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