Section 6 Terrestrial and Freshwater Ecology - Metro Mining · 2018-08-09 · freshwater bodies but is unlikely to be present as all known records occur further south than the Project

Environmental Impact Statement

Metro Miningii - Executive Summary

Section 6Terrestrial and Freshwater Ecology

Metro MiningAppendix K - Environmental Management Plan

Metro Mining Bauxite Hills Project

Supplementary Report to the Environmental Impact Statement

6-1

6 Terrestrial and Freshwater Ecology

6.1 Introduction

Matters raised in submissions to the EIS relating to Chapter 5 – Terrestrial and Freshwater Ecology

were predominantly focussed on:

Addition aquatic ecology surveys to cover early dry season;

Aquatic ecology – haul road crossings;

Stygofauna;

Impacts to wetlands;

Buffer zones;

Big Footprint Swamp monitoring;

Dry season terrestrial ecology survey;

Targeted surveys for Water Mouse and Black Footed Tree-rat;

Matters of State Environmental Significance confirmed within the Project area and associated

offsets; and

Occurrence of conservation significant fauna species.

The following sections provide additional information to that already included in the EIS in response

to the submissions. Responses to submissions relating to marine ecology and MNES are discussed

in Chapters 7 and 8, respectively of the Supplementary Report.

Appendix A includes the full details of all submissions received for the Project.

Since the release of the EIS, and the purchase of Gulf Alumina and it’s SRBP, the original MIA

(including the BLF and RoRo) and the north-south haul road have been removed from the Project

scope (refer to Section 4 of this Supplementary Report for further information). Consequently, the

comments to the EIS in regard to these infrastructure components are no longer relevant to the

Supplementary Report.

Furthermore, the BH1 haul road has been relocated to an alternate route that avoids areas of HES

wetlands. The route of the east-west BH1 haul road now avoids the impacts to mangroves, and

estuarine and brackish wetland areas of the previous route, but does cross two ephemeral creek

lines draining into the Skardon River. This has led to a substantial reduction in the overall impact to

sensitive wetland and watercourse habitats.

Bauxite Hills Project Supplementary Report to the Environmental Impact Statement

6-2

6.2 Aquatic Ecology

6.2.1 Threatened Aquatic Fauna and Flora Species – Potential Presence Onsite

No threatened freshwater aquatic flora or fauna species (except for Estuarine Crocodile (listed as

Vulnerable under the NC Act)) have been recorded in any of the aquatic ecology surveys that have

been conducted for the Project. However, based on a desktop assessment of State and

Commonwealth wildlife databases (Wildnet and EPBC Online Protected Matters Search

respectively) several aquatic species listed with a threatened status (refer to Table 5 of Appendix

B2 of the EIS) may occur in the area.

Based on site observations, only the Largetooth Sawfish (Pristis microdon) (Vulnerable under the

EPBC Act) may be present in the broader Skardon River (freshwater) aquatic environment.

However, this species spends most its life in marine or estuarine waters, and only utilises freshwater

environments at the juvenile (or ‘pupping’) life stage. There is insufficient freshwater habitat across

or adjacent to the Project area to support juveniles of the species (Peverell, 2005).

The Estuarine Crocodile is the only fauna species of State significance (Vulnerable under the NC Act)

known to occur within the Skardon River and has been observed during site surveys near the

existing port area. The species may utilise freshwater habitats at times.

The only true freshwater species, listed as a Back on Track species for the Cape York NRM region,

was Waterhole Yabby (Cherax cartalacoolah). The Waterhole Yabby has been recorded on the east

coast of Cape York and is unlikely to be present within the Project area due to lack of suitable year-

long habitat.

One flora species, Lycopodiella limosa, listed as near threatened under the NC Act, has previously

been recorded 50 km to the east of BH1 (WorleyParsons, 2011b). The species has not; however,

been previously recorded within the Project area. Databases searches found no listed aquatic flora

species within a 25 km radius of the Project area (refer Appendix B2 of the EIS).

Two species of aquatic macrophytes (plants) were listed under EHP’s Back on Track species

prioritisation framework for the Cape York Peninsula region (although not of critical or high

conservation importance) Aponogeton cuneatus and A. queenslandicus. A. cuneatus is found in

permanent creeks and rivers, often in shaded areas (Jacobs et al., 2006), and as such is not

considered likely to occur on or adjacent the Project area. A. queenslandicus grows in temporary

freshwater bodies but is unlikely to be present as all known records occur further south than the

Project area (Stephens and Dowling, 2002).

6.2.2 Aquatic Ecology – Survey Effort

Aquatic ecology surveys were originally undertaken for the Project’s EIS between 4 and 11

November 2014, corresponding to the late dry season. Follow-up surveys were undertaken between

31 January and 6 February 2015, corresponding to the early wet season (refer to Appendix B2 of

the EIS for detailed results of the earlier surveys). A single aquatic ecology survey was also carried

out for the SRBP in March 2015 (RPS, 2015).

An additional dry season survey has been carried out since the publication of the EIS from 11 to 15

June 2016 (Appendix B of the Supplementary Report). Complementing the previous surveys in the

late dry and early wet seasons, the current survey provides a thorough temporal representation of

aquatic ecological conditions for the Project and surrounding area.


6-3

Local rainfall data (Weipa) showed that in December 2015 a total of 461 mm of rain fell, and only

small amounts of rain occurred between January and April 2016 with a total of 65 mm across the

four months. In the month of May 2016, 24 mm of rain occurred, and just prior to the dry season

survey in early June 26 mm was experienced (BoM, 2016). The June 2016 early dry season results

represent aquatic ecosystems that are fully established and are at the highest point in biodiversity

throughout the annual cycle of these ephemeral ecosystems.

The results of the survey are detailed in Appendix B of the Supplementary Report and summarised

in the following sections. Where appropriate the results are compared to those of the previous

surveys (Bauxite Hills and the SRBP).

Site Selection

The early dry season survey provided good overland site access and the opportunity to assess not

only the three aquatic ecology sites from the original surveys (AQ01, AQ02 and AQ03), but also three

additional sites that contained water adjacent to the Project area (Table 6-1, Figure 6-1). One

additional site was located on Big Footprint Swamp (AQ04) considering its proximity to the

proposed Project activities. Site AQ05 was located on a small ephemeral stream south of the Project

that drains directly into the Skardon River estuary system. During the survey, it appeared it might

be fed by rising groundwater. Site AQ06 was located on a Melaleuca swamp system that runs

parallel to the beach and drains into Namaleta Creek, to the south of the Project area. There was

some flow at this site during the early dry season survey.


