauna known or likely to use the Munglinup, Oldfield and Young River corridors, habitat preferences and map habitat occurrences.

Species Habitat preference Habitat map code Comment

Carnaby’s black cockatoo Natural foraging habitat kwongkan 3 suitable Foraging habitat throughout the three corridors of the study area, exotic foraging (Calyptorhynchus latirostris) shrublands in study area, breeding habitat as planted pine trees also within broad study area. Highly mobile across not known in study area large areas.

Malleefowl (Leipoa ocellata) Mallet and moort woodlands, open 1 suitable; 6, 8, 9 limited Known to occur in the study area Habitats throughout the three corridors of the mallee shrublands, swamp yate study area. Mobile across re latively large areas, principally within native woodlands subprime vegetation.

Chuditch or Western Quoll Woodlands for dens, mallee, 1, 8 limited for dens; 2, Known to be common in the Ravensthorpe and Bandalup areas to the west of the (Dasyurus geoffroii) kwongkan and other habitats for 3, 4, 6, 8, 9 and 10 study area. Not r ecorded by recent surveys in study area , although two DBCA foraging limited for foraging records within 30km of the proposed mine area (MRC 2018). Known to travel large dista nces (B. Johnson pers. comm.). C onsidered likely to occur in study area.

Red -tailed phascogale (Phascogale Woodlands, predominantly rock 4 potentially suitable, Consid ered unlikely to occur by previous studies. However, sheoak stands calura) sheoak and swamp yate or similar particularly where it is identified in parts of the study area were not surveyed, and may hold this species. hollow forming trees. adjacent to 8.

Quenda (Isoodon fusciventer ) Woodland, dense mallee. 8, 6 suitable. Recorded in study area by previous 2014 survey, not by 2019 survey of same habitats. Likely to occur in low numbers in suitable habitats.

Western Brush Wallaby Woodland , mallee and Kwongkan 8 suitable; 3, 6, Recorded in study area 2019. Suitable habitat across the three corridors. Mobile, (Notomacropus irma) shrubland in other places. although understood to require cover of native vegetation and will not readily traverse open paddocks (A. Sanders pers. comm.)

Western Mouse (Pseudomys Mallee shrubland 3, 6 suitable. Recorded in study area 2019. Suitable habitat common across the three corridors. occidentalis)

Short Range Endemic (SRE) Mallee shrubland, mallet woodland, 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9 SRE presence dependent on habitat quality of longer unburnt vegetation and invertebrate fauna yate woodland, Kwongkan moderately suitable relatively dense accumulation of leaf litter. Much of the remnant vegetation in the shrubland, mallee shrubland, three corridors of the study area is long unburnt. Functionally immobile by definition.

Ecological Linkages/Biodiversity Corridors Impact Assessment Report 38 Munglinup Graphite Project 4.2 Field assessment Ecological data was collected at 75 relevé sites (EPA 2016b) across the three corridor linkages to determine the pattern of vegetation types and habitats (Appendices 1, 2) across the three corridor linkages, as shown in Figure 8 below.

GPS location data was captured for each of the 75 relevé sites (EPA 2016b; Appendix 1).

Ten major vegetation types/habitats were identified with subtypes for condition (Table 7).

Figure 8: Relevé Survey Sites showing Project Development Boundary

Occurrences of conservation listed flora and fauna were recorded at one site; the Kwongkan Shrublands of the Southeast Coastal Province Threatened Ecological Community at 22 sites; outlier stands of flora and vegetation types at three sites ( Table 7 ; Appendix 1.)

Table 7 shows the ten vegetation types/habitats and their subtypes identified during the field survey (Appendix 1). The subtype codes (BC) were included to record condition (DIDMS 2020; EPA 2016b).

Ecological Linkages/Biodiversity Corridors Impact Assessment Report 39 Munglinup Graphite Project

Table 7: Vegetation/habitat types recorded by the field assessment

Number of Vegetation type/habitat Code/No. Condition TEC Outlier sites Mallet/moort woodland MalMoWood 1 Pristine No No 6

Mallet/moort woodland MalMoWood 1B Excellent (burnt) No No 2

Melaleuca shrubland MelShrub 2 Pristine No No 1

Melaleuca shrubland MelShrub 2 C Degraded ( grazed, No No 1 cleared)

Tallerack kwongkan TalKwonProt 3 Pristine Yes No 17 Proteaceae rich

Tallerack kwongkan TalKwonProt 3B Excellent (burnt) Yes No 2 Proteaceae rich

Tallerack kwongkan TalKwonProt 3C Good (Dieback) Yes No 1 Proteaceae rich

Rock sheoak woodland Al casWood 4 Pristine No No 4

Tallerack kwongkan TalKwon 5 Pristine No No 7

Mallee shrubland MalShrub 6 Pristine No No 10

Mallee shrubland MalShrub 6B Excellent (b urnt ) No No 3 kwongkan shrubland KwonShrub 7 Pristine Yes No 2

Kwon kgan shrubland KwonShrub 7B Excellent Yes No 1

Swamp yate woodland YateWood 8 Pristine No No 11

Swamp yate woodland YateWood 8B Excellent (weeds) No No 1

Mungart, jam woodland JamWood 9 Excellent (weeds) No Yes 3

Granite shrubland GranShrub 10 Pristine No Some 3

4.3 Broad-scale Vegetation Mapping Vegetation types were identified using the results of the field assessment (Table 7) and aerial imagery to develop broad scale vegetation and habitat maps of the three corridors (Figure 9; Appendix 2).

Vegetation types tallerack kwongkan proteaceae rich 3 , Tallerack kwongkan 5 and kwongkan shrubland 7 were grouped into a common kwongkan Type 3, as the three were ecologically similar and not distinguishable from each other using available aerial imagery (Appendix 2).

Mallet/moort woodland 1 and 1B, tallerack kwongkan proteaceae rich (now kwongkan) 3 and 3B, and mallee shrubland 6 and 6B were combined into plain 1, 3 and 6 types, as their B condition ratings were for having been relatively recently burnt, and as a temporary natural impact, this was not considered important for the mapping or MCAS-S analysis. The yate woodland 8B rating was kept as it related to minor degradation as a likely permanent weed presence, and melaleuca shrubland 2C and tallerack kwongkan proteaceae rich shrubland (now kwongkan) 3C were kept (Table 7: Vegetation/habitat types recorded by the field assessment; Appendix 2).

Ecological Linkages/Biodiversity Corridors Impact Assessment Report 40 Munglinup Graphite Project

Figure 9: Broad-scale Vegetation Mapping – Overall Community Types

Figure 10: Broad-scale Vegetation Mapping – Presence of TEC

Ecological Linkages/Biodiversity Corridors Impact Assessment Report 41 Munglinup Graphite Project

Figure 11: Broad-scale Vegetation Mapping – Vegetation Condition

Community (vegetation type) Results Error! Reference source not found. shows the areas and proportions for the three lin kages and the Munglinup Linkage post mine. Of the three linkages, only the Young contains all eight overall community /vegetation types. The linkage changes associated with the min e would have a minimal effe ct on the types and their proportions in Munglinup linkage.

