› __data › assets › pdf_file › 0008 › ... · Finniss River Terrestrial Fauna SurveyFauna survey sites of the Finniss River Terrestrial Fauna Survey. .....3 Appendices Appendix

w w w . e c o z . c o m . a u

Finniss River Terrestrial Fauna

Survey

Prepared for: Hydrobiology

Prepared by: EcOz Environmental Services

2014

1.

This page has been intentionally left blank

Client: Hydrobiology ii Doc Title: Finniss River Terrestrial Fauna Survey

Document Control Record

Document Code: EZ13071-C0301-EST-R-0003

Catalogue Number: 42589

Project Manager: Dane Trembath

Author(s): Dane Trembath and Will Riddell

Approved by: Chris Brady

Approval date: 19/01/2015

DOCUMENT HISTORY

Version Issue Date Brief Description Reviewer/Approver

1.A-B 13/10/2014 Report preparation by authors Authors 1.C 14/10/2014 EcOz review C. Brady 1.D 28/10/2014 EcOz review D. Trembath

1.E-F 29/10/2014 EcOz review C. Brady 1.0 30/10/2014 Sent to client for review D. Trembath 1.1 26/11/2014 Reviewed by client R. Smith 1.2 19/01/2015 Final sent to client D. Trembath

Recipients are responsible for eliminating all superseded documents in their possession.

EcOz Pty Ltd. ABN: 81 143 989 039 Winlow House, 3rd Floor 75 Woods Street DARWIN NT 0800 GPO Box 381, Darwin NT 0800

Telephone: +61 8 8981 1100 Facsimile: +61 8 8981 1102 Email: [email protected] Internet: www.ecoz.com.au

RELIANCE, USES and LIMITATIONS This report is copyright and is to be used only for its intended purpose by the intended recipient, and is not to be copied or used in any other way. The report may be relied upon for its intended purpose within the limits of the following disclaimer.

This study, report and analyses have been based on the information available to EcOz Environmental Services at the time of preparation. EcOz Environmental Services accepts responsibility for the report and its conclusions to the extent that the information was sufficient and accurate at the time of preparation. EcOz Environmental Services does not take responsibility for errors and omissions due to incorrect information or information not available to EcOz Environmental Services at the time of preparation of the study, report or analyses.

Client: Hydrobiology iii Doc Title: Finniss River Terrestrial Fauna Survey

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.ecoz.com.au/

This page has been intentionally left blank

Client: Hydrobiology iv Doc Title: Finniss River Terrestrial Fauna Survey

Executive Summary

Hydrobiology (2013b) recommended “a detailed survey of all terrestrial vertebrates downstream of the former Rum Jungle Mine to gain an understanding of species abundance and secondly to determine distribution in relation to the former Rum Jungle Mine be conducted”. This report has been commissioned by Hydrobiology to address this recommendation.

This report summarises results of a terrestrial vertebrate survey conducted within the vicinity of eight historical water sampling sites downstream and upstream of the former Rum Jungle Mine site during 2014.

Based on database records (i.e. IBRA Bioregions and EPBC Protected Matters Search Tool) and a review of the ecology of the Northern Territory and Commonwealth listed threatened species, approximately 19 threatened species could potentially occur in the vicinity of the project area.

The field surveys undertaken along the Finniss River recorded a total of 123 native terrestrial vertebrate species, comprising of 14 amphibians, 77 birds, 13 mammals and 19 reptiles; two introduced mammals and one introduced amphibian and reptile.

Two species listed as Vulnerable under the Territory Parks and Wildlife Act were observed during the surveys:

• Merten’s Water Monitor (Varanus mertensi). • Mitchell’s Water Monitor (Varanus mitchelli).

Once species listed as Critically Endangered under the EPBC Act was considered likely to be present during the dry season at FR@G204.

• Bare-rumped Sheath-tailed Bat (Saccolaimus saccolaimus).

Three species listed as Migratory under the EPBC Act were observed during the surveys:

• White-bellied Sea-eagle (Haliaeetus leucogaster). • Rainbow Bee-eater (Merops ornatus). • Eastern Great Egret (Ardea modesta).

There were no significant differences between the mean daily diversity between sites. The highest overall species diversity was at EBUSFR and FR@G204. Unfortunately most monitoring programs for terrestrial vertebrates in the Northern Territory have reported an apparent instability in species composition throughout the seasons (Woinarski et al. 2004; Dostine et al. 2013). Both of these studies found that the effort to monitor terrestrial vertebrate species must be very substantial in order to accurately detect a change or species. As the present study was only done on a smaller scale, any impacts related specifically to the mine will be hard to detect, unless substantial effort is made to increasing the monitoring program. Overall there does not appear to be any relationship between possible mine site drainage and the distribution of terrestrial vertebrates downstream of the mine.

Of particular note, was that Merten’s Water Monitors were present in the wet season survey of the East Branch, but were not during the dry. It is recommended that this species is part of a targeted monitoring during any works that could affect the water and habitat quality of the Finniss River.

Given the presence of Mitchell’s Water Monitors, listed as a Threatened Species in the Northern Territory, it is recommended that this species is further assessed to determine if they occur at the upper sites as their apparent absence cannot be explained at this time .

As the Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat may be present on the sites, it is recommended that a targeted search for this species is undertaken as if this species is present; it may require referral under the EPBC Act.

Client: Hydrobiology v Doc Title: Finniss River Terrestrial Fauna Survey

Table of Contents

1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................1

1.1 Background ..........................................................................................................................................1

1.2 Scope ...................................................................................................................................................1

2 Methodology ................................................................................................................................................2

2.1 Desktop Review ...................................................................................................................................2

2.2 Terrestrial Fauna Survey ......................................................................................................................2

3 Results .........................................................................................................................................................6

3.1 Desktop Survey ....................................................................................................................................6

3.2 Terrestrial Fauna Survey ......................................................................................................................7

4 Discussion ...................................................................................................................................................9

4.1 Faunal Diversity ....................................................................................................................................9

4.2 Threatened Species .......................................................................................................................... 10

4.3 Migratory Species.............................................................................................................................. 11

5 References ............................................................................................................................................... 13

Tables Table 1. Threatened species that may occur within the project area. ...............................................................6 Table 2. Faunal diversity between sites from the Finniss River Terrestrial Fauna Survey. ..............................8 Table 3. Faunal diversity between seasons from the Finniss River Terrestrial Fauna Survey. ........................8

Figures Figure 1. Fauna survey sites of the Finniss River Terrestrial Fauna Survey. ...................................................3

Appendices Appendix A– Site photos from the Finniss River Fauna Survey

Appendix B– Fauna records recorded during the field surveys of the Finniss River.

Appendix C– Bat Call Identification from Finniss River, Northern Territory.

Acknowledgements Sincere thanks to the staff of the Northern Territory Department of Mining and Energy for their help in organising the logistics of this field trip. Additional thanks also to the Traditional and Station owners of the Finniss River area for allowing access to their properties for the purposes of this fauna survey.

Client: Hydrobiology vi Doc Title: Finniss River Terrestrial Fauna Survey

1 Introduction

1.1 Background

A previous desktop review highlighted 165 terrestrial vertebrate species from the Upper Finniss River (Hydrobiology 2013a). While numerous surveys and monitoring have been conducted on the former Rum Jungle Mine site, mining began there before any formal requirement for environmental impact assessment (Low 2001). Despite a substantial amount of literature on fishes in the Finniss River system since mine closure (Hydrobiology 2013a), there does not appear to have been any other vertebrate work apart from crocodile monitoring (Manolis et al. 2002a; 2002b), a few incidental freshwater turtle captures (Jeffree & Twining 1992), a desktop fauna and flora survey of Browns Oxide (Low, 2001), and a fauna survey of the Area 55 Oxide project (Coffey Environments 2009).

Hydrobiology (2013b) recommended “a detailed survey of all terrestrial vertebrates downstream of the former Rum Jungle Mine to gain an understanding of species abundance and secondly to determine distribution in relation to the former Rum Jungle Mine be conducted”. This report has been commissioned by Hydrobiology in response to this recommendation.

1.2 Scope

The objective of this terrestrial biodiversity assessment was to describe the terrestrial vertebrate fauna biodiversity of the riparian zone of the Finniss River at a range of distances downstream of the Rum Jungle Mine. This assessment is a component of an on-going monitoring program to assess biological impairment in the riparian zone associated with the Rum Jungle Mine.

Client: Hydrobiology 1 Doc Title: Finniss River Terrestrial Fauna Survey

2 Methodology

2.1 Desktop Review

Prior to designing and conducting on-ground surveys, the ecological context for the project area was established by collating information from previous studies and databases. This included broad-scale reviews of threatened fauna records and consideration of the distributions and preferred habitats of threatened fauna species.