6-4

Table 6-1 Aquatic ecology site assessment descriptions

Site coordinates

Description Photographs

AQ01 Lat/long: -11.795548 142.035982

This site occurs within Big Footprint Swamp, a large Melaleuca swamp system that is seasonally inundated to a depth of several metres. During the late dry season (2014) survey, only a single senescing pool remained. In the early dry season surveys (June 2016) there was still a large amount of water in the swamp. Sampling was undertaken around the littoral margins due to concerns with the potential presence of Estuarine Crocodiles. The margins were shallow (approximately 20-40 cm deep) and covered in a detrital layer of leaves. Extensive beds of Water Chestnut (Eleocharis dulcis) were observed in the central open area of the swamp. Small amounts of Nitella sp. were observed in the littoral zone. The survey site is located within RE3.3.65 under DNRM mapping and is described as ephemeral lakes and lagoons on alluvial plains and depressions. The margins of the site are RE3.3.12 with the dominant canopy species being Broad-leaved Paperbark (Melaleuca quinquenervia).

Dry season (central pool) – November 2014

Early dry season – June 2016

AQ02 Lat/long: -11.841636 142.021148

Lunette Swamp is a perched swamp which is part of a large Melaleuca swamp system that is seasonally inundated to a depth of several metres. Extensive Water Chestnut and Water Lily (Nymphaea violacea) stands were observed in the central open area of the swamp during the early dry season survey. During the late dry season survey (2014) large numbers of feral pigs were observed and the waterhole was heavily disturbed. Only the littoral margins were sampled to due to concerns with the potential presence of crocodiles. The margins were shallow (approximately 20-40 cm deep) with moderate coverage of Nitella sp. beds. The survey site itself is in open water and adjacent areas are mapped as RE3.3.32 described as Broad-leaved Tea-tree (Melaleuca viridiflora) +/- M. saligna woodland in sinkholes and drainage depressions.

Dry season (central pool) – November 2014

Early dry season – June 2016


6-5

Site coordinates


AQ03 Lat/long: -11.810123 142.131657

The site is situated on an un-named creek that drains into the Skardon River estuary. The site is located approximately 300 m upstream of a proposed creek crossing for the east-west BH1 haul road. The site was completely dry for at least 400 m both upstream and downstream in the late dry season (2014). The site was flowing strongly during the wet season survey (2015) and early dry season surveys (2016) with the dominant instream habitat consisting of runs. Flows appeared to have been sustained as evidenced by the established submerged macrophyte stands found abundantly along the reach. The survey site is located in a mixed RE polygon mapped as RE3.3.49b/3.3.22a/3.3.64. This is dominated by Broad-leaved Tea-tree which dominates a very sparse canopy with scattered emergent Clarkson's bloodwood (Corymbia clarksoniana). The riparian area was observed to have a grassy understorey.

Dry season – November 2014

Early dry season (upstream) – June 2016

AQ04 Lat/long: -11.803682 142.040849

This site also occurs within Big Footprint Swamp. In the early dry season surveys there was still a large amount of water in the swamp. The additional site was surveyed to establish variation within Big Footprint Swamp. This site is located on the outer margins of the swamp. Watering by feral pigs at this site was observed. The survey site is within mapped RE3.3.14 described as Melaleuca saligna +/- Broad-leaved Tea-tree, Swamp Box (Lophostemon suaveolens) woodland on drainage swamps.

Early dry season – June 2016 image 1


AQ05 Lat/long: -11.832287 142.078114

An un-named creek that drains directly into the Skardon River estuary system and is located approximately 800 m downstream of the east-west BH1 haul road creek crossing. At the time of early dry season sampling there was a strong flow of clear water through the reach that may be supported by rising groundwater. The riparian vegetation was dominated by Melaleuca which gave way to predominantly mangroves several hundred metres downstream. The site is located upstream of proposed mining activities of both Metro Mining and Gulf Alumina. This site is within a mixed RE polygon of RE3.3.49b/3.3.9. This is dominated by Broad-leaved Tea-tree which dominates a very sparse canopy with scattered emergent Clarkson's Bloodwood.

Early dry season (upstream) – June 2016

Early dry season (downstream)


6-6

Site coordinates


AQ06 Lat/long: -11.861772 141.971051

The site is located on a Melaleuca swamp system that runs parallel to the beach and drains into Namaleta Creek. The vegetation is largely dominated by Melaleuca with interspersed areas of rushes. There was some flow at the time of survey and the site appears to reach a depth of just over a metre. This site may have potential for use as a reference site for future monitoring. Applicable sites would be the swamp survey sites (AQ01, AQ02 and AQ04). However, additional assessment is required to determine its suitability. This site is within a mixed RE polygon of RE3.3.49b/3.3.5a/3.3.60a. This is dominated by Broad-leaved Tea-tree which dominates a very sparse canopy with scattered emergent Clarkson's Bloodwood.



AQ-BF01

AQ-LU01

AQ-NA04AQ-NA03

AQ-NA02

AQ-NA01

AQ06

AQ05

AQ04

AQ03

AQ02

AQ01

S1

605000

605000

610000

610000

615000

615000

620000

620000

625000

625000

630000

630000

86

90

00

0

86

90

00

0

86

95

00

0

86

95

00

0

87

00

00

0

87

00

00

0

Figure 6-1

DATE

DISCLAIMERCDM Smith has endeavoured to ensure accuracy

and completeness of the data. CDM Smith assumes no legal liability or responsibility for any decisions or actions resulting from the information contained

within this map.

GCS GDA 1994 MGA Zone 54

0 1,000 2,000500

Metres

Aquatic ecology locations (including June2016) and wetland areas

©COPYRIGHT CDM SMITHThis drawing is confidential and shall only be used

for the purpose of this project.

APPROVED

DRAWN

15/12/16

CHECKED

Legend

SRBP Aquatic Survey Site

Bauxite Hills AquaticSampling Site

Surface Water Sampling Location

Bauxite Hills Project Infrastructure

Skardon River Bauxite Project Infrastructure

Directory of Important Wetlands

Wetland Class

Riverine

Esturine

Palustrine

Lacustrine

Marine

DATA SOURCEMEC Mining;

QLD Government Open Source Data;Australian Hydrological Geospatial Fabric

(Geofabric) PRODUCT SUITE V2.1.1 DRG Ref: BES160276-008 R1_floristic

DESIGNER CLIENT

1:70,000Scale @ A3 -

-DESIGNED

CHECKED -

MD

MD

-

R Details Date

16/07/151

Notes:

2

3

-

-

-

F:\1_PROJECTS\BES160276_Bauxite_Hill\GIS\DATA\MXD\FINAL\SEIS Low Impact Stand Alone Scenario\BES160276-008 R1_floristic.mxd

For Information Purposes

Updated Pit Extents

Update to aquatic sampling sites

-

-

-

31/03/16

21/07/16

4 Updated Haul Road & Infrastructure 18/10/16

Skardon RiverBauxite Project

Airport Strip

Bauxite Hills Project Haul Road Easement

BH6 West MLA boundary

(ML 20689)


