DOCSLIB.ORG

Willatook Wind Farm Flora and Fauna Assessment for Mnes Referral

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Willatook Wind Farm Flora and Fauna Assessment for Mnes Referral WILLATOOK WIND FARM FLORA AND FAUNA ASSESSMENT FOR MNES REFERRAL Prepared for Willatook Wind Farm Pty Ltd Suite 5, 61–63 Camberwell Road, Hawthorn VIC 3123 P.O. Box 337, Camberwell VIC 3124 Ph. (03) 9815 2111 Fax. (03) 9815 2685 April 2019 Report No. 16087 (3.2) Willatook Wind Farm: Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 16087 (3.2) CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1 1.1. Proposed development ............................................................................................ 2 1.2. Scope of Work and Timeline of Surveys ................................................................. 4 2. REGULATORY CONTEXT ................................................................................................... 6 2.1. Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) ..... 6 2.2. State Legislation and Policy .................................................................................... 6 2.2.1. Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (FFG Act) ........................................... 6 2.2.2. Environmental Effects Act 1978 (EE Act) ....................................................... 6 2.2.3. Planning and Environment Act 1987 ............................................................. 6 2.2.4. Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994 (CaLP Act) .................................. 7 2.2.5. Local laws and regulations .............................................................................. 8 2.3. Other Guidelines ...................................................................................................... 8 3. VEGETATION AND FLORA SURVEY ................................................................................ 10 3.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................ 11 3.2. Methods .................................................................................................................. 12 3.2.1. Existing information ....................................................................................... 12 3.2.2. Field methods ................................................................................................. 13 3.3. Assessment results ................................................................................................ 17 3.3.1. Native vegetation ........................................................................................... 17 3.3.2. Flora species .................................................................................................. 26 3.3.3. Listed ecological communities ...................................................................... 36 3.4. Impacts of Proposed Development ...................................................................... 39 3.4.1. Design response to mitigate impacts on flora and fauna ........................... 40 3.4.2. Native vegetation ........................................................................................... 40 3.4.3. Modelled species important habitat ............................................................. 40 3.4.4. Listed flora species ........................................................................................ 40 3.4.5. Threatened ecological communities ............................................................. 40 3.5. Implications of the proposed development ......................................................... 41 3.5.1. Implications under the Guidelines ................................................................ 41 3.5.2. EPBC Act ......................................................................................................... 42 3.5.3. FFG Act ............................................................................................................ 42 3.5.4. EE Act .............................................................................................................. 42 Page | i Willatook Wind Farm: Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 16087 (3.2) 3.5.5. CaLP Act .......................................................................................................... 43 3.5.6. Mitigation recommendations ........................................................................ 44 4. FAUNA OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 45 4.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................ 45 4.2. Existing information ............................................................................................... 45 4.2.1. Existing reporting and documentation ......................................................... 45 4.2.2. Listed matters ................................................................................................ 45 4.3. Field methods ......................................................................................................... 45 5. BAT ASSESSMENT .......................................................................................................... 47 5.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................ 48 5.2. Methods .................................................................................................................. 48 5.2.1. Timing of surveys ........................................................................................... 49 5.2.2. Location and description of survey sites in 2018 ....................................... 53 5.2.3. Limitations ...................................................................................................... 55 5.3. Results of the surveys ........................................................................................... 56 5.3.1. EHP Surveys – Spring 2009 (EHP, 2018) .................................................... 56 5.3.2. Bat species – Spring 2018 ........................................................................... 