A list of threatened fauna that have been recorded within a 20 km radius of the project area was compiled from the following sources:

• Northern Territory Fauna Atlas (Department of Land Resource Management) (DLRM). • EPBC Act Protected Matters Search Tool (http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/pmst/index.html).

2.2 Terrestrial Fauna Survey

Fauna surveys were undertaken by three EcOz environmental consultants and two field assistants from DME. The surveys were conducted over eight days (March 10 – 13 and September 1 – 4 2014). Surveys were undertaken at eight sites in the riparian zone (Figure 1; Appendix A);

• Two sites upstream (FC@LB & EB@LB) of the former Rum Jungle Mine. • Two sites (FRUSMB & FRDSMB) along the Finniss River within the Mount Burton property. • One site (EBUSFR) on the East Branch of the Finniss River. • One site (FR@GS204) downstream of the confluence of the East Branch and the Finniss River. • Two substantially downstream sites (FRDSFC (FR1) & FRUSCF (FR2)) along the Finniss River.


http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/pmst/index.html

Figure 1. Fauna survey sites of the Finniss River Terrestrial Fauna Survey.


2.2.1 Survey design

Site layout

Eight survey sites were placed in riparian areas adjacent to the Finniss River, four downstream of Rum Jungle Mine, one downstream of Mount Burton and three upstream of any mining. The upstream sites were considered control sites to assess biological impacts to the riparian zone downstream of the mine.

The survey followed the Northern Territory Survey Methods for Flora and Fauna Surveys Used for Standard Biodiversity Unit Survey Sites (an unpublished report of NRETAS [2008]). This involved a three night trapping and searching program within a 50 m x 50 m quadrat (or similar area in transect formation). This methodology is a standard approach for fauna surveys in the northern bioregions of the Northern Territory. All surveys were undertaken under NT Parks and Wildlife permit number 43782.

Each trapping quadrat comprised:

• Twenty Elliott traps around the perimeter – five on each side approximately 8m apart; • Four cage traps, one in each corner; • Four pitfall traps, with 10 m of drift fence; and • Eight funnel traps, set along pitfall drift fences.

Pitfall traps were 20 L white plastic buckets, dug to ground level and set with 10 m of drift-fence. Where possible, the pits were located across different microhabitats within the quadrat. Funnel traps were set on the end of the drift fence. Shade cloth was placed over pits and funnel traps to protect animals from dehydration and predation from raptors. Pits and funnels were opened for the duration of the survey (three nights and three days) and checked early each morning and mid-afternoon.

The Elliott and cage traps were baited each afternoon, opened overnight and closed for the duration of the day. Trapping occurred over a three night period, with bait consisting of a mixture of quick oats, peanut butter, and sardines in oil. Bait was removed from traps during the day to reduce ant attraction.

All trapped animals were identified and released near the capture point.

Bird survey

Birds were surveyed within a 100 x 100 m area with the trapping quadrat being central. Bird counts were carried out over approximately 20 minutes using binoculars and call recognition during the early morning (6:30 am – 9:30 am), late afternoon (3:30 pm – 5 pm) and at night (after 7:30 pm). Only birds within the quadrat were counted as using the survey site – birds merely flying across or overhead or situated nearby were recorded as incidental records.

Bird call broadcasting was undertaken (opportunistically) in suitable habitat to target the threatened Masked Owl (Tyto novaehollandiae kimberli).

Bat survey

Bat species were surveyed using two high-frequency Anabat bat detectors, which were set to record overnight for one night at four survey sites. Recorded bat calls were sent to bat expert, Kyle Armstrong (Specialised Zoological) for identification.


Active searching

Survey sites were actively searched five times for reptiles, mammals, and their scats and signs, including three daytime searches (morning, midday, and late afternoon) and two nocturnal searches.

Active searches lasted for approximately 20 minutes and involved:

• Turning rocks and logs, raking through leaf litter and grass, looking under bark, behind trees, in crevices, etc.

• Recording the number of individuals of each species. • Recording tracks where they could be confidently attributed to species.

Opportunistic observations made while travelling between quadrats were also recorded in an ‘incidentals’ list.

Camera traps

Motion-activated camera traps were installed at the eight survey sites. Cameras were set up in areas where fauna were considered likely to occur, for example, pointing towards burrow entrances or tree hollows. Bait was used at some sites to attract fauna to the cameras.

Nomenclature

Nomenclature and classification of fauna species refers to the Classification of Wildlife of the NT – January 2011 (DLRM).

Data limitations

• The results of these surveys are only a snapshot in time, and do not allow for temporal variations or species migrations.

• Detection of nocturnal species by spotlight potentially only detects about 25% of the animals present (e.g. Goldingay & Sharpe 2004), and is affected by environmental factors (Wayne et al. 2005).

• Environmental factors affect capture rates (Read & Moseby 2001). Planning logistics for fauna surveys such as this around specific environmental conditions is very difficult particularly with the compromise between access (during the dry season) and times when species are more active (e.g. during the build-up/wet season).

• Fauna and Flora Atlas records are biased toward previous NT Government survey sites and accessible sites often recognised for their unique biodiversity. Therefore, a lack of records at any particular site is more likely to indicate that the area has not been previously surveyed rather than indicate that various species are not present in the area.


3 Results

3.1 Desktop Survey

Based on database searches (i.e. IBRA Bioregions and EPBC Protected Matters Search Tool) and a review of the ecology of the Northern Territory and Commonwealth listed threatened species, 19 threatened species were considered as potentially occurring in the vicinity of the project area (Table 1).

Table 1. Threatened species that may occur within the project area.

Scientific name Common name EPBC Status TPWC Status

Birds

Epthianura crocea tunneyi Yellow Chat (Alligator Rivers) VU EN Erythrotriorchis radiatus Red Goshawk VU VU Erythrura gouldiae Gouldian Finch EN VU Geophaps smithii smithii Partridge Pigeon (eastern) VU VU Rostratula australis Australian Painted Snipe EN VU Tyto novaehollandiae kimberli Masked Owl (northern) VU VU

Mammals

Antechinus bellus Fawn Antechinus - EN Conilurus penicillatus Brush-tailed Rabbit-rat VU EN Dasyurus hallucatus Northern Quoll EN CE Hipposideros (diadema) inornata Arnhem Leaf-nosed Bat - VU Mesembriomys gouldii Black-footed Tree-rat - VU Phascogale pirata Northern Brush-tailed Phascogale VU EN Rattus tunneyi Pale Field-rat - VU Saccolaimus saccolaimus Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat CE NT Xeromys myoides False Water Rat VU DD

Reptiles

Acanthophis hawkei Plains Death Adder VU VU Varanus mertensi Mertens’ Water Monitor - VU Varanus mitchelli Mitchell’s Water Monitor - VU Varanus panoptes Floodplain Monitor - VU

VU = Vulnerable, EN = Endangered, CE = Critically Endangered, NT = Near Threatened, DD = Data Deficient


3.2 Terrestrial Fauna Survey

The field surveys undertaken along the Finniss River recorded 123 native terrestrial vertebrate species, comprising of 14 amphibians, 77 birds, 13 mammals and 19 reptiles; and four introduced species, comprising two mammals, one amphibian and one reptile (Appendix B).

Native faunal diversity at sites ranged from 32 to 57 species (Table 2), with no significant difference found between the sites in mean daily diversity (Kruskall-Wallis Anova: h1,7= 4.639, P=0.704). The highest diversity was found at sites EBUSFR and FR@G204 with the lowest at FRUSMB (Table 2). As FRDSFC (FR1) & FRUSFC (FR2) were only sampled in the dry season an analysis based on their exclusion also found no significant difference between the six sites (sampled both seasons) in mean daily diversity (Kruskall-Wallis Anova: h1,5= 4.795, P=0.441), thus their appears to be no significant difference among the sites in terms of faunal diversity.

Amphibians

A total of 14 native amphibian species were recorded during active nocturnal searches (Appendix B). One introduced species was identified, the Cane Toad (Rhinella marina).

Amphibian diversity at sites ranged from 1-10 species (Table 2), with no significant difference found between the sites in mean daily diversity (Kruskall-Wallis Anova: h1,7= 2.191, P=0.949). The highest diversity was found at sites EB@LB with the lowest at EBUSFR (Table 2), thus showing no apparent difference between the upstream and downstream sites of the former mine. As FRDSFC (FR1) & FRUSFC (FR2) were only sampled in the dry season, an analysis based on their exclusion also found no significant difference between the six sites (sampled both seasons) in mean daily diversity (Kruskall-Wallis Anova: h1,5= 1.854, P=0.869).

Birds

A total of 77 bird species from 39 families were recorded during the survey (Appendix B). Honeyeaters were the most diverse family with 10 species recorded. Three species listed as Migratory under the EPBC Act were observed during the surveys:

• White-bellied Sea-eagle (Haliaeetus leucogaster). • Rainbow Bee-eater (Merops ornatus). • Eastern Great Egret (Ardea modesta).