Table 8: Overall Community (vegetation type) statistics for the three Linkages

Community Community Munglinup Munglinup Oldfield Linkage Young Linkage Mapping Code Description Linkage Linkage Post Mine % of % of % of % of Area (ha) Area (ha) Area (ha) Area (ha) Linkage Linkage Linkage Linkage Rock sheoak low AlcasWood 78 0.9% - 0.0% 67 0.4% - 0.0% woodland Mixed shrubland GranShrub - 0.0% - 0.0% 201 1.2% - 0.0% and heath on granite Jam wattle low JamWood - 0.0% 287 1.4% 44 0.3% 287 1.5% woodland Mallet and moort MalMoWood 884 10.8% 934 4.5% 1,847 10.7% 728 3.9% woodland MalShrub Mallee shrubland 708 8.6% 8,411 40.9% 5,800 33.5% 7,810 41.4% MelShrub Melaleuca shrubland 70 0.9% 948 4.6% 539 3.1% 948 5.0% Tallerack and or Kwongkan 4,481 54.5% 7,585 36.9% 6,787 39.2% 6,862 36.4% kwongkan shrubland Swamp yate tall YateWood 2,004 24.4% 2,398 11.7% 2,032 11.7% 2,242 11.9% woodland 8,225 20,562 17,317 18,877

Ecological Linkages/Biodiversity Corridors Impact Assessment Report 42 Munglinup Graphite Project

Munglinup Linkage Munglinup Linkage Post Mine

JamWood JamWood MalMoWood 1% YateWood 2% 4% MalMoWood 12% YateWood 4% 12%

MalShrub MalShrub 41% 41% Kwongan Kwongan 37% 36%

MelShrub MelShrub 5% 5%

Figure 12: Proportions of Community/Vegetation types in Munglinup Linkage – Pre and Post Mine. 4.4 Linkage Physical Assessment 4.4.1 Linkage Values Area, shape and lengths The values for the overall linkages are shown in Table 9 below. This indicates that the Munglinup linkage has the best shape (with or without mine site), while the Oldfield is the worst. The table also shows the overall length, vegetated length, and un-vegetated (gap) lengths for each linkage. Larger index and area values are better, as are smaller length and gap values.

Table 9: Overall Linkage Physical Parameters

Linkage Vegetated Perimeter Shape Length (km) Total Gap Linkage Area (ha) Linkage (km) Index (GWW to Length (km) (km) Estuary) Munglinup 19,963 237.25 2.98 64.93 62.69 2.24 Young 16,102 227.56 2.2 74.6 71.19 3.41 Oldfield 7,607 159.19 1.43 57.75 55.37 2.38 Munglinup (after 18,278 226.38 2.88 64.72 62.48 2.24 mine)

Widths The length of each section of linkage path was calculated, and a length-weighted width calculated (see Table 10). This indicates clearly that the Munglinup linkage is the widest on average (and at its maximum in the Cheadenup Reserve), even after the changes associated with the mine.

Table 10: Linkage Widths

Number of separate Linkage Sections measured Maximum Width (m) length -weighted width Munglinup 274 6405.898 1838 Munglinup (after mine) 307 6405.898 1710 Oldfield 356 3830.94 1033 Young 345 3654.826 1442 4.4.2 Linkage Patch Values The values for every vegetation patch in each linkage are shown in Table 11, Table 12, and 13 below. Table 12 also identifies the patches that were added to the Munglinup linkage following re-drawing

Ecological Linkages/Biodiversity Corridors Impact Assessment Report 43 Munglinup Graphite Project to complete the linkage. These three patches significantly improve the overall width and area of the Munglinup Linkage.

Table 11: Oldfield River Linkage – Patch Physical Parameters Exposure (Shape Maximum Area (ha) Perimeter (km) Index3) Width (m) Average Width (m) 40.7 4.34 2.02 262.43 105.29 191.9 7.13 10.19 - - 320.7 47.88 2.23 1,336.57 655.20 716.4 22.45 4.61 743.69 472.62 1,243.3 47.88 2.23 1,621.91 712.74 1,744.3 40.66 4.53 2,378.87 722.38 4,060.8 54.60 10.13 3,830.94 1,170.89

Table 12: Munglinup River Linkage – Patch Physical Parameters Exposure Perimeter (Shape Maximum Area (ha) (km) Index3) Width (m) Average Width (m) 139.3 5.61 10.97 737.71 316.65 1,539.1 16.82 49.82 1,642.21 893.69 7,851.7 46.67 60.64 6,405.90 3,820.67 1.6 22.32 4.64 - - 2.0 7.15 10.28 - - 5.0 2.21 0.23 - - 425.7 14.65 5.76 1,004.42 637.89 526.7 23.35 5.64 1,741.98 787.80 761.2 11.15 41.83 2,436.54 493.78 939.3 24.89 5.72 1,445.54 772.07 4,757.8 48.84 19.43 5,053.93 1,732.12 Mine -site patch pre -development 2,514.8 36.49 13.02 4,213.93 1,320.56 Mine -site patch post -development 830.49 25.66 4.08 1,239.53 703.47

Ecological Linkages/Biodiversity Corridors Impact Assessment Report 44 Munglinup Graphite Project

Table 13: Young River Linkage – Patch Physical Parameters

Exposure Maximum Width Average Width Area (ha) Perimeter (km) (Shape Index3) (m) (m) 0.4 0.64 0.07 - - 0.8 0.41 0.81 - - 1.5 0.77 0.50 - - 2.8 0.77 1.73 139.90 60.22 5.1 1.69 0.54 119.24 57.93 5.3 1.71 0.57 - - 8.3 8.80 0.01 - - 8.8 1.32 3.35 223.13 90.87 11.3 4.94 0.11 - - 11.6 4.21 0.18 - - 17.3 2.75 1.44 - - 375.5 11.78 8.63 2,032.18 1,824.03 1,398.9 28.51 8.44 461.27 261.21 1,401.6 32.54 5.70 583.64 376.94 2,390.5 34.22 14.27 3,006.59 1,358.95 2,909.9 31.52 27.05 3,654.83 2,125.77 3,530.0 40.79 18.36 3,466.53 1,725.25 6,705.8 120.13 2.59 2,994.66 938.01

Ecological Linkages/Biodiversity Corridors Impact Assessment Report 45 Munglinup Graphite Project 4.5 MCAS-S Value Modelling Ecological and physical criteria were developed (Table 1, Table 5) to support value and comparison assessment using the Multi Criteria Assessment Shell (MCAS-S) method. This section presents the maps for each criterion, showing how the selected classification affects values for each linkage, along with the assessment results. 4.5.1 Pre-Mine MCAS-S – Data Layers Composite Linkage Value

The component contains two sub-components shown in the MCAS-S diagram below:

 Physical Assessment o Linkage Value o Patch Value  Biological Assessment o Naturalness o Rarity o Diversity

Figure 13: Pre-Mine Assessment of Composite Linkage Value - MCAS-S Diagram

Linkage Value Linkage value assesses values for the entire linkage.

Layer 'Linkage Value' is a composite layer generated from the sum of:

1 x 'Linkage Area' 2 x 'Linkage Gaps' 1 x 'Linkage Length' 1 x 'Linkage Average Width'

This weighting emphasises Linkage Gaps. The result is classed using an equal interval classification.

Ecological Linkages/Biodiversity Corridors Impact Assessment Report 46 Munglinup Graphite Project

Figure 14: Criterion - Linkage Value

Linkage Length This layer assesses overall linkage length, where Oldfield is shortest and Young longest. The result is classed using an equal interval classification split into 5 classes.

5 - 57.75 (Highest Value) 4 – 57.75 – 61.12 3 – 61.12 – 64.49 2 – 64.49 – 67.86 1 – 71.23 (Lowest Value)

Figure 15: Layer – Linkage Length

Linkage Area This layer assesses overall linkage area, where Munglinup is largest, Young close behind, and Oldfield smallest. The result is classified using an equal interval classification split into 5 classes.