56 5.3.3. Bat activity ...................................................................................................... 59 5.3.4. Height distribution of bats ............................................................................. 60 5.3.5. Threatened species ....................................................................................... 61 5.4. Comparison of current survey and previous work in the Willatook region ........ 65 5.5. Summary and Conclusions .................................................................................... 65 6. STRIPED LEGLESS LIZARD ASSESSMENT .................................................................... 67 6.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................ 67 6.2. Species Biology ...................................................................................................... 67 6.3. Sources of information .......................................................................................... 68 6.3.1. Existing Information ....................................................................................... 68 6.3.2. Habitat Assessment ....................................................................................... 69 6.3.3. Field Methodology .......................................................................................... 70 6.3.4. Limitations of field assessment .................................................................... 70 6.4. Results .................................................................................................................... 71 6.4.1. Existing Information ....................................................................................... 71 6.4.2. Habitat Assessment ....................................................................................... 71 Page | ii Willatook Wind Farm: Flora and Fauna Assessment Report No. 16087 (3.2) 6.4.3. Survey Results ................................................................................................ 74 6.5. Implications ............................................................................................................ 74 6.6. Mitigation Measures .............................................................................................. 74 7. WETLAND FAUNA ........................................................................................................... 75 7.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................ 76 7.2. SPECIES’ BIOLOGY ................................................................................................. 77 7.2.1. Migratory shorebirds ...................................................................................... 77 7.2.2. Growling Grass Frog ....................................................................................... 79 7.2.3. Swamp Skink .................................................................................................. 80 7.3. Sources of information .......................................................................................... 82 7.3.1. Existing Information ....................................................................................... 82 7.3.2. Habitat Assessment ....................................................................................... 83 7.3.3. Other
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The New Sydney Fish Market: Biodiversity Development Assessment Report Concept and Stage 1 Works and Stage 2 Main Works
    The new Sydney Fish Market: Biodiversity Development Assessment Report Concept and Stage 1 Works and Stage 2 Main Works Infrastructure NSW © ECO LOGICAL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD 1 Concept and Stage 1 Works and Stage 2 Main Works | Infrastructure NSW DOCUMENT TRACKING Project Name The new Sydney Fish Market: Biodiversity Development Assessment Report Project Number 17WOL-7553 Date 6 May 2020 Project Manager Ian Dixon Prepared by Mitchell Scott and Belinda Failes Reviewed by Matthew Dowle and Meredith Henderson Approved by David Bonjer Status Final Version Number v9 Last saved on 6 May 2020 This report should be cited as ‘Eco Logical Australia 2020 The new Sydney Fish Market: Biodiversity Development Assessment Report. Prepared for Infrastructure NSW.’ UrbanGrowth NSW Development Corporation (UrbanGrowth NSW) was abolished on 1 July 2019 with all functions transferred to Infrastructure NSW. Any reference to UrbanGrowth NSW throughout this report is interchangeable with Infrastructure NSW (INSW). ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This document has been prepared by Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd. Disclaimer This document may only be used for the purpose for which it was commissioned and in accordance with the contract between Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd and Infrastructure NSW. The scope of services was defined in consultation with Infrastructure NSW, by time and budgetary constraints imposed by the client, and the availability of reports and other data on the subject area. Changes to available information, legislation and schedules are made on an ongoing basis and readers should obtain up to date information. Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for or in respect of any use of or reliance upon this report and its supporting material by any third party.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix a Fauna Survey Effort and Results