Bird diversity at sites ranged from 25-40 species (Table 2), with no significant difference found between the sites in mean daily diversity (Anova: f1,7= 0.766, P=0.619). The highest diversity was found at site EBUSFR with the lowest at FRUSMB (Table 2) thus showing no apparent difference between the upstream and downstream sites of the former mine. As FRDSFC (FR1) & FRUSFC (FR2) were only sampled in the dry season, an analysis based on their exclusion also found no significant difference between the six sites (sampled both seasons) in mean daily diversity (Anova: f1,5= 0.767, P=0.580).

Mammals

A total of 13 native mammal species were recorded during the survey (Appendix B). This included one macropod, one rodent, one canid, one bandicoot and 9 bats. Two introduced species were identified, Feral Pigs (Sus scrofa) and Cattle (Bos taurus). Once species, Bare-rumped Sheath-tailed Bat (Saccolaimus saccolaimus) listed as Critically Endangered under the EPBC Act was considered likely to be present during the dry season at FR@G204 on the basis of an incomplete call sequence that may be attributed to this species (Appendix C).

Mammal diversity at sites ranged from 1-10 species (Table 2), with no significant difference found between the sites in mean daily diversity (Kruskall-Wallis Anova: h1,7= 5.326, P=0.620). The highest diversity was found at site FR@G204 with half of the other sites only recording one species (Table 2) thus showing no apparent difference between the upstream and downstream sites of the former mine. As FRDSFC (FR1) &


FRUSFC (FR2) were only sampled in the dry season, an analysis based on their exclusion also found no significant difference between the six sites (sampled both seasons) in mean daily diversity (Anova: f1,5= 1.671, P=0.235). As Song meter Bata data was also only available from some sites due to technical difficulties (i.e. batteries either running out or failing) (Appendix C) an analysis excluding song meter data also found no significant difference between the sites in mean daily mammal diversity (Kruskall-Wallis Anova: h1,7= 4.870, P=0.676)

Reptiles

A total of 19 native reptile species were recorded during the survey (Appendix B). This included two species of varanids, two geckos, one dragon, and nine skinks. Three species of colubrid and two elapid snakes were also recorded. One introduced species was identified, the Asian House Gecko (Hemidactylus frenatus), which was heard calling from a nearby dwelling. Two species listed as Vulnerable under the Territory Parks and Wildlife Act were observed during the surveys.

• Merten’s Water Monitor (Varanus mertensi). • Mitchell’s Water Monitor (Varanus mitchelli).

Reptile diversity at sites ranged from 3-9 species (Table 2), with no significant difference found between the sites in mean daily diversity (Anova: f1,7= 0.556, P=0.785). The highest diversity was found at sites EB@LB and FRDSMB with the lowest at FR2 (Table 2) thus showing no apparent difference between the upstream and downstream sites of the former mine. As FRDSFC (FR1) & FRUSFC (FR2) ) were only sampled in the dry season an analysis based on their exclusion also found no significant difference between the six sites (sampled both seasons) in mean daily diversity (Anova: f1,5= 0.235, P=0.944).

Faunal Diversity between Seasons

All sites showed greater diversity during the wet season than the dry season. This difference however was more noticeable at sites EBUSFR and FR@G204 (Table 3).

Table 2. Total faunal diversity between sites from the Finniss River Terrestrial Fauna Survey.

FC@LB EB@LB FRUSMB FRDSMB EBUSFR FR@GS204

FRDSFC (FR1)

FRUSFC (FR2)

Amphibians 5 10 5 6 8 5 2 1

Birds 27 32 23 28 40 34 25 32

Mammals 7 5 1 1 1 10 2 1

Reptiles 7 9 3 9 8 8 3 3

Totals 46 56 32 44 57 57 32 37

Table 3. Faunal diversity between seasons from the Finniss River Terrestrial Fauna Survey.

FC@LB EB@LB FRUSMB FRDSMB EBUSFR FR@GS204

Dry Wet Dry Wet Dry Wet Dry Wet Dry Wet Dry Wet

Amphibians 3 2 5 9 3 4 3 3 2 6 1 4

Birds 22 19 14 28 11 18 11 24 12 35 10 32

Mammals 2 6 5 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 7 9

Reptiles 3 6 6 4 2 2 5 6 3 7 3 7

Totals 30 33 30 42 17 24 20 33 18 49 21 52


mailto:FR@GS204

mailto:FR@GS204

4 Discussion

4.1 Faunal Diversity

As expected the riparian sections of the Finniss River and its tributaries are home to an array of terrestrial vertebrate fauna. Fauna surveys at the Area 55 Oxide Project, found a similar number of terrestrial vertebrate species (113 fauna species) (Coffey 2009), but as their raw data were not published, it is possible that the actual species composition could be different to what was observed during the present study. Unfortunately as the Rum Jungle Mine was commenced prior to any environmental impacts studies (Low 2001), there were no historical data to compare findings against. Though all the sites are bordered by open Eucalypt forest there are major differences within the actual microhabitats and vegetation structure (Tony Orr per obs) which also make direct comparison difficult. Of particular concern was that differences between burnt and regrowth areas throughout the sites are unknown. These factors are known to alter the distribution, abundance and detectability of many terrestrial vertebrate species in the Northern Territory (Begg et al. 1981; Woinarski 1990; et al. 2004).

There were no significant differences between the mean daily diversity between sites. The highest overall species diversity was at EBUSFR and FR@GS204. Interestingly EBUSFR has the most noticeable mine impact with a salt crust evident in the streambed in the dry season. Despite this the streamside and adjacent vegetation appears to be intact. The riparian fringe is quite narrow in this area and therefore provides habitats for savannah and riparian dwelling species. The high diversity at FR@GS204 is most like related to an array of different habitats, from tall Eucalypt forest, bamboo forests, and riparian vegetation along the river. In addition acoustic bat detection was highly successful at this site.

Mean daily amphibian diversity did not differ significantly between sites. The overall highest diversity was recorded at EB@LB, a site furthest upstream of the mine, thus the mine could be affecting amphibian diversity downstream. Of particular interest was the complete lack of Ornate Burrowing Frog’s (Platyplectrum ornatus) from all sites below FRUSMB. This common local species is easily captured in pitfall traps during the wet season, thus it absence is unexplainable at the present time. Recent research though suggests that extensive environmental factors influence the detectability of frogs in the monsoonal tropics (Dostine et al. 2013), and as our wet season survey period only covered three nights, it may not be robust enough to accurately describe the amphibian fauna. Any future surveys work on amphibians will need to be done throughout the wet season to account for different rainfall levels.

Mean daily bird diversity did not differ significantly between sites. The overall highest diversity was recorded at EBUSFR, a site when compared with others has a noticeable salt crust present during the dry season. However as its streamside and adjacent vegetation is intact, there may be no impact on the bird diversity. Within the Northern Territory, riparian bird diversity is not affected by disturbance from weeds and livestock, as other major geographical and environmental gradients dwarf the influence of relatively minor variation between sample sites (Woinarski et al. 2000). As birds are highly mobile, any affects that mine site discharges may have had on the riparian habitat may be mostly restricted to the riparian fringe and thus be dwarfed by the availability of riparian habitats throughout the Finniss region.

Mean daily mammal diversity did not differ significantly between sites. The overall highest diversity was recoded at FR@GS204. This diversity though is inflated by numerous bat species, which were inadequately surveyed at all sites due to battery problems. (Appendix C). With the effects of this removed, mean daily mammal diversity was still found to not significantly differ between the sites with the highest diversity recorded at FC@LB. In recent times, studies have shown that a major small mammal decline is occurring throughout northern Australia (Woinarksi et al. 2001; 2004; 2010) with no apparent cause. This combined with the apparent instability in detection of terrestrial fauna species and communities within the Northern Territory provides a considerable challenge for monitoring, especially on a small scale (Woinarski et al. 2004) and therefore makes it difficult to determine impacts from the mine.


Mean daily reptile diversity did not differ significantly between sites. The overall highest diversity was recorded at EB@LB and FRDSMB and the lowest at the extreme downstream sites FR1 and FR2, but as these were only sampled in the dry season, this was probably related to the absence of a wet season survey. Sites EB@LB and FRDSMB probably display the complete reptile fauna that is present at all the other sites, but for some unexplainable reason, detection rates were higher in these areas. As reptiles are also known to display instability in detection during monitoring (Woinarski et al. 2004), any possible affects because from mine site discharges would be extremely hard to detect.

Faunal diversity was greater in the wet than the dry season. This is consistent with most studies on reptiles, amphibians, and mammals but not birds. Woinarski (et al. 2000) found bird species richness in riparian areas to be greater during the late dry season than the wet season, as riparian areas provide relative resource availability. As the dry season survey was conducted in September, it is possible that the area has not yet experienced the late dry season extremes when most resources for birds decline in the savannahs and woodlands and thus migrate to riparian areas (Woinarski & Tidemann 1991).