1 - from 7092.4 (Lowest Value)) 2 - from 9506 3 - from 12016 4 - from 14430 5 - from 16940 (Highest Value)

Ecological Linkages/Biodiversity Corridors Impact Assessment Report 47 Munglinup Graphite Project

Figure 16: Layer – Linkage Area

Linkage Average Width This layer assesses length-weighted linkage width, where Munglinup is widest, and Oldfield narrowest. The result is classified using 3 classes:

Class 1 for category 1034 (Lowest Value) Class 3 for category 1443 Class 5 for category 1839 (Highest Value)

Figure 17: Layer – Linkage Average Width

Linkage Gaps This layer assesses overall linkage gap (non-vegetated axis length), where Munglinup and Oldfield have the shortest gap and Young the longest. The result is classified using three classes.

Split into 3 classes:

3 - from 2.24 – 2,63km (Highest Value) 2 - 2.63 – 3.02 1 - Over 3.02 (Lowest Value)

Ecological Linkages/Biodiversity Corridors Impact Assessment Report 48 Munglinup Graphite Project

Figure 18: Layer – Linkage Gaps

Patch Value Layer 'Patch Value' is a composite layer producing 5 classes

The composite function is generated from the sum of:

1 x 'Patch Area' 3 x 'Patch Exposure' 1 x 'Patch Average Width'

This weighting strongly emphasises patch exposure (shape). The result is classed using an equal interval classification.

1 - up to 0.99 (Lowest value) 2 - up to 1.97 3 - up to 2.95 4 - up to 3.93 5 - above 3.93 (Highest value)

Figure 19: Criterion – Patch Value

Patch Exposure This layer assesses patch exposure (or shape), for every contiguous vegetation patch within each linkage. Note that the dataset used includes the Great West Woodlands and the Coast (end areas),

Ecological Linkages/Biodiversity Corridors Impact Assessment Report 49 Munglinup Graphite Project although these are not included in the final analysis. The result is classified into 5 classes using an equal interval classification, according to this table:

1 - 0 – 10 (Lowest Value) 2 - 10 – 20 3 - 20 – 30 4 - 30 – 40 5 - Over 40 (HIghest Value)

Figure 20: Layer – Patch Exposure

Patch Average Width This layer assesses average width (length-weighted patch width), for every contiguous vegetation patch within each linkage. Split into 5 classes using an equal interval classification, according to this table:

1 - from 0 – 764 (Lowest Value) 2 - 764 – 1528 3 - 1528 – 2292 4 - 2292 – 3056 5 - Over 3056 (Highest Value)

Figure 21: Layer – Patch Average Width

Ecological Linkages/Biodiversity Corridors Impact Assessment Report 50 Munglinup Graphite Project Patch Area This layer assesses patch area (ha) for every contiguous vegetation patch within each linkage. Split into 5 classes using a custom classification:

1 - 0 – 100ha (Lowest Value) 2 - 100 – 500ha 3 - 500 – 2500ha 4 - 2500 – 5000ha 5 - Over 5000ha (Highest Value)

Figure 22: Layer – Patch Area

Naturalness Layer 'Naturalness' is a composite layer producing 5 classes

The composite function is generated from the sum of:

1 x 'Distance to Cleared' 1 x 'Condition (NMVS)' 1 x 'Weeds (NMVS)'

The result is classed using an equal interval classification, according to this table:

1 - up to 0.87 (Lowest Value) 2 - up to 1.40 3 - up to 1.93 4 - up to 2.47 5 - above 2.47 (Highest Value)

Figure 23: Criterion - Naturalness

Ecological Linkages/Biodiversity Corridors Impact Assessment Report 51 Munglinup Graphite Project Condition (NVMS Survey) Layer 'Condition (NMVS)' is a categorical layer built from a field assessment of vegetation condition, based on the field survey. The result is classed into 10 classes to provide fine distinction between different classes of better condition and degraded land, as follows:

Class 10 for Pristine Class 9 for Pristine, Excellent Class 8 for Excellent Class 7 for Excellent, Good Class 5 for Good Class 1 for Degraded

Figure 24: Layer - Condition

Weed Presence (NVMS Survey) Layer 'Weeds (NMVS)' is a categorical layer built from a field assessment of presence or absence of weeds, based on the field survey.

Class 5 for No Class 1 for Yes

Figure 25: Layer – Weed Presence

Ecological Linkages/Biodiversity Corridors Impact Assessment Report 52 Munglinup Graphite Project Distance to Cleared Land Layer 'Distance to Cleared' indicates distance to the nearest cleared land. Cleared land is taken as any land not in the DPIRD Remnant vegetation Extent dataset. The values are split into 5 classes using the following classification:

Class 5 - Over 400m (highest value) Class 4 - from 250 – 400m Class 3 - from 100 – 250m Class 2 - from 50 – 100m Class 1 - from 0 – 50m (lowest value)

Figure 26: Layer - Distance to Cleared Land

Rarity Layer 'Rarity' is a composite layer producing 10 classes, generated from the sum of:

1 x 'Community Area (NMVS)' 1 x 'Potential TEC (NMVS)' 1 x 'Threatened Species'

The result is classed using an equal interval classification, according to this table:

10 - above 1.93 (highest value) 9 - up to 1.93 8 - up to 1.85 7 - up to 1.77 6 - up to 1.69 5 - up to 1.62 4 - up to 1.54 3 - up to 1.46 2 - up to 1.381 - up to 1.30

Ecological Linkages/Biodiversity Corridors Impact Assessment Report 53 Munglinup Graphite Project

Figure 27: Criterion - Rarity

Threatened Species Layer 'Threatened Species' is a composite layer producing 5 classes, generated from the maximum of:

1 x 'Fauna_dist' 1 x 'Flora_dist' 2 x 'Threatened Species (NMVS)'

This weighting emphasises threatened species as assessed from the field survey over Fauna and Flora records. This recognises that rare species records only indicate sighting (not absences) and are only valid for the areas where surveys take place. Both flora and fauna records are strongly associated with roads (survey actuals).

The result is classed using an equal interval classification as follows:

5 - above 1.73 (highest value) 4 - up to 1.73 3 - up to 1.46 2 - up to 1.2 1 - up to 0.93 (Lowest Value)

Figure 28: Composite Layer – Threatened Species

Ecological Linkages/Biodiversity Corridors Impact Assessment Report 54 Munglinup Graphite Project Threatened Species (NVMS Survey) Layer 'Threatened Species (NMVS)' is a categorical layer built from a field assessment of presence or absence of threatened species, based on the community type found in the field survey. The values are split into 3 classes as follows:

Class 3 for Yes (highest value) Class 2 for Maybe Class 1 for No

Figure 29: Layer – Threatened Species

Flora Distance Layer 'Flora_dist' is generated from primary data 'Flora_dist.tif', where all sightings of flora species classified by both State and Commonwealth as being rare and endangered have been gridded and a Euclidean distance function performed on them.

The distance is classified in 3 classes

Class 3 - from 0-166m (highest value) Class 2 - from 166-333m Class 1 - from 333-500m

Distances further than 500m are discarded. Note that the distances are short in comparison to fauna due to the sedentary nature of flora.