AccommodationCamp

BH6 EastMLA boundary

(ML 20688)

BH1 MLA boundary(ML 20676)

Skardon River Bauxite Project Haul Road

Bauxite Hills ProjectHaul Road BH6 to BH1

Bauxite Hill ProjectFixed Tide Gauge

Bauxite Hill ProjectCyclone MooringsSkardon River

Bauxite ProjectMine Infrastructure Area,

Port and Barge

Loading Facility


6-8

Survey Methods

The methods used followed those used in the earlier surveys (refer Appendix B of the

Supplementary Report for more detail) comprising the following:

Rapid assessment of aquatic habitat to provide a description of habitat type and quality at each

site;

Qualitative surveys of aquatic and riparian flora;

In situ physico-chemical water quality data (temperature, pH, conductivity, dissolved oxygen

and turbidity) was collected;

Macroinvertebrate surveys were undertaken following AusRivAS protocols. A composite

macroinvertebrate sample was collected at each site using a standard 250 µm mesh dipnet.

Samples were “live picked” on site to strict protocols and the animals collected preserved in

70% alcohol;

Macrocrustaceans were surveyed during macroinvertebrate sampling and fish sampling

techniques, as well as visual inspections for macrocrustacean burrows and remains;

Fish were sampled using backpack electrofishing (1200 seconds electrofishing on time), box

trapping (10 traps per site set for two hours) and active dip netting. Electrofishing was not used

at sites AQ05 and AQ06 due to poor field of view for sighting estuarine crocodile thereby

inhibiting safe movement through the habitat. All fish caught were identified and measured; and

Aquatic turtle surveys were undertaken at sites with suitable habitat using baited cathedral

traps. Traps were baited with sardines and set overnight. Cathedral traps were deployed at sites

AQ01, AQ02, AQ03 and AQ04. At sites AQ05 and AQ06 the potential for the baited traps to attract

Estuarine Crocodiles was considered high and this method was not deployed.

6.2.3 Field Results

The key physical habitat features of each aquatic ecology site are summarised in detail in Appendix

B of the Supplementary Report. The riparian vegetation at all sites was dominated by a Melaleuca

species over storey with a predominant grass ground layer. The aquatic habitat (extent of

inundation) that was present at sites in Big Footprint Swamp (AQ01 and AQ04) and Lunette Swamp

(AQ02) during the early dry season represented a comparable proportion of the wet area present

during the early wet season surveys. Water levels were marginally higher in Big Footprint Swamp

and marginally lower in Lunette Swamp in the early dry surveys (2016) than in the early wet season

(2015). While water levels are likely to have fluctuated over further wet and dry seasons since the

previous surveys, both swamps are likely to have contained large amounts of water across, and

immediately following the wet season. This seasonal inundation would have facilitated

development of aquatic ecological systems over this period.

The substrates at both swamps were dominated by silt/clay with smaller amounts of sand. There

was moderate shading (more than 50%) at sites AQ01 and AQ02, but less shading at site AQ04 due

to the presence of fewer trees. The riparian habitat was dominated by Melaleuca spp. at both

swamps, with moderate amounts of bare ground and leaf litter at Big Footprint Swamp sites and a

thicker coverage of grass in the understorey of the site at Lunette Swamp. There were low amounts

of woody debris at all swamp sites surveyed.

Sites AQ03 and AQ05 were located in ephemeral streams where it was observed that, while overland

flow is a significant contributor to stream flow, there is also the potential they are at least partly fed


6-9

by rising groundwater during the wet season. These streams had well-defined channels and strong

flow at the time of the early dry surveys in June 2016. Evidence from past surveys suggest that both

these streams would dry completely towards the end of the dry season, but may have small remnant

pools of water for most of the year. Metro Mining personnel have confirmed that a regularly used

crossing near AQ03 – that is used for all access to BH1 mining area - is dry for a large portion of the

year.

Water Quality

In-situ water quality readings collected at each site during the wet season survey (2015) and early

dry season aquatic ecology survey (2016) were similar and characterised by acidic water with low

conductivity and low turbidity (Table 6-2). The only exception being a relatively high turbidity at

site AQ04 in Big Footprint Swamp, which at the time of the survey, there was no reason apparent to

AMEC Foster Wheeler aquatic ecologists as to what was causing the high turbidity level. For a more

detailed analysis of local surface water quality refer to Section 9.5.5 of the EIS.

When assessing the water quality results, it is considered likely:

The low turbidity is due to the relatively undisturbed nature of the surrounding landscape, the

lack of recent significant surface runoff preceding the monitoring events, as well as recent

inundation and settlement time for any sediments that had been suspended in the water;

The acidity is due to tannic and humic acids in the recently inundated vegetative matter; and

The low conductivity is related to increased inundation of fresh water entering the system

relative to evaporation rates i.e. an increased contribution of overland flows and spring fed

systems in previous months (i.e. the wet season) entering the system relative to evaporation

rates.

Table 6-2 In situ surface water sampling results (Feb 2015 and June 2016)

Parameter Site

AQ01 AQ02 AQ03 AQ04 AQ05 AQ06

Feb

2015

June

2016

Feb

2015

June

2016

Feb

2015

June

2016

June

2016

June

2016

June

2016

Water temp.

(°C)

28.78 24.54 28.85 26.70 29.04 26.25 27.16 28.17 26.97

pH 5.24 4.97 4.85 5.19 4.34 4.98 4.93 5.28 5.32

EC (µS/cm) 50 51 37 38 24 24 53 49 50

DO (%

saturation)

53.6 104 46.8 85 76.8 78.2 104 85.6 52.3

Turbidity (NTU) 4 1.61 5 4.46 5 4.11 74.7 1.02 0.82

Surface water quality sample collection and laboratory analyses have been conducted for the Project

since 2014. Additional surface water quality results undertaken for the adjacent SRBP since 2008

have also been utilised to provide as wide a database of water quality information as possible. Two

of the water quality sample sites (AQ01 and AQ03) are directly relevant to aquatic ecology sites

(Table 6-1; Figure 6-2).

To fully characterise freshwater quality from a range of sources/habitats in the area, data collected

for the SRBP at Lunette Swamp (S10), Namaleta Creek (S1) and at a groundwater seep located

adjacent to the un-named creek south of BH1 is also presented. The water quality sample locations

used in the Project EIS are presented in Figure 6-2. It should be noted that surface water sample

collection across the sites presented is uneven as water quality data collection for the SRBP is

limited (February to July 2015) and some parameters were not recorded on all occasions. A


6-10

summary of the collected water quality data is presented here; however, more detail is provided in

Section 9 of the Supplementary Report.