The survey provides a good baseline for ongoing monitoring of terrestrial vertebrates. Overall there does not appear to be any relationship between possible mine site drainage and the distribution of terrestrial vertebrates downstream of the mine. However the apparent instability in detectability of terrestrial vertebrate populations (Woinarksi et al. 2004), especially on this smaller scale makes it difficult to determine impacts from the mine.

4.2 Threatened Species

Nineteen threatened species were considered as potentially occurring within the survey area. Of these three; the Mertens’ Water Monitor (Varanus mertensi), Mitchells Water Monitor (Varanus mitchelli) and Bare-rumped Sheathtailed Bat (Saccolaimus saccolaimus) were recorded during the surveys. It is possible that the remaining threatened species may occur in the area but were not detected at this time.

Mertens Water Monitor (Varanus mertensi)

The Merten’s Water Monitor is listed as Vulnerable in the Northern Territory due to population declines associated with the introduced Cane Toad (Rhinella marina) (Doody et al. 2006; 2009; Griffiths & McKay 2007). Despite Cane Toads being recorded at most sites, this species was recorded during both seasons and a large number were sighted during an earlier targeted survey for this species (EcOz 2014). During the dry season however, this species was absent from some areas where it was previously seen (FC@LB & EBUSFR). As this species forages along the edge of water bodies for aquatic prey (i.e. freshwater crabs, prawns & fish) (Christian 2004), it may retreat to other water sources during the dry season.

Mitchells Water Monitor (Varanus mitchelli)

The Mitchells Water Monitor is listed as Vulnerable in the Northern Territory due to population declines associated with the introduced Cane Toad (Rhinella marina) (Doody et al. 2006; 2009). Despite Cane Toads being recorded at most sites, this species was recorded incidentally in a billabong near FR1 and a previous targeted survey for this species found it to be present at the downstream Finniss River sites (FR1 & FR2) (EcOz 2014). Interestingly, despite three survey sessions this species was not recorded and does not appear to be present at any of the other sites, despite ample suitable habitat being present. It is possible that Cane Toad densities, especially newly metamorphosed juveniles may be higher at these sites, which in turn can lead to a severe decline in this species (Doody et al. 2009) or that this species may be affected by mine site drainage.

Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat (Saccolaimus saccolaimus)

The Bare-rumped Sheathail Bat is listed as Data Deficient in the Northern Territory, as there is no information available on which to determine trends. Due to an absence of recent records from its historically


small range in North Queensland; this species is listed as Critically Endangered under the EPBC Act (Milne & Woinarski 2006). This species was possibly recorded using acoustic recordings from site FR@G204, although there is some uncertainty distinguishing sequences between species (Appendix C). Records of Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bats are scarce in the Northern Territory, where it has been recorded from eucalypt tall open forests (Churchill 1998). This habitat is present along the banks of the Finniss River, at site FR@G204. Further targeted surveys could determine if it is present at the site (Appendix C). Any works that could affect this species or its habitat would require referral under the EPBC Act (e.g. a decline in water quality that leads to a decline in riparian vegetation).

4.3 Migratory Species

Eastern Great Egret (Ardea modesta)

The Eastern Great Egret is listed as Least Concern in the Northern Territory as it is widespread across the Northern Territory with a few thousand pairs known (Chatto 2000). Due to the degradation of wetland habitats within Australia and that this species is covered under the Japan-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement (JAMBA) and China-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement (CHAMBA), it is listed as Migratory under the EPBC Act. This species was recorded during the dry season at EBUSFR which at the time did not hold any water. As the species was in transit through the site, it probably does not use this area during the dry but may forage there in the wet season. There does not appear to be any decline of this species within the Northern Territory.

White-bellied Sea-eagle (Haliaeetus leucogaster)

The White-bellied Sea-eagle is listed as Least Concern in the Northern Territory as it is widespread across the coast and inland waterways. Due to its sensitivity to disturbance, especially when nesting, this species is listed as Migratory under the EPBC Act. This species was recorded at site FRDSMB, and a casual search revealed no nest in the immediate area suggesting that this area may only be used for foraging. Breeding adults are generally sedentary but sometimes undertake long-distance movements in response to drought or shortage of food. Despite its federal listing, the White-bellied Sea Eagle is widespread along the coast of northern Australia.

Rainbow Bee-eater (Merops ornatus)

The Rainbow Bee-eater is listed as Least Concern in the Northern Territory as it is a common and widespread species that occurs in a large variety of habitats. At the present time, there is no known significant threat to this species, however as it is covered under the JAMBA agreement, it is listed as Migratory under the EPBC Act. This species was recorded at every site, except for FRUSMB and FRDSMB, which in itself is probably due to presence very thick vegetation along the Finniss River that does not appear to be suitable habitat for this species. This species was recorded at most of the survey sites. Despites its federal listing the Rainbow Bee-eater is a widespread and common species throughout northern Australia.


Summary and Recommendations

The Finniss River is home to populations of terrestrial vertebrates including threatened species.

Unfortunately most monitoring programs for terrestrial vertebrates in the Northern Territory have reported an apparent instability in species composition throughout the seasons (Woinarksi et al. 2004; Dostine et al. 2013). Both of these studies found that the effort to monitor terrestrial vertebrate species must be very substantial in order to accurately detect a change or species. As the present study was only done on a smaller scale, any impacts related specifically to the mine will be hard to detect, unless substantial effort is made to increasing the monitoring program. Overall there does not appear to be any relationship between possible mine site drainage and the distribution of terrestrial vertebrates downstream of the mine.

Of particular note, was that Merten’s Water Monitors were present in the wet season survey of the East Branch, but were not during the dry. It is recommended that this species is part of a targeted monitoring during any works that could affect the water and habitat quality of the Finniss River.

Given the presence of Mitchell’s Water Monitors, listed as a Threatened Species in the Northern Territory, it is recommended that this species is further assessed to determine if they occur at the upper sites as their apparent absence cannot be explained at this time .

As the Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat may be present on the sites, it is recommended that a targeted search for this species is undertaken as if this species is present; it may require referral under the EPBC Act.


5 References

Baker B, Price O, Woinarski J, Gold S, Connors G, Fisher A & Hempel C 2005, Northern Territory Bioregions – Assessment of Key Biodiversity Values and Threat, Department of Natural Resources, Environment and The Arts, Palmerston, Northern Territory.

Begg, RJ, Martin, KC & Price, NF 1981, The small mammals of Little Nourlangie Rock, NT. V. The effects of fire, Australian Wildlife Research, 8:515-527.

Chatto, R 2000, Waterbird breeding colonies in the Top End of the Northern Territory, Parks & Wildlife Commission of the Northern Territory Technical Report, 69.

Christian, K 2004, Varanus mertensi, in Pianka, E, King, D & King, RA, The Varanoid Lizards if the World, Edition, Indiana University Press.

Churchill, S 1998, Australian Bats, Reed New Holland, Sydney. Clunie, P 1994, Flora & Fauna Guarantee Action Statement No 60 - White-bellied Sea-eagle. Victorian

Department of Sustainability and Environment, viewed August 2013, <http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/103185/060_White-bellied_Sea-Eagle_1994.pdf>.

Coffey Environments Pty Ltd, 2009, Notice of Intent: HNC (Australia) Resources Pty Ltd: Area 55 Oxide Project. (unpublished).

Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) 2008, ‘Pine Creek Bioregion’, in Rangelands 2008 - Taking the pulse, viewed 24 March 2014. <http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/a8015c25-4aa2-4833-ad9c-e98d09e2ab52/files/bioregion-pine-creek.pdf>.

Department of Land Resource Management (LRM) 2014, Pine Creek Bioregional Description, Northern Territory Government, viewed 24 March 2014. <http://lrm.nt.gov.au/plants-and-animals/herbarium/nature/bioregional/pinecreek>.

Doody, JS, Green, B, Sims, R, Rhind, D, West, P & Steer, D 2006, Indirect impacts of invasive cane toads (Bufo marinus) on nest predation in pig-nosed turtles (Carettochelys insculpta), Wildlife Research, 33:349-354.

Doody, JS, Green, B, Rhind, D, Castellano, CM, Sims, R & Robinson T 2009, Population level declines in Australian predators caused by an invasive species, Animal Conservation, 12:46-63.

Dostine, P.L., Reynolds, S.J., Griffiths, A.D. & Gillespie, G 2013, Factors influencing detection probabilities of frogs in the monsoonal tropics of northern Australia, Wildlife Research, 40:393-402.

EcOz Environmental Consultants, 2014, Aquatic Reptile Survey of the Finniss River, Report to Hydrobiology, Brisbane, Queensland

Goldingay, RL & Sharpe, DJ 2004, ‘How effective is spotlighting for detecting the squirrel glider?’, Wildlife Research, volume 31, number 4, pp. 443-449.