Figure 30: Layer – Distance to flora

Ecological Linkages/Biodiversity Corridors Impact Assessment Report 55 Munglinup Graphite Project Fauna Distance Layer 'Fauna_dist' is generated from primary data 'Fauna_dist.tif', where all sightings of fauna species classified by State and Commonwealth as being rare and endangered have been gridded and a Euclidean distance function performed on them. Distances are extended due to the nature of the fauna being sighted and their ability to range over larger distances.

Split into 5 classes

Class 5 - 0-1500m (highest) Class 4 - 1500-2500m Class 3 - 2500-3000m Class 2 - 3000-4000m Class 1 - 4000-5000m Distances further than 5000m are discarded.

Figure 31: Layer – Distance to Fauna

Potential TEC (NVMS Survey) Layer 'Potential TEC (NMVS)' is a categorical layer built from a field assessment the likelihood of the community type being a TEC (Threatened Ecological Community), based the field survey. The values are split into 2 classes as follows:

Class 2 for Yes (highest value) Class 1 for No (lowest value)

Figure 32: Layer – Potential TEC

Ecological Linkages/Biodiversity Corridors Impact Assessment Report 56 Munglinup Graphite Project Community Area (NVMS Survey) Layer 'Community Area (NMVS)' is an assessment of local community rarity, generated from the field assessment of community type. The total area of each community type has been calculated, and rarity is ascribed on the basis of community area across the three linkages. The values are split into 5 classes as follows:

Class 5 - 144 – 1000 ha (highest value) Class 4 - 1000 – 2500 ha Class 3 - 2500 – 5000 ha Class 2 - 5000 – 10000 ha Class 1 – 10000 ha

Figure 33: Layer – Community Area

Community Diversity (NVMS Survey) Layer 'Community Diversity (NMVS)' is a categorical layer built from the fieldwork community assessment, where an analysis has been made of the number of different community types within 500m of every grid cell. Up to 6 communities may exist. A 10-class classification is used, with value classes allocated as follows:

Class 10 for category 6 (6 communities within 500m) Class 9 for category 5 Class 8 for category 4 Class 2 for category 3 Class 1 for category 1 or 2

Figure 34: Criterion - Diversity

Ecological Linkages/Biodiversity Corridors Impact Assessment Report 57 Munglinup Graphite Project 4.5.2 Pre-Mine MCAS-S – Composite (Results) Layers Physical Assessment Layer 'Physical Assessment' is a composite layer producing 5 classes, the composite function is generated from the sum of:

1 x 'Linkage Value' 2 x 'Patch Value'

The result is classed using an equal interval classification, according to this table:

Class 5 - above 2.40 (highest value) Class 4 - up to 2.40 Class 3 - up to 1.80 Class 2 - up to 1.20 Class 1 - up to 0.61

Figure 35: Pre-Mine Physical Assessment Composite

Biological Assessment Layer 'Biological Assessment' is a composite layer producing 5 classes

The composite function is generated from the sum of:

1 x 'Naturalness' 1 x 'Rarity' 1 x 'Community Diversity (NMVS)'

The result is classed using an equal interval classification, according to this table:

Class 5 - above 2.39 (highest value) Class 4 - up to 2.39 Class 3 - up to 1.83 Class 2 - up to 1.26 Class 1 - up to 0.70

Ecological Linkages/Biodiversity Corridors Impact Assessment Report 58 Munglinup Graphite Project

Figure 36: Pre-Mine Biological Value Composite

Composite Linkage Assessment Layer 'Composite Linkage Value' is a composite layer producing 10 classes, generated from the sum of:

1 x 'Biological Assessment' 1 x 'Physical Assessment'

The result is classed using an equal interval classification, according to this table:

Class 10 - above 1.78 Class 9 - up to 1.78 Class 8 - up to 1.58 Class 7 - up to 1.38 Class 6 - up to 1.18 Class 5 - up to 0.99 Class 4 - up to 0.79 Class 3 - up to 0.59 Class 2 - up to 0.39 Class 1 - up to 0.19

Ecological Linkages/Biodiversity Corridors Impact Assessment Report 59 Munglinup Graphite Project

Figure 37: Pre-Mine Composite Linkage Value Map

4.5.3 Post Mine MCAS-S – Data Layers The post-mine MCAS-S model is identical in structure to the pre-mine model (Figure 38); however, some dataset values reflect changes as a result of removing the mine area from the Munglinup Linkage. These datasets are listed here:

Linkage Value Linkage area & Linkage Average width – very small changes in overall values as a result of varying the linkage outline.

Patch Value Changes in all three datasets (patch average width, patch exposure, and patch area) for the patch containing the mine as a result of varying the linkage outline.

Naturalness  Condition and weeds have had the mine-affected area excised.  ‘Distance to cleared ’ reflects the absence of the mine-affected area.

Rarity  Threatened Species (NVMS Survey) and Potential TEC (NVMS Survey) have had the mine- affected area excised.  Community Area (NVMS Survey) has had the mine-affected area excised and the community areas re-calculated.

Diversity Community Diversity has had the mine-affected area excised and the diversity raster re-calculated.

Ecological Linkages/Biodiversity Corridors Impact Assessment Report 60 Munglinup Graphite Project

Figure 38: Post-Mine Assessment of Composite Linkage Value - MCAS-S Diagram

4.5.4 Post-Mine MCAS-S – Composite (Results) Layers Physical Assessment Layer 'Physical Assessment' is a composite layer producing 5 classes

The composite function is generated from the sum of:

1 x 'Linkage Value' 2 x 'Patch Value'

The result is classed using an equal interval classification, according to this table:

Class 5 - above 2.40 Class 4 - up to 2.40 Class 3 - up to 1.80 Class 2 - up to 1.20 Class 1 - up to 0.61

Ecological Linkages/Biodiversity Corridors Impact Assessment Report 61 Munglinup Graphite Project

Figure 39: Post Mine Physical Assessment

Biological Assessment Layer 'Biological Assessment' is a composite layer producing 5 classes

The composite function is generated from the sum of:

1 x 'Naturalness' 1 x 'Rarity' 1 x 'Community Diversity (NMVS)'

The result is classed using an equal interval classification, according to this table:

Class 5 - above 2.38 (highest) Class 4 - up to 2.38 Class 3 - up to 1.82 Class 2 - up to 1.26 Class 1 - up to 0.70

Figure 40: Post-Mine Biological Value Component

Ecological Linkages/Biodiversity Corridors Impact Assessment Report 62 Munglinup Graphite Project Composite Linkage Assessment Layer 'Composite Linkage Value' is a composite layer producing 10 classes

The composite function is generated from the sum of:

1 x 'Biological Assessment' 1 x 'Physical Assessment'

The result is classed using an equal interval classification, according to this table:

Class 10 - above 1.8 (highest) Class 9 - up to 1.8 Class 8 - up to 1.6 Class 7 - up to 1.4 Class 6 - up to 1.2 Class 5 - up to 1.0 Class 4 - up to 0.8 Class 3 - up to 0.6 Class 2 - up to 0.4 Class 1 - up to 0.2

Figure 41: Post-Mine Composite Linkage Value Map 4.6 Linkage Value Assessment We set out to assessment the relative values of the linkages in three ways:

1) By mapping to visualise the model results;

2) By summing the Composite Linkage values for each linkage and comparing the summed results; and

3) By running Least Cost Path analyses using Composite Linkage values to find the best path between the coastal zone and the Great Western Woodlands. This is analogous to the best linkage.