The freshwater electrical conductivity (EC) was relatively low at all sites except SW01 which may

be subject to marine infiltration given its proximity to the estuarine creek. EC at the other sites were

within the Australian Water Quality Guidelines (AWQG) default freshwater trigger values for

tropical wetlands of 90 to 900 μS/cm. All freshwater sites showed similar pH values which were

generally acidic with some values were outside the lower bounds of the AWQG default trigger values

of 6 to 8. Turbidity values varied slightly across the sites but were generally low and well within the

AWQG default trigger values (2 to 200).

Total nitrogen values were higher at AQ03 and S10 although all site values were within the AWQG

trigger values of 0.35 to 1.2 mg/L. Similarly, total phosphorus values were higher at AQ03 and S10

and were above the trigger values of 0.1 to 0.5 mg/L. Given the generally undeveloped nature of the

region, the exceedance of phosphorous levels across different sites seems to indicate a slightly

elevated natural phosphorous level in the region, more so than from anthropogenic sources.

Mean dissolved concentrations in the freshwater environment for most of the metals included in

Table 6-3 exceeded the 99% AWQG trigger values at some stage for freshwater rivers and wetlands

(refer Table 9-1 of the EIS) for the Project specific sites. Exceedances varied for each parameter and

ranged from approximately double the AWQG trigger value (copper, zinc and cadmium) through to

approximately an order of magnitude of difference for chromium. It should be noted that for many

of these metals, the magnitude of the exceedance is overestimated as the true value of the

concentrations was constrained by the laboratory Limit of Reporting (LOR).

Table 6-3 Surface water sampling laboratory data (February 2015 to July 2016)

Parameter Site

AQ01/

SW03

AQ03/

SW01

SW04 S10 S1

me

an

me

dia

n

me

an

me

dia

n

me

an

me

dia

n

me

an

me

dia

n

me

an

me

dia

n

No. of sample events 5 4 4 4 4

Total Phosphorus as P

(mg/L) 0.01 <0.01 0.055 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.085 0.02 0.02 0.02

Total Nitrogen (mg/L) <0.1 <0.1 0.875 0.45 0.1 0.1 0.7675 0.275 0.072 0.076

Total dissolved solids

(mg/L) 14.3 14 39.3 35 534.6 517 44.5 44.5 17.17 21

Sulfate (mg/L) 1.4 <1 1.5 1.5 29.5 34.5 - - - -

Dissolved metals

Aluminium (mg/L) 0.024 0.02 0.155 0.175 0.03 0.035 133.5 119 49 37

Arsenic (mg/L) 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.003 - 0.002 0.002

Cadmium (mg/L) 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 - 0.0001 -

Chromium (mg/L) 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 - 0.001 -

Copper (mg/L) 0.0012 0.001 0.0035 0.002 0.0012 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.001

Nickel (mg/L) 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.0087 0.0075 1 - 0.001 0.001

Lead (mg/L) 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 - 0.001 -

Zinc (mg/L) 0.006 0.005 0.006 0.006 0.0087 0.0075 0.005 0.005 0.005 -

Mercury (mg/L) 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001

It is noted that aluminium levels are elevated at S10 (mean 133.5 µg/L) and S1 (mean 49 µg/L) in

comparison to the other monitoring locations and exceed the default ANZECC / ARMCANZ trigger

value of 27 µg/L for 99% species protection. Sites S1 and S10 are located on the SRBP lease areas

and the elevated levels of aluminium in this area may be associated with the historic kaolin mining

operations.

S1

S9

S6

W5

W4

W3

W2

W1

S10

AQ01

AQ02

AQ03

SW03

SW02

SP01

SW01

SKARDON RIVER

NA

MALETA CREE K

NAMALETA CREEK

605000

605000

610000

610000

615000

615000

620000

620000

625000

625000

630000

630000

86

90

00

0

86

90

00

0

86

95

00

0

86

95

00

0

87

00

00

0

87

00

00

0

Figure 6-2

DATE



within this map.


0 1,000 2,000500

Metres

Historical surface water sampling locations(including June 2016)



APPROVED

DRAWN

15/12/16

CHECKED

Legend

DNRM Dulhunty River Gauge Station

Surface Water Sampling Location

Major watercourse

Minor watercourse



DATA SOURCEMEC Mining;


(Geofabric) PRODUCT SUITE V2.1.1 DRG Ref: BES160276-009 R1_EIS surface water sampling

DESIGNER CLIENT

1:72,657Scale @ A3 -

-DESIGNED

CHECKED -

MD

MD

-

R Details Date

21/10/15

1

Notes:

2

-

-

-

-

F:\1_PROJECTS\BES160276_Bauxite_Hill\GIS\DATA\MXD\FINAL\SEIS Low Impact Stand Alone Scenario\BES160276-009 R1_EIS surface water sampling.mxd

For Information Purposes

Updated Pit Extents

-

-

-

-

D ULHUNTY RIVER

SKARDON R IVER

NAMALETA CREEK

0 10 205

Kilometres

Project Area and Gauge Station Location

15/07/15

18/10/163 Updated Haul Roads & Infrastructure


Airport Strip



(ML 20689)


AccommodationCamp


(ML 20688)




Bauxite Hills ProjectFixed Tide Gauge

Bauxite Hills ProjectCyclone Moorings


Mine Infrastructure Area,Port and Barge

Loading Facility


6-12

Aquatic Flora

Aquatic flora was assessed during the early dry season survey (2016). Melaleuca forest was the

dominant riparian overstorey vegetation recorded at all sites. The diversity of true aquatic

macrophyte species was considered relatively low across the Project area in the early dry season

surveys with nine species identified (Table 6-4). However, this is a higher diversity than the

previous surveys when only two aquatic/semi aquatic plants were recorded: Native Couch

(Paspalum sp.); and Water Chestnut (Eleocharis dulcis). This gives an indication of the highly

ephemeral and dynamic nature of the wetlands in the area.

Water Chestnut is an emergent species in the sedge family and was recorded at sites AQ01 and AQ02

in the deepest and clearest areas of the swamps. The species is widespread along the eastern and

northern coastal areas of Australia. A second unidentified species of Eleocharis was recorded at site

AQ03.

The submerged Eriocaulon (Eriocaulon setaceum) was recorded at three sites (Table 6-4) in the

early dry season surveys, being the most abundant submerged macrophyte at the flowing sites

(AQ03 and AQ05). A submerged Nitella sp. was recorded at sites AQ01, AQ02 and AQ06 clearly

showing a preference for still waterbodies. Nitella is a genus of green algae in the family Characeae

commonly recorded in Australia and overseas in slightly acidic waterways.

Three waterlily species were recorded in the Project area in June 2016 (Table 6-4), including one

species from the Nymphaea genus and two from the Nymphoides genus. Frogsmouth (Philydrum

lanuginosum) was recorded in low abundance at three sites across and adjacent to the Project area.