Hydrobiology, 2013a, Environmental values downstream of the former Rum Jungle minesite – Phase 1. Report to the Northern Territory Department of Mines and Energy.

Jeffree, R.A & Twinning, JR 1992, An Investigation on Fish Diversity and Abundance in the Finniss River Following Remediation of the Rum Jungle Mine Site. Environmental Science Program. Sydney Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO).

Low, WA 2001, Flora and Fauna of the Brown’s Oxide Region, NT, a Desk Top Assessment of Information Available and Required for Environmental Impact Assessment of Brown’s Polymetallic Project for NSR Environmental Consultants P/L Melbourne and Compass Resources NL Sydney. Low Ecological Services P/L, Alice Springs, NT.

Manolis, SC, Webb, GJW. & Britton, ARC 2002a, Crocodiles and Other Reptiles: Bioindicators of Pollution. Pp. 65‐69 in The Finniss River; a Natural Laboratory of Mining Impacts ‐ Past, Present and Future. ANSTO: Sydney.

Manolis, SC, Webb, GJW, Britton, ARC, Jeffree, RA & Markich, SJ 2002b, Trace Element Concentrations of Wild Saltwater Crocodile Eggs. Pp. 58‐61 in the Finniss River; A Natural Laboratory of Mining Impacts ‐ Past, Present and Future. ANSTO: Sydney.


http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/103185/060_White-bellied_Sea-Eagle_1994.pdf

http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/103185/060_White-bellied_Sea-Eagle_1994.pdf

http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/a8015c25-4aa2-4833-ad9c-e98d09e2ab52/files/bioregion-pine-creek.pdf

http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/a8015c25-4aa2-4833-ad9c-e98d09e2ab52/files/bioregion-pine-creek.pdf

Milne, D & Woinarski, JCZ 2006, Threatened species of the Northern Territory Bare-rumped Sheathtail bat Saccolaimus saccolaimus, Northern Territory Department of Land Resource Management, viewed July 2013 <http://www.lrm.nt.gov.au/__data/ass ets/pdf_file/0016/10843/barerumped_sheathtailbat_dd.pdf>.

Read, JL & Moseby, KE 2001, ‘Factors affecting pitfall capture rates of small ground vertebrates in arid South Australia. I. The influence of weather and moon phase on capture rates of reptiles’, Wildlife Research, volume 28, no. 1, pp. 53-60.

Ward, S 2012c, Threatened Species of the Northern Territory- Mitchell’s Water Monitor Varanus mitchelli, Northern Territory Department of Land Resource Management, viewed July 2013, <http://lrm.nt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/143129/Varanus_Mitchelli_VU_FINAL.pdf

Wayne, AF, Cowling, A, Rooney, JF, Ward, CG, Wheeler, IB, Lindenmayer, DB & Donelly, CF 2005, ‘Factors affecting the detection of possums by spotlighting in Western Australia’, Wildlife Research, volume 32, no. 8, pp. 689-700.

Woinarski, JCZ 1990, Effects of fire on bird communities of tropical woodlands and open forests in northern Australia, Australian Journal of Ecology, 15:1-22.

Woinarski, JCZ & Tidemann, SC 1991, The bird fauna of a deciduous woodland in the wet-dry tropics of northern Australia, Wildlife Research, 15:479-500.

Woinarski, JCZ, Brock, C, Armstrong, M, Hempel, C, Cheal, D & Brennan, K 2000, Bird distribution in riparian vegetation in the extensive natural landscape of Australia’s tropical savannah: a broad scale survey and analysis of a distributional data base, Journal of Biogeography, 27:843:868.

Woinarski, JCZ, Milne, DJ & Wanganeen, G 2001, Changes in mammal populations in relatively intact landscapes of Kakadu National Park, Northern Territory, Australia, Austral Ecology, 26:360-370.

Woinarski, JCZ, Armstrong, M, Price, O, McCartney, J, Griffiths, T & Fisher, A 2004, The terrestrial vertebrate fauna of Litchfield National Park, Northern Territory: monitoring over a 6-year period, and response to fire history, Wildlife Research, 31:587-596.

Woinarski, JCZ, Armstrong, M, Brennan, K, Fisher, A, Griffiths, AD, Hill, B, Milne, DJ, Palmer, C, Ward, S, Watson, M, Winderlich, S & Young, S 2010, Monitoring indicates rapid and severe decline of native small mammals in Kakadu National Park, northern Australia, Wildlife Research, 37:116-126.


http://www.lrm.nt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/10843/barerumped_sheathtailbat_dd.pdf

http://www.lrm.nt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/10843/barerumped_sheathtailbat_dd.pdf

http://lrm.nt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/143129/Varanus_Mitchelli_VU_FINAL.pdf

Appendix A– Site photos from the Finniss River Fauna Survey

Site 1: FC@LB (Finch Creek at Lease Boundary) 52 L 718660 8562220

Description: Open Eucalyptus forest with a Pandanus and Melaleuca following a seasonal creek.

Site 2: EB@LB (Upper East Branch at Lease Boundary 52 L 719885 8563394

Site Description: Open Eucalyptus forest with a Pandanus and Melaleuca following a seasonal creek.


Site 3 FRUSMB (Finniss River Upstream of Mount Burton) 52 L 712869 8564013

Site Description: Open and closed vine gallery thicket along the Finniss River.

Site 4: FRDSMB (Finniss River downstream of Mount Burton) 52 L 712676 8564358

Site Description: Open Eucalyptus forest with Pandanus and Melaleuca along the Finniss River.


Site 5: EBUSFR (East Branch upstream of the confluence with the Finniss River) 52 L 711597 8566535

Site Description: Open Eucalyptus forest with Pandanus and Melaleuca along the East Branch of the Finniss River. Some patches of open and closed vine gallery forest are present upstream. The East Branch does not flow during the dry.

Site 6: FR@GS204 (Finniss River at Gauge Station 204) 52 L 710619 8567848

Site Description: Open Eucalyptus forest with Pandanus, Melaleuca and Bamboo along the Finniss River.


Site 7: FRDSFC (FR1) 52 L 690942 8565833


Site 8: FRUSFC (FR2) 52 L 693765 8564641



Appendix B– Fauna records recorded during the field surveys of the Finniss River.

Scientific Name Common Name FC@LB EB@LB FRUSMB FRDSMB EBUSFR FR@GS204

FRDSFC (FR1)

FRUSFC (FR2) Incidental

BIRD ACANTHIZIDAE Gerygone chloronota Green-backed Gerygone

X X X X

Gerygone magnirostris Large-billed Gerygone

X X X X

X Smicrornis brevirostris Weebill X

X

X X X

ACCIPITRIDAE Accipiter fasciatus Brown Goshawk

X

Aviceda subcristata Pacific Baza

X Haliaeetus leucogaster White-bellied Sea-eagle

X

Haliastur sphenurus Whistling Kite

X

X X

X AEGOTHELIDAE

Aegotheles cristatus Australian Owlet-nightjar

X ALCEDINIDAE

Ceyx azureus Azure Kingfisher

X X

X

X X ANATIDAE

Aythya australis Hardhead

X Dendrocygna arcuata Wandering Whistling-Duck

X

Tadorna radjah Radjah Shelduck

X ANHINGIDAE

Anhinga novaehollandiae Australasian Darter

X ARDEIDAE

Ardea modesta Eastern Great Egret

X Nycticorax caledonicus Nankeen Night Heron

X

X


mailto:FR@GS204


FRDSFC (FR1)


ARTAMIDAE Cracticus nigrogularis Pied Butcherbird

X

BURHINIDAE Burhinus grallarius Bush Stone-curlew

X

CACATUIDAE Cacatua galerita Sulphur-crested Cockatoo X X X X X X

Calyptorhynchus banksii Red-tailed Black-cockatoo

X

X X CAMPEPHAGIDAE

Coracina novaehollandiae Black-faced Cuckoo-shrike

X Coracina papuensis White-bellied Cuckoo-shrike X X

X X X X Lalage leucomela Varied Triller

X

X X

X X

CAPRIMULGIDAE Caprimulgus macrurus Large-tailed Nightjar

X X X X

CICONIIDAE Ephippiorhynchus

asiaticus Black-necked Stork

X CISTICOLIDAE

Cisticola exilis Golden-headed Cisticola

X

X COLUMBIDAE

Chalcophaps indica Emerald Dove

X Ducula bicolor Pied Imperial-Pigeon

X

Geopelia humeralis Bar-shouldered Dove X X X X X X X X X Geopelia striata Peaceful Dove X X X X X X X X

Ptilinopus regina Rose-crowned Fruit-dove

X CORACIIDAE

Eurystomus orientalis Dollarbird X

X CORVIDAE


mailto:FR@GS204


FRDSFC (FR1)