Ecological Linkages/Biodiversity Corridors Impact Assessment Report 63 Munglinup Graphite Project 4.6.1 Composite Linkage Values Map The map showing Composite Linkage Values (Figure 41) clearly indicates that the Munglinup Linkage has the highest values. These occur in the north of the linkage in the Cheadenup Reserve. The middle reaches of the Munglinup Linkage also show small patches of high values but significant areas of class 4 values, while the lowest reaches are similar to the higher values that occur over most of the Oldfield.

The overall picture of Composite Linkage Values is more clearly seen by aggregating values for each linkage, shown in Table 14.

Table 14 – Results from the Composite Linkage Value Model – Pre-Mine

Composite Linkage Value Linkage Area (ha) Sum Max Mean Young River 17,379 1,499,512 1.36 0.86 Oldfield River 8,323 836,284 1.38 1.00 Munglinup River 19,451 2,690,608 2.00 1.38

The sum linkage value is calculated by adding every grid value for each individual linkage. Munglinup, as the largest linkage and with significant biological values, has a significantly larger sum (2.69 million) that the Young (1.5 million) and Oldfield Linkages (0.836 million). In addition, the high values of the Munglinup Linkage are reflected in its average of 1.38 (out of a maximum value of ~2), verses averages for the Oldfield of 1.0 and the Young of 0.86.

These values change slightly in the Post Mine scenario, where a portion of the Munglinup central area is removed. The Munglinup linkage value sum reduces to 2.47 million, a reduction of 8% on the pre- mine value, while the average increases slightly to 1.39. This indicates that the areas removed are similar in value to the overall linkage average.

Note that values change slightly in all corridors in the Post-Mine model due to minor changes in the classification scales.

Table 15 - Results from the Composite Linkage Value Model – Post-Mine

Composite Linkage Value Value % of Pre - Linkage Area (ha) Sum Mine Max Mean Young River 17,379 1,503,564 1.36 0.87 Oldfield River 8,323 832,413 1.38 1.00 Munglinup River 17,768 2,468,671 92% 2.00 1.39

The Composite Value Model combines biological value with a physical assessment of the length, size, and shape of each linkage, where Munglinup is clearly the leader. This affects the overall values significantly.

If we look at the Biological Values alone (Table 16), we see a different picture. Pre-Mine, the Munglinup and Young Linkages have similar Sum values, 3.57 million versus 3.32 million, with the Oldfield less than half that. But the Oldfield’s average Biological value score is the highest, at 1.99 (out of a maximum possible of ~3), verses 1.92 for the Young and 1.84 for the Munglinup.

Ecological Linkages/Biodiversity Corridors Impact Assessment Report 64 Munglinup Graphite Project

Table 16 - Results from the Biological Value Model – Pre-Mine

Composite Linkage Value Linkage Area (ha) Value sum Max Mean Young River 17,317 3,322,380 2.9 1.92 Oldfield River 8,224 1,638,944 3 1.99 Munglinup River 19,429 3,577,082 3 1.84

The Post-Mine model sees the Munglinup Biological value sum reduced 10% to 3.2 million, below the Young, and its average drops slightly to 1.81.

Table 17 - Results from the Biological Value Model – Post-Mine

Composite Linkage Value Value % of Linkage Area (ha) Value sum Pre -mine Min Max Mean Young River 17,317 3,307,573 0.10 2.9 1.91 Oldfield River 8,224 1,631,056 1.08 3 1.98 Munglinup River 17,747 3,204,602 90% 0.74 3 1.81

Values change slightly in all corridors Post Mine due to slight changes in the classification scales in the components, but the Oldfield and the Young linkage still return higher averages than the Munglinup.

Note that areas are slightly different to those for the Composite values. This is due to minor differences in the data inputs for the biological components. 4.6.2 Least Cost Path (LCP) Base Case Although the LCP technique was intended to find a single best path, we tested the sensitivity of the model to differences in start location for the path to establish the degree of primacy of the Munglinup Linkage.

The base case uses start and finish points within the Great Western woodlands and the Coastal areas – the locations are not critical as there is no cost within the two areas – only within the corridors. The Munglinup Linkage is the preferred path as shown in Figure 42.

Ecological Linkages/Biodiversity Corridors Impact Assessment Report 65 Munglinup Graphite Project

Figure 42: Base Case Least Cost Path – Preferred Linkage Munglinup

A number of LCP runs established that even when the start point is located 20km into the Young linkage, the best path still returns along the Munglinup (see Figure 43. This accords with the low average values in the Young linkage.

Figure 43: 20km into Young Least Cost Path – Preferred Linkage Munglinup

Primacy of the Munglinup Linkage is more sensitive to change in the Oldfield Linkage start point – the LCP will return along the Oldfield rather than the Munglinup when the start point is between 1.75 and 2.5 km into the Oldfield Linkage (see Figure 44). The shortness of the Oldfield linkage is being reflected here.

Ecological Linkages/Biodiversity Corridors Impact Assessment Report 66 Munglinup Graphite Project

Figure 44: Base Case Oldfield Linkage Least Cost Paths (1.75km and 2.5km into Oldfield linkage)

Post Mine After the changes in the modelled Munglinup linkage to reflect the impact of the mine development, the Munglinup Linkage is still the preferred path, shown in Figure 45. However the point at which the Oldfield is indicated as the preferred path has moved to between 1 and 1.75 km down the Oldfield linkage (see Figure 46).

Figure 45: Post Mine Least Cost Path – Preferred Linkage Munglinup

Ecological Linkages/Biodiversity Corridors Impact Assessment Report 67 Munglinup Graphite Project

Figure 46: Post Mine Oldfield Linkage Least Cost Paths (1 km and 1.75km into Oldfield linkage)

Ecological Linkages/Biodiversity Corridors Impact Assessment Report 68 Munglinup Graphite Project 5 Discussion 5.1 Desktop Study The desktop studies reviewed the ecological corridor, linkage, and associated connectivity literature, relevant for its focus on areas and biota related to the study area (Table 2). The integrity of remnant vegetation for the conservation of nature is considered critical (EPA 2018), and this is particularly consequential in landscapes fragmented by agriculture such as the study area.

 The desktop study found few previous comprehensive or detailed ecological surveys or assessments of the linkage corridors outside the works completed for the proposed mine development area in the Munglinup corridor (Table 2). Other than the work by Ecoscape (2017) on the northern edge of the study area, the only detailed formal assessments were the river ecology studies of Cooke et al (2008) that assessed the Oldfield, Munglinup and Young Rivers as part of a broader study of south coast rivers,  the Chapman (2008) assessment of the Young River, and  the later McQuoid (2017) study of the drooping pear tree ( Opuntia monocantha) infestation of the mid-section of the Oldfield River.

Other relevant studies were of a catchment nature, and broad in their assessment (Craig 1998; Bowyer 2001; Massenbauer 2006). These studies were of limited use to this study as they did not assess the vegetation, flora, fauna or Conservation Significant species in any detail; although the McQuoid (2017) assessment provided detail on the declared weed infestation, which was a useful factor in assigning condition to the analysis and provided an opportunity for familiarisation of the mid and lower Oldfield River corridor.

Ecological corridor and linkage studies were at a zenith in the 1990’s, with a number of ecologists leading the way on exploring concepts of the ecological values of remnant vegetation as it formed corridors and other linkages in various assemblages and situations, principally in south west Australia (Saunders 1991; Saunders and Hobbs 1991 Saunders, Hobbs and Margules 1991; Watson 1991; Merriam and Saunders 1993). These studies were ground breaking and part of a movement designed to address the concerns about ecological fragmentation, which then evolved to include further assessment and consideration, including South Coast Macro Corridor (Wilkins et al 2006) and more latterly the Davis work on criteria (Davis 2015) and the Sprlyan review (Sprlyan 2019).