Frogsmouth is an emergent macrophyte typically associated with acidic coastal swamps across

Australia.

In addition, several specimens of the Small Water Ribbons (Triglochin dubia) were observed as

recently emerged from the substrate at site AQ03 in the early wet season survey (2015) although it

was not observed in the early dry survey.

Table 6-4 Aquatic flora species from Project area (June 2016)

Common name Scientific name Site


Water Chestnut Eleocharis dulcis X X

Eleocharis Eleocharis sp. X

Eriocaulon Eriocaulon setaceum X X X

Pipewort species Eriocaulon sp. X X X X

Nitella Nitella sp. X X X

Native Waterlily Nymphaea violacea X x

Lily species Nymphoides c.f. aurantiaca X

Lily species Nymphoides c.f. exiliflora X

Frogsmouth Philydrum lanuginosum X X X

Aquatic Macroinvertebrates

The recent early dry season survey results have been compared with the presence of taxa groups

from the same sites during the wet season survey (2015). During the late dry season survey (2014)

macroinvertebrate sampling was restricted due to limited presence of standing water and only

visual observations were made. Aquatic ecology surveys carried out for the SRBP in March 2015

also sampled Lunette Swamp and Big Footprint Swamp (RPS, 2015) also allowing for comparison

between seasons.


6-13

In the 2015 wet season survey 10 taxa were recorded from Big Footprint Swamp and 16 taxa were

recorded from Lunette Swamp. In comparison, aquatic ecology samples collected for the SRBP (RPS,

2015) recorded 12 taxa from Big Footprint Swamp and seven taxa from Lunette Swamp (across

three samples from each site).

The early dry season survey highlights the increase in aquatic macroinvertebrate diversity with

extended water retention time, with 19 and 14 taxa recorded at sites AQ01 and AQ04 in Big

Footprint Swamp respectively (with 11 taxa found at both sites), and 21 taxa recorded at site AQ02

in Lunette Swamp (refer Table 3-4 in Appendix B of the Supplementary Report). Macroinvertebrate

diversity at site AQ03 was comparatively low during the early wet season surveys with only six taxa

identified. In comparison, the early dry surveys recorded a total of 15 macroinvertebrate taxa which

represents the upper extent of biodiversity which should be expected once this ecosystem has

become established.

Samples from sites AQ05 and AQ06 represent the first samples collected form those waterbodies,

but were largely comparable with other sites sampled in June 2016. Site AQ05, located on an un-

named stream had the lowest macroinvertebrate diversity with 13 taxa recorded. However, AQ05

was the only site that the Mayfly family Leptophlebiidae was recorded. This is a family which is

considered sensitive to environmental impacts (Chessman, 2003), although this information is

based on taxa present in temperate streams and wetlands in south-east Australia rather than those

found in tropical areas.

The Tropical Yabby (Cherax rhynchotus) was recorded at five of the six sites surveyed in June 2016.

The only site Tropical Yabby were not recorded was at site AQ05.

Freshwater crabs of the genus Austrothelphusa were recorded in both Big Footprint Swamp (AQ01)

and Lunette Swamp (AQ02) in the early dry season surveys. The crabs were previously recorded in

Big Footprint Swamp and the un-named stream (AQ03) in the early wet season surveys in 2015.

Collectively these observations suggest that the crabs may be present across several swamps in

proximity to the Project area.

Freshwater crabs contain many undescribed species (Peter Davie, pers. comm), several of which are

recorded only from Cape York Peninsula. Adults recorded in Project surveys were comparable with

a species collected from south of Weipa in similar habitat. The species is currently being described

by the Queensland Museum and was previously identified during surveys for the Amrun Project

(formerly named the South of Embley Project) (Rio Tinto Alcan, 2011) from the Winda Creek

catchment. This species appears to be closely associated with bauxite deposits, suggesting that it

may be excluded from other types of aquatic habitats due to specific water chemistry requirements

(Ross Smith pers. comm). A voucher specimen from the wet season survey was provided to the

Queensland Museum, with its identification yet to be confirmed. Another specimen was captured

during aquatic surveys for the SRBP. The crab was sent to the Queensland Museum and identified

as an unknown species of juvenile Austrothelphusa.

Aquatic Vertebrates

There was little suitable habitat for aquatic vertebrates at AQ01 and AQ02, and no standing water

at site AQ03 during the 2014 dry season surveys. The early wet season surveys (2015) were

conducted following several significant rainfall events that had resulted in creek flows and there

was substantially more water at all sites compared to the late dry season survey. No vertebrate

species were recorded at the wetland site (AQ01 or AQ02) in the wet season surveys. Box traps

captured eight specimens of Empire Gudgeon (Hypseleotris compressa) and Checkered Rainbowfish

(Melanotaenia splendida ssp. inornata) were identified in one pool at AQ03.


6-14

Similarly, no fish species were captured at the two wetland sites during surveys for the SRBP aquatic

surveys. Seven common fish species were captured at two sites on Namaleta creek (Table 6-5). The

catchment of Namaleta Creek lies outside the Project area.

A total of 469 individuals from nine species were recorded from the six sites sampled in the early

dry season surveys (2016) (Table 6-5). Additional observations from freshwater habitats within

and immediately adjacent to the Project area also detected Spangled Perch (Leiopotherapon

unicolor) in a small un-named tributary that flowed parallel to the stream in which site AQ05 was

located. In this same small tributary, a further three specimens of the Redstripe Toadfish (Tetradon

erythrotaenia) were observed and confirmed with identification confirmed through capture of a

single individual. Large numbers of Sailfin Glassfish (Ambassis agrammus) and Chequered

Rainbowfish (Melanotaenia splendida inornata) were found stranded and recently deceased in

senescing puddles along the swamp system that drains parallel, and likely spills over in high flow

into, Lunette Swamp.

The 2016 survey results are the most comprehensive to date across and adjacent to the Project area,

including those undertaken for the SRBP. Previous sampling for the Project was restricted by water

availability in the late dry surveys, as well as limited connectivity to adjacent habitat (reducing

overland colonisation capability). In the early wet season surveys (2015) no fish were recorded

from sites AQ01 (Big Footprint Swamp) or AQ02 (Lunette Swamp). Similarly, no fish were recorded

in surveys in the preceding month (March 2015) undertaken for the SRBP (RPS, 2015).

The highest diversity of fish was recorded in site AQ05 with seven different species. Two of these

species (Mangrove Jack (Lutjanus argentimaculatus) and Redstripe Toadfish) are more typically

associated with estuarine habitats and their presence represents facultative use rather than a

dependence on freshwater habitats.