Corvus orru Torresian Crow

X

X X CUCULIDAE

Cacomantis variolosus Brush Cuckoo X X X

X X

X Centropus phasianinus Pheasant Coucal

X

X X X X

DICRURIDAE Dicrurus bracteatus Spangled Drongo

X X X X X X

X

ESTRILDIDAE Neochmia phaeton Crimson Finch X

X

X X

Taeniopygia bichenovii Double-barred Finch X X

X

X FALCONIDAE

Falco berigora Brown Falcon X HALCYONIDAE

Dacelo leachii Blue-winged Kookaburra

X X

X X X X Todiramphus macleayii Forest Kingfisher X

X

X X X X

Todiramphus sanctus Sacred Kingfisher

X X MALURIDAE

Malurus melanocephalus Red-backed Fairy-wren

X MEGAPODIIDAE

Megapodius reinwardt Orange-footed Scrubfowl

X

X MELIPHAGIDAE

Conopophila albogularis Rufous-banded Honeyeater

X

X X Conopophila rufogularis Rufous-throated Honeyeater

X

Entomyzon cyanotis Blue-faced Honeyeater X Lichenostomus unicolor White-gaped Honeyeater X X X X X X X X X

Lichmera indistincta Brown Honeyeater X X X X X X X X Melithreptus albogularis White-throated Honeyeater X X X X X X X X Myzomela obscura Dusky Honeyeater X X

X X X X


mailto:FR@GS204


FRDSFC (FR1)


Philemon argenticeps Silver-crowned Friarbird

X Philemon citreogularis Little Friarbird

X

X

Ramsayornis fasciatus Bar-breasted Honeyeater X

X X MEROPIDAE

Merops ornatus Rainbow Bee-eater X X

X X X X MONARCHIDAE

Myiagra alecto Shining Flycatcher X X X X X X X X X Myiagra rubecula Leaden Flycatcher X X

X

NECTARINIIDAE Dicaeum hirundinaceum Mistletoebird X

X

ORIOLIDAE Oriolus flavocinctus Yellow Oriole X

X X X X X X

PACHYCEPHALIDAE Colluricincla harmonica Grey Shrike-thrush

X

Colluricincla megarhyncha Little Shrike-thrush

X

X

Pachycephala rufiventris Rufous Whistler

X X Pachycephala simplex Grey Whistler

X

X

PARDALOTIDAE Pardalotus striatus Striated Pardalote X X

X X X X X

PETROICIDAE Microeca flavigaster Lemon-bellied Flycatcher X X

X X X X X X

Poecilodryas cerviniventris Buff-sided Robin

X

PHALACROCORACIDAE Microcarbo melanoleucos Little Pied Cormorant

X

X

PITTIDAE Pitta iris Rainbow Pitta

X

X

X


mailto:FR@GS204


FRDSFC (FR1)


PODARGIDAE Podargus strigoides Tawny Frogmouth

X

X

PSITTACIDAE Aprosmictus erythropterus Red-winged Parrot

X X X

X

Psitteuteles versicolor Varied Lorikeet X X

X X X X X Trichoglossus

haematodus Rainbow Lorikeet X X

X X X X PTILONORHYNCHIDAE

Ptilonorhynchus nuchalis Great Bowerbird

X RHIPIDURIDAE

Rhipidura dryas Arafura Fantail

X Rhipidura leucophrys Willie Wagtail

X

Rhipidura rufiventris Northern Fantail X X

X STRIGIDAE

Ninox connivens Barking Owl

X

X

X Ninox novaeseelandiae Southern Boobook

X

FROG BUFONIDAE Rhinella marina Cane Toad X

X X X X X X

HYLIDAE Litoria bicolor Northern Dwarf Tree-frog

X

X X X

Litoria caerulea Green Tree-frog X X

X

X Litoria dahlii Dahl's Aquatic Frog

X

Litoria inermis Peters' Frog

X X X X Litoria nasuta Rocket Frog

X X X X

X

Litoria pallida Pale Frog

X

X Litoria rothii Roth's Tree-frog

X X

X


mailto:FR@GS204


FRDSFC (FR1)


Litoria rubella Red Tree-frog

X

X Litoria tornieri Tornier's Frog

X

LIMNODYNASTIDAE Limnodynastes

convexiusculus Marbled Frog X X

X X X X Platyplectrum ornatus Ornate Burrowing Frog X X X

MICROHYLIDAE Austrochaperina adelphe Northern Territory Frog

X

MYOBATRACHIDAE Crinia remota Remote Froglet X X X

X

Uperoleia inundata Floodplain Toadlet X X MAMMAL

BOVIDAE Bos taurus Cattle

X X

CANIDAE Canis lupus Dingo

X

MACROPODIDAE Macropus agilis Agile Wallaby X X

X X X

MURIDAE Melomys burtoni Grassland Melomys X X

X

PERAMELIDAE Isoodon macrourus Northern Brown Bandicoot X

PTEROPODIDAE Pteropus alecto Black Flying-fox X

X X

X

Pteropus scapulatus Little Red Flying-fox

X SUIDAE

Sus scrofa Pig

X


mailto:FR@GS204


FRDSFC (FR1)


MOLOSSIDAE Chaerephon jobensis Northern Free-tailed Bat X

X

VESPERTILIONIDAE Chalinolobus nigrogriseus Hoary Wattled Bat X X

X

Nyctophilus walkeri Pygmy Long-eared Bat

X

X MINIOPTERIDAE

Miniopterus schreibersii Large Bent-winged Bat X X

X EMBALLONURIDAE

Saccolaimus flaviventris Yellow-bellied Sheathtail Bat

X Taphozous georgianus Common Sheath-tailed Bat

X

Saccolaimus saccolaimus Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat

X REPTILE

AGAMIDAE Lophognathus gilberti Gilbert's Dragon

X

X

X

COLUBRIDAE Boiga irregularis Brown Tree Snake

X

Dendrelaphis punctulata Green Tree Snake

X Stegonotus cucullatus Slaty-grey Snake X

X

X X

CROCODYLIDAE Crocodylus johnstoni Freshwater Crocodile

X X

X

ELAPIDAE Demansia papuensis Papuan Whip Snake

X

Pseudonaja nuchalis Western Brown Snake

X GEKKONIDAE

Gehyra australis Northern Dtella

X

X Hemidactylus frenatus Asian House Gecko

X X

Heteronotia binoei Bynoe's Gecko X X


mailto:FR@GS204


FRDSFC (FR1)


SCINCIDAE Carlia amax Two-Spined Rainbow Skink

X

Carlia gracilis Slender Rainbow Skink X X X X X X X X Carlia munda Striped Rainbow Skink

X

Carlia rufilatus Red-Sided Rainbow Skink

X

X X

Cryptoblepharus cygnatus Swanson's Snake-eyed Skink

X

X

Ctenotus essingtonii Port Essington Ctenotus X

X X Ctenotus inornatus Plain Ctenotus X X

X X X

Glaphyromorphus douglasi Douglas' Skink X X

X X

X

Glaphyromorphus isolepis Smooth-Tailed Skink

X VARANIDAE

Varanus mertensi Mertens' Water Monitor X

X X X

X Varanus mitchelli Mitchell's Water Monitor

X

Grand Total

47 56 36 47 58 58 33 38 21


mailto:FR@GS204

Appendix C– Bat Call Identification from Finniss River, Northern Territory.

Client: Hydrobiology Doc Title: Finniss River Terrestrial Vertebrate Survey

Bat call identification

from Finniss River, Northern Territory

Acoustic analysis

EcOz Environmental Services

29 September 2014

SZ357

Kyle Armstrong and Yuki Konishi Specialised Zoological ABN 92 265 437 422 Tel 0404 423 264 [email protected] http://www.szool.com.au

© Copyright - Specialised Zoological, ABN 92 265 437 422. This document and its content are copyright and may not be copied, reproduced or distributed (in whole or part) without the prior written permission of Specialised Zoological other than by the Client for the purposes authorised by Specialised Zoological (“Intended Purpose”). The Client acknowledges that the Final Report is intended for the sole use of the Client, and only to be used for the Intended Purpose. Any representation or recommendation contained in the Final Report is made only to the Client. Specialised Zoological will not be liable for any loss or damage whatsoever arising from the use and/or reliance on the Final Report by any third party. To the extent that the Intended Purpose requires the disclosure of this document and/or its content to a third party, the Client must procure such agreements, acknowledgements and undertakings as may be necessary to ensure that the third party does not copy, reproduce, or distribute this document and its content other than for the Intended Purpose. This disclaimer does not limit any rights Specialised Zoological may have under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth).