    APPENDIX A FAUNA SURVEY EFFORT AND RESULTS October 2016 Prepared by Anderson Environment and Planning The Fauna Survey Effort (FSE) for the Biobanking Assessment Report has been guided by the following: The predict threatened species from within the Biobanking Credit Calculator; The Threatened Species Survey and Assessment Guidelines for developments and activities (working draft), NSW Department of Environment and Conservation (2004); The NSW Threatened Species Profile Database; and Previous fauna survey results from the site. The following Ecosystem Credit species have been recorded on the site during past or current survey work: Eastern Bentwing-bat (Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis); Eastern False Pipistrelle (Falsistrellus tasmaniensis); Eastern Freetail-bat (Mormopterus norfolkensis); Greater Broad-nosed Bat (Scoteanax rueppellii); Grey-headed Flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus); Little Bentwing-bat (Miniopterus australis); Little Lorikeet (Glossopsitta pusilla); Long-nosed Potoroo (Potorous tridactylus); Powerful Owl (Ninox strenua); Squirrel Glider (Petaurus norfolcensis); Varied Sittella (Daphoenositta chrysoptera); Yellow-bellied Glider (Petaurus australis); Yellow-bellied Sheathtail-bat (Saccolaimus flaviventris). The following Species Credit species have been recorded on the site or surrounds during past survey work: Koala (Phascolarctos cinereus); Wallum Froglet (Crinia tinnula). Prepared by Anderson Environment and Planning Contents 1.0 Introduction ..............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Nest Boxes Do Not Cause a Shift in Bat Community Composition in an Urbanised Landscape Stephen R
    www.nature.com/scientificreports OPEN Nest boxes do not cause a shift in bat community composition in an urbanised landscape Stephen R. Grifths 1*, Linda F. Lumsden2, Kylie A. Robert 1 & Pia E. Lentini 3 Nest boxes are often used to provide supplementary roosts for cavity-dependent wildlife, but little is known about if they infuence faunal community composition. Long-term monitoring of bat boxes in south-eastern Australia indicated that their use was dominated by one generalist species (Chalinolobus gouldii), causing concern that installing bat boxes could cause a shift toward less diverse bat communities. To test this, we conducted a large-scale before-after control-impact experiment at 18 sites, over fve years. Sites were either: (1) those with existing bat boxes, (2) those where boxes were added during the study, or (3) controls without boxes. We used echolocation call data from 9035 bat detector nights to compare community composition, diversity, and species’ relative activity between the sites. Chalinolobus gouldii continued to dominate the use of existing boxes, but we found little diference in community composition between sites based on the presence, absence, or addition of boxes. Our study is the frst to explore the infuence installing artifcial hollows has on localized faunal assemblages over spatio-temporal scales relevant to management. We conclude that there is cause for optimism that bat boxes might not have perverse outcomes on local community composition in the short- to medium-term, as we had feared. Tree hollows and cavities are keystone habitats used by a broad range of fauna for shelter and breeding1.
    [Show full text]
  • ABLV Bat Stats Jun 2019.Spub
    ABLV BAT STATS Australian Bat Lyssavirus Report - June 2019 Cases of ABLV infection - January to June 2019 Six cases of Australian bat lyssavirus (ABLV) infection were Table 1: ABLV infection in Australian bats as confirmed by reported in bats in Australia between January and June FAT, PCR, IHC and/or virus isolation^ 2019, all from New South Wales (Table 1). These cases are YEAR NSW NT QLD VIC WA SA Total described below. 1995 0 0 1# 0 0 0 1 New South Wales 1996 1 0 9 1 0 0 11 Six flying-foxes from various areas of NSW were found to be infected with ABLV. 1997 7 1 27+ 0 0 0 35 A little red flying-fox (P. scapulatus) in north-eastern NSW 1998 1 0 26+ 0 0 0 27 was rescued after falling from a tree. In care it displayed 1999 0 0 6 0 0 0 6 lethargy, head tremor, salivation, inappetence and respiratory distress. 2000 1 0 14 0 0 0 15 An adult female flying-fox (Pteropus sp.) was found in a 2001 0 0 9 1 4 0 14 backyard in north-eastern NSW. The bat was depressed, 2002 had unilateral hindlimb paresis/paralysis and involuntary 4 0 10 2 1 0 17 face and body movements. It drank water but seemed 2003 5 0 3 2 0 0 10 unable to eat. Its condition declined rapidly and it was 2004 euthanased. 5 0 6 1 0 0 12 A sub-adult male little red flying-fox was part of a colony 2005 6 0 5 0 0 0 11 affected by a heat wave.
    [Show full text]
  • Forest Wind Ecological Assessment Report FWH-03 50
    Table 14 describes the habitats that occur within the Project Area (PLA). The remnant areas of intact vegetation provide a range of habitats that may support a diversity of fauna species. The pine plantations, whilst considered lower value than the remnant areas also offer habitat for fauna and flora species. Table 14 Project Area (PLA) Habitats Plate 1 Pine Plantations The pine plantations are highly modified environments and are considered low value habitat compared to the remnant vegetation remaining within the Project Area (PLA). Although the pine plantations are actively managed by the commercial forestry operations (eg. slashing and herbicide treatment between rows), they provide habitat for a range of flora and fauna species. Microbats were recorded at all pine forest sites regardless of production stage, as they feed on insects within the plantation. None of the microbat species recorded utilising the pine for foraging are listed species under the NC Act or EPBC Act. Rows of mature pine would also offer good “fly-ways” for microbat species. Whilst they are suitable for microbat foraging they are not considered suitable for roosting given the absence of hollows and other structure. Least concern species such as Eastern bearded dragons (Pogona barbata) and small insectivorous birds (eg. red-backed fairy wrens) were observed within the pine plantations. Forest Wind Ecological Assessment Report FWH-03 50 Plate 2 Pine Plantations The pine plantations are highly modified environments and are considered low value habitat compared to the remnant vegetation remaining within the Project Area (PLA). Some of the mature pine forests contain thick weedy undergrowth although this is managed by existing operations.