Table 6-5 Aquatic fauna species from the Project area and surrounds (June 2016) including SRBP survey

Common name Scientific name Site SRBP


Sailfin Glassfish Ambassis agrammus 14 116 X

Mouth Almighty Glossamia aprion 2 1

Empire Gudgeon Hypseleotris compressa 2

Mangrove Jack Lutjanus

argentimaculatus

2

Chequered

Rainbowfish

Melanotaenia splendida

inornata

223 50 27 X

Blue Catfish Neoarius graeffei 1

Bony Bream Nematalosa erebi X

Swamp Eel Ophisternon gutturale 15 5 1

Redstripe Toadfish Tetraodon erythrotaenia 3

Seven-spot Archerfish Toxotes chatareus 1 6 X

Total species 0 2 4 0 7 3 4

A single individual turtle was recorded in the early dry season surveys in 2016. A Northern Snake-

necked Turtle (Chelodina oblonga) was captured in turtle nets at site AQ04 in Big Footprint Swamp.

It has a wide distribution that extends across tropical northern Australia and southern Papua New

Guinea in seasonal wetlands on the coastal floodplains (Kennett et al., 2014). This species is usually

found at night in the shallows of its preferred habitat. It is considered largely a piscivore that

ambushes prey and swallows them whole.


6-15

An incidental capture of a Macleay’s Freshwater Snake (Pseudoferania polylepis) was made during

electrofishing operations at site AQ01 in Big Footprint Swamp. Macleay’s freshwater snake is found

across far northern Queensland and the Northern Territory in Australia and into southern Papua

New Guinea. It is found in creeks, swamps and lagoons, especially those lined with thick vegetation

and feeds mostly on fish and frogs.

6.3 Aquatic Ecology – Haul Road Crossings

6.3.1 Haul Road Crossings – Habitat Descriptions

The use of the existing SRBP main haul road will avoid direct impacts on wetland and mangrove

communities. This is a significant reduction in impacts to sensitive wetland habitats from that

initially proposed in the EIS. The existing main SRBP haul road linking into the SRBP MIA from the

Bauxite Hills Project mine pits does not cross any drainage lines mapped under state wetland

mapping or freshwater/estuarine wetland ecosystems (see Figure 6-3).

The relocation of the east-west BH1 haul road significantly reduces the amount of clearing and

potential impacts on riparian mangroves, and brackish/estuarine wetlands. The east-west BH1 haul

road still crosses two un-named creek lines draining into the Skardon River estuary system (Inset 2

and Inset 3, Figure 6-3), but at locations upstream of the original crossing points and thereby

avoiding estuarine habitat. While neither of these crossing points have been surveyed at this point,

current DNRM vegetation mapping indicates the creek crossing near BH6 east (Inset 2) intersects

RE3.3.49b/3.3.9 (refer Table 6-6). The creek crossing adjacent to the south-east edge of BH1 (Inset

3) crosses through two separate polygons of mixed vegetation: RE3.3.49/3.3.22/3.3.64 and

3.7.3/3.3.49 (refer Table 6-6).

Both areas are located within proximity to aquatic ecology survey points (AQ03 and AQ05 – refer

Figure 6-1). At both crossing points the creeks are expected to be ephemeral with riparian

vegetation composed largely of Melaleuca species. Outside of these crossing points the east-west

BH1 haul road intersects RE3.5.2 which is the dominant vegetation community across the local

landscape.

Table 6-6 Current certified mapped REs of the new haul road areas

RE VM Act status EP Act

status

Description

3.3.9 Least Concern No Concern Lophostemon suaveolens open forest. Occurs on streamlines,

swamps and alluvial terraces.

3.3.22a Least Concern No Concern Corymbia clarksoniana or C. novoguineensis woodland on alluvial

plains.

3.3.49b Least Concern No Concern Melaleuca viridiflora low open woodland on low plains.

3.3.64 Least Concern No Concern Baloskion tetraphyllum subsp. meiostachyum open sedgeland in

drainage swamps in dunefields.

3.5.2 Least Concern No Concern Eucalyptus tetrodonta, Corymbia nesophila tall woodland on

deeply weathered plateaus and remnants.

3.7.3 Least Concern No Concern Eucalyptus cullenii ± E. tetrodonta woodland on erosional

escarpments and plains.

3.5.2

3.5.2

3.5.2

3.1.1

3.5.2

3.1.1

3.3.14

Water

3.3.14

3.3.42

3.5.2

3.3.14

3.1.1

3.3.14

3.3.14

3.1.13.1.1

3.3.14

3.1.6

3.1.3

Water

3.1.3

3.1.3

3.3.32

3.3.42

3.3.42

3.1.63.3.12

3.3.22

3.1.1

3.5.2

3.3.42

3.1.1

3.5.2

3.1.1

3.3.42

3.1.1

3.5.2

3.3.22

3.3.22

3.3.22

3.3.22

3.3.14

3.3.14

3.1.6

3.5.2

3.3.51

3.1.1

3.1.6

3.3.22

3.1.6

3.3.14 3.3.513.3.42

3.1.6

3.3.42

3.3.32

3.3.32

3.1.3

3.1.1

3.5.2

3.1.13.1.6

3.3.65

3.1.2

Water

3.3.42

3.1.23.1.6

3.3.63

3.3.22

3.3.12x

3.1.6

3.3.42

3.3.14

3.1.6

3.3.423.3.63

3.3.22

3.1.3

3.3.12

Water

3.1.6

3.3.63

3.1.1

3.1.3

3.3.63

3.1.6

3.1.13.1.1

3.3.51

3.1.6

3.1.63.3.12

3.1.6

3.3.12x

3.3.65

3.1.6

3.1.3

3.3.63

3.3.51

3.1.6

3.3.63

3.3.22

3.3.12x

3.5.2

3.3.51

3.1.6

3.1.3

3.1.6

3.3.63

3.1.6

3.3.63

3.1.1

3.3.42

3.5.2

3.1.1a/3.1.3

3.2.5a/3.2.3/3.3.49b/3.2.10c

Water

3.5.10/3.7.3

3.2.10c

3.2.5a/3.3.42b/3.2.3

3.3.64/3.3.14a/3.3.12

3.2.7a

3.7.3/3.3.49b

3.5.10

3.1.6/3.1.3

3.3.49b/3.3.9

3.1.6

3.3.49b

3.3.60a/3.1.6/3.5.22c

3.1.1a/3.1.6/3.1.3

non-rem

3.5.7x2a/3.3.49b

3.3.49b/3.3.22a/3.3.64

3.3.14a/3.3.22a

3.3.50

3.3.5a/3.3.12/3.3.49b

3.3.60a/3.1.6

3.3.5a

3.2.25/3.2.3/3.2.6a

3.12.33a

3.2.25/3.2.5a/3.2.6a

3.3.50/3.3.14a

3.2.2a

3.3.53a

3.3.65

3.3.49b/3.2.5a

SKARDON RIVER

SK

AR DON RIVER

607500

607500

610000

610000

612500

612500

615000

615000

617500

617500

620000

620000

622500

622500

625000

625000

86

90

00

0

86

90

00

0

86

92

50

0

86

92

50

0

86

95

00

0

86

95

00

0

86

97

50

0

86

97

50

0

87

00

00

0

87

00

00

0

Figure 6-3

DATE



within this map.