Prepared for:

Type:

Date:

Job No.:

Prepared by:

SZ357: Bat call identification from Finniss River, Northern Territory

Page 2 of 10

SUMMARY

Bat identifications from acoustic recordings are provided from the vicinity of the Finniss River,

Northern Territory. At least eight species of bat were identified as being present (Tables 1

and 2), with several others likely (up to five) but difficult to distinguish based on their

echolocation calls. Of note are calls that might be attributed to the bare-rumped

sheath-tailed bat Saccolaimus saccolaimus, which would need follow up targeted work to

confirm. A full justification for this tentative identification is provided. Representative

echolocation calls of all species and call types are provided (Figure 1), as recommended by

the Australasian Bat Society (ABS 2006). Further data are available should verification be

required.

COMMENTS ON IDENTIFICATIONS

The identification of bat species from full spectrum WAV format recordings of their

echolocation calls was based on measurements of characteristic frequency, pulse shape, and

the pattern of harmonics.

Harmonic patterning was especially useful for distinguishing the greater northern free-tailed

bat Chaerephon jobensis and one of up to two species of sheath-tailed bat Saccolaimus spp,

given the similar characteristic frequency of their calls. Harmonics were not observable in

some of the call sequences, and identification to species was made only when more than one

harmonic was visible. Some calls had features that suggest their attribution to the

bare-rumped sheath-tailed bat S. saccolaimus. Further explanation is given in the next

section—Distinguishing species of Saccolaimus from acoustic recordings.

Many call sequences could not be identified reliably to one species because of the overlap in

pulse characteristics amongst one or more candidate species. A trapping programme would

help to resolve the presence of the various possibilities in the project area. The calls of the

hoary wattled bat Chalinolobus nigrogriseus, little broad-nosed bat Scotorepens greyii and

northern broad-nosed bat S. sanborni are similar and could not be distinguished here.

Likewise the species groups: northern bent-winged bat Miniopterus orianae (=M. oceanensis)

/ forest pipistrelle Pipistrellus adamsi / northern pipistrelle Pipistrellus westralis and the pygmy

long-eared bat Nyctophilus walkeri / Finlayson’s cave bat Vespadelus finlaysoni could not be

distinguished from one another. There are also several species that could have produced the

calls attributed to a species of long-eared bat Nyctophilus spp. (Arnhem long-eared bat N.

arnhemensis / pallid long-eared bat N. daedalus / lesser long-eared bat N. geoffroyi).


Page 3 of 10

DISTINGUISHING SPECIES OF SACCOLAIMUS FROM ACOUSTIC RECORDINGS

There were two call types attributable to a species of Saccolaimus. It is possible that both

the yellow-bellied sheath-tailed bat Saccolaimus flaviventris and the bare-rumped

sheath-tailed bat S. saccolaimus were present in the area. The identification of S.

saccolaimus was made in the context of seven criteria that can be helpful in separating the

calls of the three Australian species of Saccolaimus (Table 3). The calls attributable to S.

saccolaimus met criteria 1, 2, and 3, however none of these particular features by themselves

or in combination provides an unambiguous identification of the species.

Distinguishing between S. flaviventris and S. saccolaimus is not straightforward for two main

reasons in the context of the present survey. Firstly, there is overlap between the two

species in the characteristic frequency of pulses above 20 kHz (the range of S. flaviventris is c.

15 to >20 kHz; Milne 2002; McKenzie and Bullen 2009; Armstrong et al. 2014). The calls

attributed in the present report to S. flaviventris are actually similar to a subset of the

reference calls of S. saccolaimus recorded by Milne et al. (2009; their Figure 4c). Thus,

more than one call type in Figure 1 could be attributable to S. saccolaimus, although one

feeding buzz that was observed did confirm the presence of S. flaviventris (having pulses in

the feeding buzz consistent with morphology presented by Corben (2010) for S. flaviventris;

see criterion 5 in Table 3; Figure 2). Secondly, both species can produce curvilinear

(c-shaped) or serpentine (s-shaped) pulses. The serpentine calls illustrated in Figure 1 are

very similar to those presented by Milne et al. (2009; their Figure 4a) for S. saccolaimus.

However, there are other candidate species for the serpentine (s-shaped) pulses with a

characteristic frequency around 23 kHz, including the Arnhem sheath-tailed bat Taphozous

kapalgensis and the common sheath-tailed bat T. georgianus, but both these species are less

likely to produce this call shape consistently below 25 kHz.

The seventh criterion involves a multivariate approach to distinguishing amongst Saccolaimus

and other low frequency emitting bat species (species with calls having the characteristic

frequency of the loudest harmonic at 25 kHz or below) in northern Australia. Measurements

from pulses of interest are allocated to discriminant functions (as derived by Armstrong et al.

2014), and the resulting Cartesian coordinates are plotted over confidence regions that

represent variation from reference calls of various candidate species (see Methods section

below for further details). WAV files containing pulses that fall within a confidence region of

interest are then double-checked by inspecting them manually (e.g. to ensure that the

harmonic profile confirms a species of Saccolaimus rather than Mormopterus lumsdenae

(previously M. beccarii; Reardon et al. 2014). While this approach will not produce

identifications of S. saccolaimus that are entirely definitive, it will reduce the number of


Page 4 of 10

candidate species for a call sequence and can be considered together with observations that

meet the other criteria in Table 3. Several WAV files with pulses that were candidates for S.

saccolaimus were selected and each pulse was measured in SCAN’R software (see Methods

below for further details). The placement of each pulse relative to the variation of several low

frequency emitting bats of northern Australia is illustrated in Figure 3. No pulse fell within

the 68% confidence region of S. Saccolaimus, however because of the overlap in variation

greater than one Standard Deviation between S. flaventris and S. mixtus, and also S. mixtus

and S. saccolaimus, those falling within the confidence region of S. mixtus, could have been

produced by either of the two alternatives.

In the present situation, there is sufficient evidence to suggest the possible presence of S.

saccolaimus, which could be confirmed with follow up work if this were required by the

Commonwealth Department of the Environment. Follow-up targeted survey work could

maximise the potential for capture of this species by hoisting a vertical array of mist nets

between the crowns of high trees, using an acoustic lure (e.g. Hill and Greenaway 2005; Hill

2013) and attempting capture of exiting bats at trees with large vertical spouts in the main

trunk of eucalypts or melaleucas. Further information and advice on the acoustic

identification and targeted surveying of Saccolaimus can be provided upon request.


Page 5 of 10

METHODS

Data recorded in full spectrum lossless WAC0 format with a Wildlife Acoustics SM2BAT+ bat

detector (sampling rate 384 kHz, trigger 6 dB above background; 48 dB gain; set to turn on

automatically at sunset and off at sunrise) was converted to high quality bitstream WAV

format using Kaleidoscope 2.0.4 software.

A multi-step acoustic analysis procedure developed to process large full spectrum

echolocation recording datasets from insectivorous bats (Armstrong and Aplin 2014) was then

applied to the recordings made on the survey. Firstly, the WAV files were scanned for bat

echolocation calls using several parameter sets in the software SCAN'R version 1.7.7 (Binary

Acoustic Technology), which also provides measurements (in "SonoBatTM compatible output")

from each putative bat pulse. The output was then used to determine if putative bat pulses

measured in SCAN'R could be identified to species. This was done using a custom [R]

language script that performed three tasks: 1. undertook a Discriminant Function Analysis on

training data from representative and reference calls from northern Australia; 2. from the

measurements of each putative bat pulse from SCAN’R, calculated values for the first two

Discriminant Functions that could separate the echolocation call types derived from the

analysis of training data, and plotted these resulting coordinates over confidence regions for

the defined call types; and 3. facilitated an inspection in a spectrogram of multiple examples of

each call type for each recording night by opening the original WAV files containing pulses of

interest in Adobe Audition CS6 version 5.0.2. The [R] language script also included a

separate process that repeated the above steps using training data from low frequency

emitting species, and which is able to separate Chaerephon jobensis from Saccolaimus

species, and the three species of Saccolaimus from each other, though with some overlap

(Armstrong et al. 2014).

Species were identified based on Milne (2002) and the authors unpublished reference calls

(see also Armstrong et al. 2014), and nomenclature follows Van Dyck et al. (2013) and

Reardon et al. (2014).


Page 6 of 10

REFERENCES

ABS (2006). Recommendations of the Australasian Bat Society Inc for reporting standards for insectivorous bat surveys using bat detectors. The Australasian Bat Society Newsletter 27: 6–9. [ISSN 1448-5877]

Armstrong, K.N. and Aplin, K.P. (2014). Identifying bats in an unknown acoustic realm using a semi-automated approach to the analysis of large full spectrum datasets. Oral presentation at the 16th Australasian Bat Society Conference 22–25 April 2014, Townsville, Queensland. The Australasian Bat Society Newsletter 42: 35–36.