    [Show full text]
  • ABLV Bat Stats December 2019
    ABLV BAT STATS Australian Bat Lyssavirus Report - December 2019 Cases of ABLV infection - January to December 2019 Seven cases of Australian bat lyssavirus (ABLV) infection Table 1: ABLV infection in Australian bats as confirmed by were reported in bats in Australia between January and FAT, PCR, IHC and/or virus isolation^ December 2019, six from New South Wales and one from YEAR NSW NT QLD VIC WA SA Total Queensland (Table 1). These cases are described below. 1995 0 0 1# 0 0 0 1 New South Wales 1996 1 0 9 1 0 0 11 Six flying-foxes from various areas of NSW were found to be infected with ABLV in the first half of 2019. These were a 1997 7 1 27+ 0 0 0 35 little red flying-fox (Pteropus scapulatus) and a female 1998 1 0 26+ 0 0 0 27 flying-fox (Pteropus sp.) from north-eastern NSW, a sub- adult male little red flying-fox from a colony affected by a 1999 0 0 6 0 0 0 6 heat wave, a grey-headed flying-fox (P. poliocephalus) 2000 1 0 14 0 0 0 15 injured by a dog, and two flying-foxes submitted for testing due to potentially infectious contact with a human. See 2001 0 0 9 1 4 0 14 ABLV Bat Stats June 2019 for further details. 2002 4 0 10 2 1 0 17 Queensland 2003 5 0 3 2 0 0 10 In the second half of the year, a black flying-fox (P. alecto) from north Qld was found to be infected with ABLV.
    [Show full text]
  • Moolarben Coal Complex UG4 Ancillary Works Modification
    Moolarben Coal Complex UG4 Ancillary Works Modification Modification Report APPENDIX B BIODIVERSITY DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT REPORT Moolarben Coal Complex UG4 Ancillary Works Modification Biodiversity Development Assessment Report Moolarben Coal Operations Pty Ltd © ECO LOGICAL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD 1 Biodiversity Development Assessment Report DOCUMENT TRACKING Project Name Moolarben Coal Complex UG4 Ancillary Works Modification Project Number 13676 Date 26 September 2019 Project Manager Kalya Abbey Prepared by Cheryl O'Dwyer, Emily Bathgate Reviewed by Kalya Abbey, Meredith Henderson Approved by Daniel Magdi Status Draft Version Number V3 Last saved on 1 October 2019 This report should be cited as ‘Eco Logical Australia 2019 Moolarben Coal Complex UG4 Ancillary Works Modification. Prepared for Moolarben Coal Operations Pty Ltd.’ ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This document has been prepared by Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd with support from Moolarben Coal Operations Pty Ltd Disclaimer This document may only be used for the purpose for which it was commissioned and in accordance with the contract between Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd and Moorlarben Coal Operations. The scope of services was defined in consultation with Moorlarben Coal Operations, by time and budgetary constraints imposed by the client, and the availability of reports and other data on the subject area. Changes to available information, legislation and schedules are made on an ongoing basis and readers should obtain up to date information. Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for or in respect of any use of or reliance upon this report and its supporting material by any third party. Information provided is not intended to be a substitute for site specific assessment or legal advice in relation to any matter.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix A.3 Forest Wind Project EAR FWH-03 Part 8
    APPENDIX B Survey Data Forest Wind Ecological Assessment Report FWH-03 110 Table 21 Species List EPBC NC Family Scientific Name Common Name Act1 Act2 Crustaceans Parastacidae Tenuibranchiurus glypticus Swamp crayfish - E Atyidae Paratya australiensis Australian freshwater shrimp - - Parastacidae Cherax Crayfish - - Fish Melanotaeniidae Melanotaenia duboulayi Crimson spotted rainbowfish - - Poecillidae Gambusia holbrooki Gambusia - - Eleotridae Mogurnda adspersa Purple-spotted gudgeon - - Eleotridae Hypseleotris compressa Empire gudgeon - - Reptiles Agamidae Pogona barbata Eastern bearded dragon - - Varanidae Varanus varius Lace monitor - - Elapidae Hemiaspis signata Marsh snake - - Elapidae Demansia psammophis Yellow-faced whip snake - - Elapidae Pseudonaja textillis Eastern brown snake - - Pythonidae Morelia spilota Carpet python - - Amphibians Hylidae Litoria fallax Eastern dwarf tree frog - - Hylidae Litoria latopalmata Broad-palmed frog - - Hylidae Litoria rubella Little red tree frog - - Myobatrachidae Crinia tinulla Wallum froglet - V Myobatrachidae Crinia parinsignifera Eastern sign-bearing froglet - - Bufonidae Rhinella marina Cane toad - - Mammals Phascolarctidae Phascolarctos cinereus Koala V V Macropodidae Wallabia bicolor Swamp wallaby - - Macropodidae Macropus giganteus Eastern grey-kangaroo - - Pteropodidae Pteropus poliocephalus Grey-headed flying-fox V - Equidae Equus caballus Horse (brumby) - - Suidae Sus scrofa Pig - - Canidae Canis lupus dingo Dingo - - Felidae Felis catus Cat Rhinolophidae Rhinolophus megaphyllus Eastern