0 500 1,000250

Metres

Haul roads - watercourse and wetlandcrossing areas



APPROVED

DRAWN

15/12/16

CHECKED

Legend

Watercourse



Ground-truthed RE

Of Concern - Melaleuca Coastal Swamp

Least Concern - Marine

Least Concern - Eucalyptus Woodland

Least Concern - Corymbia Woodland

Least Concern - Melaleuca Woodland

Least Concern - Ephemeral Lake and Lagoons

Water

Regional Ecosystems

Of Concern

Of Least Concern

DATA SOURCEAmec Foster Wheeler, 2016; MEC Mining 2016;


(Geofabric) PRODUCT SUITE V2.1.1 DRG Ref: BES160276-010 R1_watercoursewetland crossing

DESIGNER CLIENT

1:50,000Scale @ A3 -

MIDESIGNED

CHECKED MI

MD

MD

-

R Details Date

21/07/161

Notes:

-

-

-

-

F:\1_PROJECTS\BES160276_Bauxite_Hill\GIS\DATA\MXD\FINAL\SEIS Low Impact Stand Alone Scenario\BES160276-010 R1_watercoursewetland crossing.mxd

For Approval

-

-

-

-

3.5.2

non-rem

Water

3.1.1a/3.1.3

3.1.1a/3.1.3

3.5.2

3.3.42

3.3.12x

3.5.2

3.3.49b/3.3.9

3.5.2

3.5.2

3.5.2

3.7.3/3.3.49b

3.3.49b/3.3.22a/3.3.64

Lunette Swamp

Big FootprintSwamp

INSET 1

INSET 2

INSET 3

11/10/162 Updated Haul Roads and Port Area

3.3.49b/3.3.9

3.5.2

3.5.2

INSET 4



(ML 20689)


AccommodationCamp


(ML 20688)




Bauxite Hills ProjectCyclone Moorings


Mine Infrastructure Area,Port and Barge

Loading Facility


6-17

6.3.2 Haul Road Crossings - Design

Metro Mining proposes to use the existing SRBP haul road to transport bauxite from the Bauxite

Hills mine pits (BH6 east and BH6 west) to the SRBP MIA. As such the originally proposed haul road

between BH6 east and the Bauxite Hills MIA will not proceed.

Metro Mining has relocated the east-west BH1 haul road footprint as indicated on Figure 6-3. The

relocation of the haul roads has removed the direct impacts on mangrove and estuarine/brackish

wetland areas that were previously identified in the EIS and during the early dry season survey in

June 2016 (refer to Appendix C). Metro Mining will continue to refine the haul road footprint within

the identified corridor, to further minimise the environmental impacts within these areas.

Where the new haul road between BH6 east and BH1 crosses watercourse locations it may

potentially reduce flood passage through creating a physical barrier to flow, increasing flow

velocities locally around the crossing structure and hence, increasing sediment transport and an

increase of flood waters upstream of the crossing location. Increased flood velocities, may lead to

localised increases in scour and erosion at the crossing locations and may increase sediment

transport.

The BH1 haul road design will incorporate at least three floodways (refer Inset 2, 3 and 4 in Figure

6-3) at watercourse locations considered at risk of freshwater flow inundation. Culverts, where

required on minor flow lines, will be built to the two year ARI flood event, which is considered

appropriate for dry season operations. The low flow culvert and floodway arrangement reduces the

amount of fill within the watercourse compared to raising the road above a greater magnitude flood

level. This reduction in filling within the waterway minimises the impact on flooding as far as is

reasonably practicable and doesn’t adversely impact operations which are conducted during the dry

season.

The construction of the crossings will allow the natural movement of floodwaters across creek

crossing areas. This will maintain natural water level fluctuations and maintain riparian vegetation

upstream of the two haul road crossings as well as allowing the potential for fish passage across the

crossings.

The current location of the haul roads will not be subject to tidal water movement. With the use of

the existing SRBP haul road, the risk of inundation has been eliminated as the existing road now has

100 year ARI flood immunity against Skardon River rising floodwaters. The SRBP access is not

inundated during the PMF event and as such, access to the MIA to undertake release event based

monitoring is not likely to be impeded during any magnitude flood. The east-west BH1 haul road is

only inundated at waterway crossing locations i.e. has immunity from even the PMF event, except

at waterway crossings.

Mitigation measures incorporated into the crossing design includes:

Runoff from the network of haul roads will be captured in table drains and turned out to

vegetated areas via spoon drains at regular intervals. Due to the generally flat topography it is

not anticipated that the spoon and table drains will carry significant sediment load;

In areas of steeper grade, sediment transport will be managed by turning out the table drains

more regularly before excessive velocities develop which can result in increased scour and

sediment mobilisations into waterways; and

Sediment removal devices such as siltation fences will be incorporated in the watercourse

crossing design, where appropriate, to reduce sediment loads entering the system.


6-18

The final road layout will direct the design of scour protection measures along drainage areas and

creek lines. A commitment has been made to design scour protection in accordance with Austroads

– Guide to Road Design Part 5B – Open Channels, Culverts and Floodways. These measures are self-

functioning and hence are appropriate for wet season flows when operations are in caretaker mode.

These measures typically include, but are not limited to:

Riprap scour protection aprons and stilling basins at culvert outlets where high velocities may

develop;

Check dams, geofabric and other liners where high velocities develop in roadside drains;

The use of concrete or cement stabilised fill for floodway crossings to reduce scour potential

and subsequent migration of sediments;

Maintenance of vegetation buffers at spoon drain outlets to intercept sediments prior to

entering the receiving waters; and

Rock dissipation aprons to return concentrated flow in spoon drains to sheet flow where drains

are turned out to vegetated areas.

Haul Road Impacts

No additional impacts from construction and operation of the haul road between BH6 east and BH1

are expected beyond those already described here. Mitigation measures to ameliorate the described

potential impacts have been described in Section 5.9 of the EIS. These measures, along with the

significantly reduced potential impacts resulting from the relocation of the haul roads are

considered sufficient to manage impacts associated with the haul roads. No further mitigation

measures have been proposed.

6.4 Stygofauna

FRC Environmental has carried out a desktop and field assessment for the SRBP (Appendix 7 – SRBP

EIS) that included surveying five monitoring bores on Metro Mining’s MLs. Most the monitoring

bores sampled are located within aquifers associated with the overlying dominant vegetation

community - RE3.5.2.

The desktop study found the area is likely to have a low to moderate potential for a diverse

stygofauna community due to:

The presence of a dominant unsuitable substrate across the Project area – clay dominated soils;

and

A relatively low pH (acidic) groundwater.