Saunders, Merriam, Hobbs and Margules (1991, 1993) explored corridor linkage conservation concepts that included ecological concepts of biological diversity, representativeness, and habitat; and physical concepts as connectivity to other remnants, size, shape, width and area ratios, isolation, exposure. From these, considerations on management, research and restoration of corridor systems were derived.

Directly related to the study area, Watson (1991) described the Oldfield, Munglinup and Young River as having value for conservation. The study placed value on land tenure among its criteria which also included conservation values , length and width, land use incompatibility and preference for distribution across the region . Watson noted that the Munglinup and Oldfield corridors had conflicting land use as ‘mining and a townsite’, and ‘difficulties with the reservation status’ of Crown lands within, which he considered reduced the value of the Munglinup and Oldfield corridors for conservation. Notwithstanding, the remnant vegetation of the corridor linkages, regardless of tenure, has significant conservation value and is worthy of consideration and protection (EPA 2018a, 2018b).

The South Coast Macro Corridor Study (Wilkins et al 2008) found that all three river corridors were of sufficient conservation value to be included as macro corridors in its analysis. It did however, rate them as priority macro corridors.

Ecological Linkages/Biodiversity Corridors Impact Assessment Report 69 Munglinup Graphite Project Davis (2015) found that ecological corridor linkages to be relevant and important for conservation of nature. Davis’ objective was to provide guidelines, supported by the scientific literature, for the creation and retention of ecological linkages, with a focus on bird fauna. In doing so, he developed guiding principles that are of use for this study:  heterogenous matrix is better than a homogenous one;  corridors have value;  corridors can function at regional and local levels although larger regional linkages are better;  wide corridors are better than narrow corridors – 500 m the preferable minimum;  revegetation is a viable strategy for establishing or supplementing corridors, and structure and composition is important;  roads and gaps can be barriers to wildlife mobility; and,  pine plantations are of limited value, native vegetation is a more important contribution.

The recent Sprlyan (2019) review addressed the various types of biological corridors as wildlife corridors, connectivity zones and ecological linkages, and their operation and benefits. It concluded that all types can be effective when implemented well; there is differences between them in in size, area, number and naturalness of habitat patches; and that maintaining natural linkages is the most favourable, with connectivity zones recommended to join fragmented remnants for the provision access to the best habitat.

These studies supported the development of the assessment criteria for the MCAS-S analysis. 5.2 Assessment Criteria In finalising the assessment criteria, the concept of tenure security was considered. However, the fact that the linkage remnants are all public land, which cannot be cleared without approval by the responsible agency and is effectively managed for nature conservation, makes it little different to formal conservation a far as the conservation of its nature is concerned. The remnants outside the public estate, often adjacent and ecologically linked to the public estate, includes significant stands of native vegetation which cannot be cleared without a permit and thus provide a level of security. 5.3 Field Assessment The field assessment was completed over six days and was designed to collect ecological data, as well as for familiarisation of the access, landscape, landforms, vegetation and habitats of the study area, to support the MCAS-S analysis. The field assessment was not designed as flora and vegetation survey, although for consistency of approach, the method was in line with EPA guidelines for vegetation and flora assessment (EPA 2016b).

The field assessment attempted to cover as much of the remnant vegetation of the three corridor linkages as possible, as accessible from public roads and tracks. This was considered a broadly sufficient approach to both obtain an outline understanding of the landforms, vegetation and habitats of the study area. In addition, the contractor was somewhat familiar with parts of the study area from involvement in previous studies (McQuoid 2017) and other professional activities.

The two days allocated for each corridor was considered sufficient during planning. However, and notwithstanding the above, in undertaking the field assessment, and upon reflection during the preparation of this report, it was apparent that the time available led to some gaps in the data.

Very few fauna were observed during the field assessment, with a noticeably low number of honeyeater birds seen or heard compared to typical seasons along the south coast. This may be due to the study area experiencing a prolonged period of very dry conditions, which was apparent during the field assessment. Local people consider the area to have been in drought for last three years (W Wallefeld pers. comm.).

Ecological Linkages/Biodiversity Corridors Impact Assessment Report 70 Munglinup Graphite Project A mallet eucalypt ( Eucalyptus aff. astringens ) noticed at two places in the Young River Corridor and recorded at one site (site 61, Appendix 1), may constitute a new taxon. Herbarium material was collected to help determine its taxonomic status. 5.4 Broad-scale Vegetation and Habitat Mapping The broad scale vegetation and habitat mapping was undertaken to identify the habitats and their patterns of occurrence across the three corridor linkages (Appendix 2) to indicate the patterns of potential use by Conservation Significant and Short Range Endemic fauna (Table 6).

The vegetation types and habitats present in the three corridor linkages, in so far as they match those identified in the proposed mining area as preferred habitats (MRC 2018; Invertebrate Solutions 2020; Western Ecological 2020; Woodman Environmental 2020), were considered to be adequate indicators of the preference and presence of the Conservation Significant and Short Range Endemic fauna (Table 6).

The Kwongkan TEC distribution, as mapped in the Mining Reserve (Woodman Environmental 2020), is different to that mapped in the broad scale vegetation and habitat mapping. This is due to the use of lower resolution imagery across the three corridor linkages, coupled with a greatly reduced ground survey effort. In addition, the three kwongkan types identified by the field survey were grouped into a single class.

To comprehensively understand the fauna assemblages and their habitat use across the three corridor linkages would require a full and detailed fauna survey, similar to the standard applied at the proposed mine development site. This was beyond the capacity of this study given the time and resources allocated. As such, the habitats of the Conservation Significant and Short Range fauna, as identified by the broad-scale vegetation and habitat mapping, were used as surrogates for the use of the corridor linkages by other common fauna. 5.5 MCAS-S & LCP Linkage Values Assessment The modelling undertaken uses the existing linkages and assumes a post-mining Munglinup Linkage with the entire mine site and an area to its east removed from the corridor (Section 2.8). This is effectively a worst-case scenario. The time over which these impacts will reduce, and the extent of the reduction, will depend on the timing and quality of mine-site rehabilitation.

The results provide clear indication that the Munglinup linkage has the highest linkage values, and is the largest linkage area – both results strongly influenced by the inclusion of the Cheadanup Reserve to complete the linkage to the Great Western Woodlands. It has a mean value – both before and after the proposed mine – that exceeds the other two linkages. The Young linkage has the next largest sum value, significantly below the Munglinup, and the Oldfield has the least. The sinuous shape of the Young affects its average values, which are lower than the Oldfield.

The least cost path analysis also shows the Munglinup Linkage to be the preferred linkage pathway from the coast to the Great Western Woodlands. Our sensitivity analysis suggests that the Oldfield is close second behind it. A major part of this closeness is due to the way the LCP analysis treats cleared areas, in that the LCP value for cleared area is very high to ensure the path follows the linkages. The Munglinup Reserve has two large gaps towards the top of the linkage (~1800m combined), whereas the LCP sees the Oldfield as having smaller gaps (~600m) in the centre of the linkage. Such gaps amount to significant proportions of the LCP “cost” for a linkage. In the case of Munglinup it is approximately 30%.