Armstrong, K.N., Hoye, G., Broken-Brow, J. and Ford, G. (2014). Overcoming impediments to effective survey of Saccolaimus species on Cape York, Queensland. Oral presentation at the 16th Australasian Bat Society Conference 22–25 April 2014, Townsville, Queensland. The Australasian Bat Society Newsletter 42: 34–35.

Coles, R., Britton, A., Boonman, A. and Clague, C. (2012). Discovery of a highly unusual alternating call frequency pattern used by the echolocating emballonurid bat Saccolaimus saccolaimus during foraging. Oral presentation at the 15th Australasian Bat Society Conference, Melbourne, Australia, 11–13 April 2012. The Australasian Bat Society Newsletter 38: 35–36.

Coles, R., Lane D. and Kovachev, I. (2014). Echolocation ecology and distribution of the bare-rumped sheathtail bat Saccolaimus saccolaimus: the Bornean-Australian connection. Oral presentation at the 16th Australasian Bat Society Conference 22–25 April 2014, Townsville, Queensland. The Australasian Bat Society Newsletter 42: 33.

Corben C. (2010). Acoustic identification of Saccolaimus. Oral presentation at the 14th Australasian Bat Society conference, Darwin, Northern Territory, 12–14 July 2010. The Australasian Bat Society Newsletter 35: 26.

Corben C. (2011). Bat calls of Borneo. Available at URL:

http://users.lmi.net/corben/BatsOfBorneo.htm#Bat%20Calls%20of%20Borneo

Hill D.A. and Greenaway F. (2005). Effectiveness of an acoustic lure for surveying bats in British woodlands. Mammal Review 35:116–122.

Hill, D. (2013). Do Aussie bats speak Autobat? The Australasian Bat Society Newsletter 41: 27–28.

McKenzie, N.L. and Bullen, R.D. (2009). The echolocation calls, habitat relationships, foraging niches and communities of Pilbara microbats. Records of the Western Australian Museum Supplement 78: 123–155.

Milne, D.J. (2002). Key to the bat calls of the Top End of the Northern Territory. Parks and Wildlife Commission of the Northern Territory, Technical Report No. 71.

Milne, D.J., Jackling, F.C., Sidhu, M., and Appleton, B.R. (2009). Shedding new light on old species identifications: morphological and genetic evidence suggest a need for conservation status review of the critically endangered bat, Saccolaimus saccolaimus. Wildlife Research 36: 496–508.

Meutstege, R., Coles, R. and Spencer, H. (2014). Observations on the foraging and roosting behaviour of the bare-rumped sheathtail bat Saccolaimus saccolaimus in the Cape Tribulation region of Queensland, Australia. Oral presentation at the 16th Australasian Bat Society Conference 22–25 April 2014, Townsville, Queensland. The Australasian Bat Society Newsletter 42: 34.

Reardon, T.B., McKenzie, N.L., Cooper S.J.B, Appleton, B., Carthew, S. and Adams, M. (2014). A

molecular and morphological investigation of species boundaries and phylogenetic

relationships in Australian free-tailed bats Mormopterus (Chiroptera: Molossidae). Australian

Journal of Zoology 62: 109–136.

Van Dyck, S., Gynther, I. and Baker, A. (eds.) (2013). Field companion to the Mammals of Australia. New Holland, London.


Page 7 of 10

TABLE 1. Species identified in the present survey from all sites combined.

EMBALLONURIDAE Yellow-bellied sheath-tailed bat Saccolaimus flaviventris

Bare-rumped sheath-tailed bat Saccolaimus saccolaimus

Common sheath-tailed bat Taphozous georgianus

MOLOSSIDAE

Greater northern free-tailed bat Chaerephon jobensis

Ambiguous

Hoary wattled bat / Chalinolobus nigrogriseus / and/or Little broad-nosed bat / Scotorepens greyii / and/or Northern broad-nosed bat Scotorepens sanborni

Northern bent-winged bat / Miniopterus orianae (=M. oceanensis) / and/or Forest pipistrelle / Pipistrellus adamsi / and/or Northern pipistrelle Pipistrellus westralis

Pygmy long-eared bat / Nyctophilus walkeri / and/or Finlayson’s cave bat Vespadelus finlaysoni

Unidentified long-eared bat Nyctophilus sp.

TABLE 2. Species identifications, with the degree of confidence indicated by a code. Date

and serial/unit correlates with site; see Table 1 for full species names.

C

. jo

ben

sis

C

. n

igro

gri

se

us

/

S

. g

rey

ii /

S

. s

an

bo

rni

M

. o

ria

na

e /

P

. a

da

ms

i /

P

. w

es

tra

lis

N

. w

alk

eri

/

V

. fi

nla

ys

on

i

N

yc

top

hilu

s s

p.

S

. fl

av

iven

tris

S

. s

ac

co

laim

us

T

. g

eo

rgia

nu

s

Date Site

SM2BAT+ 11363

Wet season

10/03/2014 FC@LB NC NC — NC — — —

11/03/2014 FR@G204 NC NC NC NC NC —

12/03/2014 EBUSFR No data

Dry season

1/09/2014 FR@G204 — NC NC NC — NC NC

2/09/2014 EB@LB — NC NC NC — — — —

3/09/2014 FRDSMB No data

Definition of confidence level codes:

— Not detected.

Unambiguous identification of the species at the site based on measured call characteristics

and comparison with available reference material. Greater confidence in this ID would come only

after capture and supported by morphological measurements or a DNA sequence.

NC Needs Confirmation. Either call quality was poor, or the species cannot be distinguished

reliably from another that makes similar calls. Alternative identifications are indicated in the

Comments on identifications section of this report. If this is a species of conservation significance,

further survey work might be required to confirm the record.

mailto:FC@LB

mailto:FR@G204

mailto:FR@G204

mailto:EB@LB


Page 8 of 10

TABLE 3. Criteria used to identify call types attributable to the bare-rumped sheath-tailed bat

Saccolaimus saccolaimus. A tick or a cross indicates whether an observation consistent

with that particular criterion was observed in the recordings for the present survey.

1. Characteristic frequency of the second (loudest, based on microphone sensitivity)

harmonic between c. 20 and 25 kHz (Milne et al. 2009; Armstrong et al. 2014; K.N.

Armstrong unpublished data; evident in AnaBat or full spectrum format data);

2. In multi-harmonic representations available from full spectrum recordings, the

characteristic frequency of the fundamental at around 10–12 kHz, and of the third

harmonic around 30–35 kHz (Armstrong et al. 2014; K.N. Armstrong unpublished

data; evident sometimes in AnaBat or more usually full spectrum format data; see

examples of harmonic fragments in the AnaBat-recorded calls presented by Milne

et al. 2009);

3. A pulse shape that is either curvilinear or serpentine (a typical curvilinear chirp with

a terminal droop) (Milne et al. 2009; Armstrong et al. 2014; K.N. Armstrong

unpublished data; evident in AnaBat or full spectrum format data);

4. Alternation of high and low characteristic frequency in successive pulses within the

band 20–25 kHz (Milne et al. 2009; evident in AnaBat or full spectrum format data);

5. Feeding buzz shape consistent with those described by Corben (2010, 2011),

which can be diagnostic in the absence of the Papuan sheath-tailed bat S. mixtus

(K.N. Armstrong unpublished data; evident in AnaBat or full spectrum format data);

6. Repeated triplet or doublet pulse sequences as described by Coles et al. (2012,

2014) and Meutstege et al. (2014) (evident in full spectrum format data only).

7. Measurements from pulses that fall within the confidence region of S. saccolaimus

in an ordination plot constructed from the Discriminant Function Analysis of a range

of low frequency emitting bats from northern Australia (Armstrong et al. 2014).


Page 9 of 10

FIGURE 1. Representative call sequence portions of the species identified (A: C. jobensis; B: S. flaviventris; B: S. saccolaimus; D: T. georgianus; E:

C. nigrogriseus / S. greyii / S. sanborni; F: Nyctophilus sp.; G: M. orianae (=M. oceanensis) / P. adamsi / P. westralis; H: N. walkeri / V. finlaysoni).


Page 10 of 10

FIGURE 2. Feeding buzz of S. flaviventris, showing relatively curvilinear rather than

serpentine-shaped multiharmonic short duration pulses towards the end of the sequence.

FIGURE 3. Discriminant Function Analysis ordinations with coordinates from pulses (red

points) in a selected subset of WAV files containing call sequences from low frequency

emitting bats. Ellipses are 68% confidence regions based on measurements from reference

calls of each species (Cj: Chaerephon jobensis; Sf: Saccolaimus flaviventris; Sm: S. mixtus;

Ss: S. saccolaimus; Tg: Taphozous georgianus).

Documents

› __data › assets › pdf_file › 0008 › ... · Finniss River Terrestrial Fauna SurveyFauna survey sites of the Finniss River Terrestrial Fauna Survey. .....3 Appendices Appendix