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix 5 – Biodiversity
    APPENDIX 5 – BIODIVERSITY 2018 Annual Review – Wilpinjong Coal Mine Appendix 5 - Biodiversity Biodiversity Offset Strategy 2018 Annual Review – Wilpinjong Coal Mine Appendix 5 - Biodiversity 2018 Annual Review – Wilpinjong Coal Mine Appendix 5 - Biodiversity Biodiversity Reports Wilpinjong Coal Mine Stream Health Monitoring – Spring 2018 Prepared for Wilpinjong Coal Pty Ltd 30 March 2019 Wilpinjong Stream Health Monitoring – Spring 2018 DOCUMENT TRACKING Item Detail Project Name Wilpinjong Coal Mine Stream Health Monitoring – Spring 2018 Project Number 18MUD-9579 Kalya Abbey Project Manager Unit 1, Level 1, 79 Market St. Mudgee, 2850 Prepared by Kate Maslen; Angelina Siegrist Reviewed by Kalya Abbey; Peter Hancock Approved by Daniel Magdi Status Final Version Number V2 Last saved on 30 March 2019 Cover photo Site WO3 (downstream), taken 29/11/2018 (Credit: Cassandra Holt) This report should be cited as ‘Eco Logical Australia 2019. Wilpinjong Coal Stream Health Monitoring – Spring 2018. Prepared for Wilpinjong Coal Pty. Ltd.’ ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This document has been prepared by Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd with support from WCPL Disclaimer This document may only be used for the purpose for which it was commissioned and in accordance with the contract between Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd and Wilpinjong Coal Pty. Ltd. The scope of services was defined in consultation with Wilpinjong Coal Pty. Ltd, by time and budgetary constraints imposed by the client, and the availability of reports and other data on the subject area. Changes to available information, legislation and schedules are made on an ongoing basis and readers should obtain up to date information. Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for or in respect of any use of or reliance upon this report and its supporting material by any third party.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecological Assessment | 20 August 2018
    Proposal Appendix E Threatened flora likelihood of occurrence PR138277-1 | Koonandah Hard Rock Quarry : Lot 11 on HR1950 | Ecological Assessment | 20 August 2018 Proposal Table 12 Threatened flora likelihood of occurrence Species Name Common Name NCA Status EPBC Status Habitat Record Likelihood Aristida granitica E E Is known only from the type locality in the foothills of Mt Yes (2) Possibly: The known Pring, 10 km west of Bowen, Queensland, where it is distribution of the species is common (Simon, 2005; Queensland Herbarium, 2008). The much localised and occurs in species occurs within the Burdekin (Queensland) Natural the vicinity of the site. The soil Resource Management Region. This species grows in type and vegetation community sandy soil derived from granite sand in eucalypt woodland present within the Project Area (Simon, 2005; Queensland Herbarium, 2008). The only is suited to the species. known population occurs in an area of remnant vegetation (Environmental Protection Agency, 2008) as defined under the Vegetation Management Act 1999 (Queensland) and is therefore currently protected from broad-scale clearing. Dichanthium Blue Grass V In Queensland this species has been reported from the No Unlikely: Although the broad setosum Leichhardt, Morton, North Kennedy and Port Curtis regions vegetation communities (Henderson 1997). It is associated with heavy basaltic black normally associated with the soils and stony red-brown hard-setting loam with clay species occur within the subsoil (predominantly cracking clays or alluvium, often in project area, the soil type and gilgai) (Ayers et al. 1996; DEC 2005) and is found in level of disturbance are not moderately disturbed areas such as cleared woodland, consistent with the species grassy roadside remnants, grazed land and highly disturbed preferred habitat.