A reduction in the cost for cleared areas in the LCP would strongly favour the Munglinup linkage.

Ecological Linkages/Biodiversity Corridors Impact Assessment Report 71 Munglinup Graphite Project Post mine the LCP path still favours the Munglinup, but the difference between the two linkages is less. Post-mine revegetation of the major cleared areas would significantly improve the Munglinup Linkage. The Young Linkage is far less preferred by the LCP in both scenarios. 5.6 Potential Management Measures To mitigate or reduce the potential impacts to the linkage values as a result of the Project, the following management measures informed by the study are provided for consideration:

1. Ecological restoration following mining disturbance on the mine site and associated works to restore the affected linkage. Focus on the mallet and moort woodland communities as they are important habitat for Conservation Significant fauna, characterise the site, and are relatively simple in composition structure and regeneration function – therefore more amenable to restoration. Notwithstanding, restoration of other vegetation types including the kwongkan and mallee types is also important. This approach, with input from competent expertise with knowledge of topsoil and propagule conservation, would be detailed in a rehabilitation plan.

2. Reconnecting corridor linkage remnant vegetation, principally at the top of the Munglinup River corridor linkage to the UCL and Cheadanup Nature Reserve, with revegetation of sufficient quality and size (in the order of 200 ha) in two places to optimise linkage value. Include the important, locally common and relatively straightforward mallet and moort vegetation types. 3. Long-term stewardship arrangements with adjacent landowners, for the restoration of linkage gaps and for the inclusion of private native vegetation remnants in the corridor linkages to sustain conservation values. 4. A long-term monitoring program, for vegetation condition, fauna use (principally Conservation Significant fauna) and restoration success across the three linkage corridors. 5. Acquisition of private remnant vegetation and adjacent cleared lands, for strategic revegetation to add to the corridor linkage conservation estate.

Ecological Linkages/Biodiversity Corridors Impact Assessment Report 72 Munglinup Graphite Project 6 References

ABARES (2011). Multi-Criteria Analysis Shell for Spatial Decision Support (MCAS-S): User Guide. Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, Canberra. www.abares.gov.au

Barrett S., Comer S., McQuoid N., Porter M., Tiller C $ Utber D. (2009) I dentification and Conservation of Fire Sensitive Ecosystems and Species of the South Coast Natural Resource Management Region . Department of Conservation and Land Management, South Coast region, Western Australia.

Benshemesh, J. (2007). National Recovery Plan for Malleefowl . Department for Environment and Heritage, South Australia

Boteva, D, Griffith, G. and Dimopoulos, P. (2004). Evaluation and mapping of the conservation significance of habitats using GIS: an example from Crete, Greece. Journal for Nature Conservation 12, 237 —250

Bowyer, J. (WA). (2001). Lort and Young Rivers Catchment: catchment appraisal 2001 . Department of Agriculture and Food, Western Australia, Perth. Report 231.

Brown, P.H., Davis, R.A.*, Sonneman, T. and Kinloch, J. (2009). Ecological linkages proposed for the Gnangara groundwater system. Report for the Department of Environment and Conservation for the Gnangara Sustainability Strategy

Chambers, J., Nugent, G., Sommer, B., Speldewinde, P., Neville, S., Beatty, S., Chilcott, S., Eberhard, S., Mitchell, N., D’Souza, F., Barron, O., McFarlane, D., Braimbridge, M., Robson, B., Close, P., Morgan, D., Pinder, A., Froend, R., Horwitz, P. & Davi es, P. (2013 ). Development and case studies - Adapting to climate change: a risk assessment and decision making framework for managing groundwater dependent ecosystems with declining water levels , National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility, Canberra, Australia.

Chapman A (2008). Discover the Young River . Report for the Esperance Regional Forum and the Department of Water, Esperance WA

Comer, S., Gilfillan, S., Barrett, S., Grant, M., Tiedemann, K., & Anderson, L. (2001). Subregional description and biodiversity values, Esperance 2 (ESP02 – Recherche subregion). A Biodiversity Audit of Western Australia’s 53 Biogeographical Subregions in 2002. WA Department of Conservation and Land Management.

Cook, B. A., Janicke, G. & Maughan, J. (2008). Ecological values of waterways in the South Coast Region, Western Australia . Report No CENRM079, Centre of Excellence in Natural Resource Management, University of Western Australia. Report prepared for the Department of Water.

Craig G.F, E.J. Hickman, N. McQuoid, J. Newell, A.M. Rick and E.M. Sandiford (2008). Vegetation of the Ravensthorpe Range, Western Australia: Mt Short to Kundip, 1:10 000 scale . Department of Environment and Conservation and South Coast Natural Resource Management Inc, Albany, Western Australia.

Crossman, N.D., Perry, L.M., Bryan B.A. & Ostendorf, B. (2007). CREDOS: A Conservation Reserve Evaluation And Design Optimisation System. Environmental Modelling & Software 22 (2007) 449-463

Davis R. A. (2009). Scientific criteria and guidelines for Ecological Linkages Perth Region NRM. Western Australia

Department of Agriculture, Water and Environment (DAWE) (2020) https://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/conservation-advices . Accessed May and June 2020

Ecological Linkages/Biodiversity Corridors Impact Assessment Report 73 Munglinup Graphite Project

Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions (DBCA) (2018). Threatened and Priority Flora List 5 December 2018. Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions, Perth Western Australia

Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) (2012). Chuditch (Dasyurus geoffroii) Recovery Plan. Wildlife Management Program No. 54 . Department of Environment and Conservation, Perth, Western Australia.

Department of Parks and Wildlife (DPW) (2013). Carnaby’s cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus latirostris) Recovery Plan . Department of Parks and Wildlife, Perth, Western Australia.

Department of the Environment and Energy (DEE) (2016a). The Biogeographic Regionalisation of Australia (IBRA). Commonwealth of Australia.

Department of the Environment and Energy (DEE) (2016b). Conservation Advice, Phascogale calura - red-tailed phascogale . Department of Environment and Energy, Canberra Australian Capital Territory

DES. 2018. Regional Biodiversity Values Methodology : Value identification to inform the South-East Queensland Regional Planning (2018). Brisbane: Department of Environment and Science, Queensland Government.

Ecoscape (2017) State Barrier Fence Biological Surveys . Department of Agriculture and Food, South Perth, Western Australia

EPA (2016a). Technical Guidance, Terrestrial Fauna Surveys . Environmental Protection Authority December 2016. Perth, Western Australia

EPA (2016b). Technical Guidance, Flora and Vegetation Surveys for Impact Assessment . Environmental Protection Authority, December 2016. Perth Western Australia

EPA (2018a). Statement of Environmental Principles, Factors and Objectives . Environmental Protection Authority, June 2018. Perth, Western Australia

EPA (2018b). Public Record pursuant to s39 (1), CMS 17509, MRC Graphite Pty Ltd . Environmental Protection Authority, 12-11-2018. Perth, Western Australia

Gioia P., and Hopper S.D. (2017) A new phytogeographic map for the Southwest Australian Floristic Region after an exceptional decade of collection and discovery. Botanical Journal of the Linnaean Society , 2017, 184, 1-15 .

Hopper S.D. (2009). OCBIL theory: towards an integrated understanding of the evolution, ecology and conservation of biodiversity on old, climatically buffered, infertile landscapes . Plant Soil, Springer, The Netherlands

Hopper S.D., and Gioia P (2004) The Southwest Australian Floristic Region: Evolution and Conservation of a Global Hotspot of Biodiversity. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics . Vol. 35: 623-650.

Invertebrate Solutions (2020) Survey for Short Range Endemic Fauna for the MRC Graphite Project, Munglinup Western Australia . Unpublished report to MRC Graphite Ltd, March 2020

Larkin, J.L., Maehr, D.S., Hoctor, T.S., Orlando, M.A., Whitney, K., 2004. Landscape linkages and conservation planning for the black bear in west-central Florida. Anim. Cons. 7, 23 –34.

LaRue, M.A., Nielsen, C.K., 2008. Modelling potential dispersal corridors for cougars in midwestern North America using least-cost path methods. Ecol. Model. 212, 372 –381.

Ecological Linkages/Biodiversity Corridors Impact Assessment Report 74 Munglinup Graphite Project

Li H., Li D., Li T., Qiaoa, Q., Yang, J., Zhang, H. (2010). Application of least-cost path model to identify a giant panda dispersal corridor network after the Wenchuan earthquake —Case study of Wolong Nature Reserve in China. Ecological Modelling 221 (2010) 944 –952

Lindenmayer B. D. & Fischer J. (2006) Habitat fragmentation and landscape change. An ecological and conservation synthesis. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, VIC, Australia.

Lombard, A.T., Cowling M.C., Vlok J.H.J. & Fabricius C (2010). Designing Conservation Corridors in Production Landscapes: Assessment Methods, Implementation Issues, and Lessons Learned. Ecology and Society 15(3): 7. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss3/art7/

Mackey, B., Gilmore, S., Pringle, H., Foreman, P., Van Bommel, L., Berry, S. and Hasele, M. (2010). BioPrEP – a regional, process‐based approach for assessment of land with high conservation value for Bush Heritage Australia. Ecological Management And Restoration, Vol 11 (1), 51-60., April 2010

Margules, C. (1989) Introduction to some Australian developments in Conservation Evaluation. Biological Conservation 50 1-11.

Margules, C. and Usher, M.B. (1981) Criteria used in assessing wildlife conservation potential: A Review. Biological Conservation 21 79-109.

Margules, C.R. and Nicholls, A.O. (1988) Selecting Networks of Reserves to Maximise Biological Diversity. Biological Conservation 43 63-76.

Margules, C.R., Higgs, A.J. and Rafe, R.W. (1982). Modern Biogeographic Theory: Are there any Lessons for Nature reserve Design? Biological Conservation 24 115-128

Massenbauer, A. (2006), Ravensthorpe area catchment appraisal 2006 . Department of Agriculture and Food, Western Australia, Perth. Report 311.

McKenzie, E. & Bio, R.P. (1995) Important Criteria and Parameters Of Wildlife Movement Corridors - A Partial Literature Review. Southern Columbia Mountains Environmental Sector, West Kootenay.

McNeill J, MacEwan R and Crawford D (2006), Us ing GIS and a land use impact model to assess risk of soil erosion in West Gippsland, Applied GIS 2:19.1 –19.16.

Miller, K. & Hamilton, L. (1997). Scaling up: elements of a strategy for protected areas in the 21st Century in Protected Areas in the 21st Century: From Islands to Networks. World Commission on Protected Areas Mid term Symposium, IUCN , 1997, Albany, WA.

MRC Graphite Pty Ltd (2018) Munglinup Graphite Project – S38 and EPBC Referral: Supporting Information.

NCCARF (ND) Wildlife Corridors and Climate Change Adaptation, Info Sheet Seven.

Neville, S.D. (2009). Assessment of Conservation Value, Fitz-Stirling Area: Modelling report. Report to Gondwana Link, Ecotones & Associates, William Bay WA.

Neville, S. (2014). Biodiversity Prioritisation and Biosequestration Modelling and Analysis, South Coast NRM. Consultant’s report for South Coast NRM Inc. Ecotones & Associates, Denmark., WA.

Neville, S. (2014b). Planning for Climate Change - MCAS- S Analysis Process, Perth Region NRM. Consultant’s report for Perth Region NRM Inc. Ecotones & Associates, Denmark., WA.

Neville, S. (2015). Projected Climate Change Impacts for South Coast NRM . Consultant’s report for South Coast NRM Inc. Ecotones & Associates, Denmark., WA.

Ecological Linkages/Biodiversity Corridors Impact Assessment Report 75 Munglinup Graphite Project

Neville, S. (2019) Torbay Catchment Wildlife Linkage Assessment, Consultant’s report for Torbay Catchment Group. Ecotones & Associates, Denmark., WA

Ortigos, GR, De Leo, GA and Gatto M. (2000). VVF: integrating modelling and GIS in a software tool for habitat suitability assessment. Environmental Modelling & Software 15 (2000) 1 –12

Panitsa. M, Koutsias, N, Tsiripidis, I, Zotos A. & , Dimopoulos, P. (2011). Species-based versus habitat-based evaluation for conservation status assessment of habitat types in the East Aegean islands (Greece). Journal for Nature Conservation 19, 269 – 275

Reside, AE, VanDerWal, J, Phillips, B, Shoo, LP, Rosauer, DF, Anderson, BJ, Welbergen, J, Moritz, C, Ferrier, S, Harwood, TD, Williams, KJ, Mackey, B, Hugh, S, Williams, SE (2013) Climate change refugia for terrestrial biodiversity: Defining areas that promote species persistence and ecosystem resilience in the face of global climate change , National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility, Gold Coast.

Soule´, M.E. (Ed.), 1987. Viable Populations for Conservation . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

South Coast NRM, 2011, Southern Prospects 2011-2016 : The South Coast Regional Strategy for Natural Resource Management . South Coast Natural Resource Management Inc, Albany

Usher, M. (Ed) 1986; Wildlife Conservation Evaluation , London: Chapman and Hall.

ABARES, Department of Agriculture, Canberra. . https://www.agriculture.gov.au/abares/aclump/multi-criteria- analysis Accessed May and June 2020

Western Ecological (2020) Lev el 2 Fauna Survey – Munglinup Graphite Project. March 2020 Final Report. Prepared for MRC Graphite Pty Ltd

Wilkins, P., Gilfillan, S., Watson, J. and Sanders, A. (ed). (2006). The Western Australian South Coast Macro Corridor Network – a bioregional strategy for nature conservation . Department of Conservation and Land Management (CALM) and South Coast Regional Initiative Planning Team (SCRIPT), Albany, Western Australia.

Wilkins, P., Gilfillan, S., Watson, J. and Sanders, A. (ed). 2006. The Western Australian South Coast Macro Corridor Network – a bioregional strategy for nature conservation, Department of Conservation and Land Management (CALM) and South Coast Regional Initiative Planning Team (SCRIPT), Albany,

Woodman Environmental (2020) Munglinup Graphite Project. Detailed Flora and Vegetation Assessment . MRC Graphite Pty Lt

Ecological Linkages/Biodiversity Corridors Impact Assessment Report 76 Munglinup Graphite Project 7 Appendices

Ecological Linkages/Biodiversity Corridors Impact Assessment Report 77 Munglinup Graphite Project 7.1 Appendix 1. Field Assessment Relevé Site and Ecological Data

Ecological Linkages/Biodiversity Corridors Impact Assessment Report 78 Munglinup Graphite Project

7.2 Appendix 2. Study Area Broad-scale Vegetation and Habitat Map: Munglinup, Oldfield and Young River Linkage Corridors

Ecological Linkages/Biodiversity Corridors Impact Assessment Report 79