    [Show full text]
  • Light Pollution at the Urban Forest Edge and Its Impact on Insectivorous Bats
    1 Manuscript: Light pollution at the urban forest edge and its impact on insectivorous bats 2 JK Haddock, CG Threlfall, B Law, DF Hochuli 3 This is published as Haddock JK, Threlfall CG, Law B, et al. 2019. Light pollution at the urban forest 4 edge negatively impacts insectivorous bats Biol Conserv 236: 17-28. 5 Abstract 6 Connectivity and quality of vegetation in cities, including urban forests, can promote urban 7 biodiversity. However the impact of anthropogenic pressures at the forest-matrix edge, particularly 8 artificial light at night (ALAN), on connectivity has received little attention. We assessed the 9 influence of artificial light at forest edges on insectivorous bats. We acoustically surveyed 31 forest 10 edges across greater Sydney, Australia, half with mercury vapour streetlights and half in ambient 11 darkness, and compared the bat assemblage and activity levels to urban forest interiors. We also 12 sampled the flying insect community to establish whether changes in insect densities under lights 13 drive changes in insectivorous bat activity. We recorded 9965 bat passes from 16 species or species 14 groups throughout our acoustic survey. The activity of all bats, and bats hypothesised to be 15 sensitive to artificial light, was consistently higher in forest interiors as opposed to edges. We found 16 that slower flying bats adapted to cluttered vegetation or with a relatively high characteristic 17 echolocation call frequency; Chalinolobus morio, Miniopterus australis, Vespadelus vulturnus, and 18 Nyctophilus spp., were negatively affected by artificial light sources at the forest edge. The 19 emergence time of Vespadelus vulturnus was also significantly delayed by the presence of 20 streetlights at the forest edge.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecological Assessment Report
    Attachment B: Ecological Assessment Report 001 Referral of proposed action v October 2016 Report 20 AUGUST 2018 Koonandah Hard Rock Quarry : Lot 11 on HR1950 Ecological Assessment PR138277-1 | Koonandah Hard Rock Quarry : Lot 11 on HR1950 | Ecological Assessment | 20 Page i August 2018 Commercial In Confidence Report Document status Version Purpose of document Authored by Reviewed by Review date 1. Internal Draft - AF 20-DEC-2017 1.2 Final Report for Issue AF LL 02-JAN-2018 2. Final Report with Amendments LL AF 06-JUL-2018 3. Final Report with Additional Amendments LL AF 09-JUL-2018 4. Final Report with Additional Amendments LL AF 20-AUG-2018 Approval for issue Name Signature Date Anton Fitzgerald 20-AUG-2018 This document was prepared by RPS Australia East Pty Ltd (‘RPS’) within the terms of its engagement and in direct response to a scope of services. This document is strictly limited to the purpose and the facts and matters stated in it and does not apply directly or indirectly and must not be used for any other application, purpose, use or matter. In preparing the document, RPS may have relied upon information provided to it at the time by other parties. RPS accepts no responsibility as to the accuracy or completeness of information provided by those parties at the time of preparing the document. The document does not take into account any changes in information that may have occurred since the publication of the document. If the information relied upon is subsequently determined to be false, inaccurate or incomplete then it is possible that the observations and conclusions expressed in the document may have changed.
    [Show full text]