From the field monitoring, a total of six individuals of stygofauna were found within two higher taxa

(Oligochaetae and Acarina) in the ten bores surveyed by FRC Environmental for SRBP EIS.

Stygofauna were recorded as individuals from six of the ten bores. Note that of the ten bores used

for the Skardon River stygofauna survey, five were located within Metro Mining's MLs.

The SRBP EIS stated that all stygofauna species recorded during the survey would likely have broad

environmental tolerances and would be widely distributed in the southern Skardon River and

Namaleta Creek catchment areas i.e. well outside of the proposed mining areas. Hence it was

concluded that the recorded stygofauna are unlikely to be restricted to the SRBP area and the


6-19

cumulative impact areas (including the Bauxite Hills Project) and consequently the likelihood of

major impacts to stygofauna would be low, as accepted by EHP in the SRBP EIS Assessment Report.

Metro Mining suggests that given half of the monitoring for the FRC stygofauna study for the SRBP

was undertaken within the Bauxite Hills Project area and the bores sampled aquifers associated

with RE3.5.2 which remains extensive in the wider region, stygofauna monitoring has already been

undertaken that is directly relevant for the Project and further stygofauna monitoring is not

required. The results of the SRBP EIS show there is low diversity of taxa collected across both of the

Project areas and this is likely to be similar across the wider region.

6.5 Impacts to Wetlands

Metro Mining has utilised EHP’s preferred hierarchy to managing potential wetland impacts by:

Utilising the approved SRBP port area, thereby eliminating all clearing and construction works

associated with the standalone MIA, BLF and RoRo;

Utilising the approved SRBP port area also eliminates the requirement for the original north-

south haul road, thereby avoiding impacts to HES wetland areas that would have occurred with

the construction of this road;

Avoiding impacts to HES wetlands by proposing buffer areas around infrastructure to the extent

possible;

Minimising potential wetland impacts by implementing ESC measures and monitoring Big

Footprint Swamp; and

Offsetting disturbed areas where buffer areas are not able to be applied (refer to Section 6.12 of

the Supplementary Report.

6.5.1 Surface Water Flow Impacts on Estuarine Wetland Hydrology

The Project includes mining in proximity to the estuarine section of the Skardon River and, to a very

small extent, upstream of the Namaleta Creek coastal and estuarine wetlands. An overall impact on

the water budget due to mining activities has been estimated based on the total local catchment area

that drains to the mine affected areas and partitioning of annual rainfall for the various land uses at

different stages of the mine life (refer Appendix E2 of the EIS). The results of this assessment for the

mine pits are shown to be minor due to the small scale of the mine affected areas (i.e. hardstand,

open pit and rehabilitation) relative to the local catchments in which they reside. Open pit mining,

which will have the greatest impact on the hydrological regime, only contributes 4% of the total

local Skardon River catchment.

It is important to note that although the overall mine impact on the water budget is negligible at the

catchment scale; localised impacts during mining operations may be more pronounced. However, it

is also likely that the partitioning of rainfall into runoff and baseflow following mining will be

recombined as total runoff re-entering the Skardon River, thus reducing the total impact of varying

recharge rates as a result of mining operations on the estuarine environment and supported

ecosystems. In simplified terms, the reduction of surface water runoff to the Skardon River is likely

to be made up (in whole or part) by an increase in groundwater baseflow from the mining pits.


6-20

6.5.2 Surface Water Flow Impacts on Palustrine Wetland Hydrology

The following impact assessment has been summarised from catchment hydrology assessment

provided in Section 10.5.1. of the EIS, that assessed the catchment water balance and impacts to the

water balance through mine development. More specifically, the following section relates to the

water budget impact on Big Footprint Swamp as a result of mine development. It is important to

note that changes to baseflow recharge predicted by the surface water budget assessment is

independent to the assessment method of groundwater modelling baseflow assessment; however,

a similar change to baseflow recharge is predicted between the two methods with the surface water

modelling predicting 9% and the groundwater modelling predicting a maximum of 12%

Big Footprint Swamp is a palustrine wetland located west of the BH6 west proposed mine pits and

is considered the most significant wetland potentially impacted by the Project. The construction of

mine pits within the Big Footprint Swamp catchment (26% of total catchment), combined with local

catchment diversions (15% of total catchment) around mine pits will reduce surface runoff entering

the swamp. Furthermore, the proportion of catchment development for Big Footprint Swamp (42%

of total catchment) is greater than that of the Skardon River (9% of total catchment) and Namaleta

Creek (2% of total catchment), and hence the impact is more pronounced.

The results of the assessment show no impact on Big Footprint Swamp within the first eight years

of mining operations as there is no planned mining in the Big Footprint Swamp catchment. The

period of mining within the Big Footprint Swamp catchment is restricted to three years (2025, 2026

and 2027), after which time the pits will be rehabilitated and the catchment diversions removed to

restore the existing flow paths as far as is practicable. It is important to note that during year 2025,

the diverted catchment can still discharge to Big Footprint Swamp. As mining progresses through

year 2026 and 2027; however, the feasibility of discharging the diversions to Big Footprint Swamp

is restricted by topographical and mine lease boundary constraints.

The groundwater model predicted an increase in baseflow to Big Footprint Swamp, which has the

potential to cause a small (0.15 m) increase in the peak pool level. The groundwater model does not

account; however, for the surface water flow component of Big Footprint Swamp’s water balance.

Independent to the groundwater modelling, the surface water modelling predicted a similar

increase in baseflow (around 9%) but also predicted a decrease in surface runoff (33% predicted

worst case scenario) due to diversion around mine pits.

The 33% reduction in surface runoff and 9% increase in baseflow predicted by the surface water

Australian Water Balance Model (AWBM) are derived from the assessment method described in

Section 10.5.1 of the EIS and the results tabulated in, Table 10-11 of the EIS and reproduced below

for reference (Table 6-7). The surface water runoff reduces from 20.3% of total rainfall to 13.4% of

total rainfall. This equates to a 6.9% reduction in total rainfall reporting to Big Footprint Swamp.

The baseflow increases from 26.4% of total rainfall to 28.9% of total rainfall. This represents a 2.5%

increase in total rainfall reporting to Big Footprint Swamp via baseflow. There is therefore a

predicted 4.4% net reduction (6.9% less 2.5%) in volume reporting to Big Footprint Swamp in years

10 to 12 of mining.

Table 6-7 Potential impact on water budget – Big Footprint Swamp

Water Budget Component Pre-Mining 5-year mine plan 10-year mine

plan Post Mine

Closure

Evapotranspiration (%) 53.3 53.3 54.6 53.7

Surface Runoff (%) 20.3 20.3 13.4 18.9

Baseflow (%) 26.4 26.4 28.9 27.4

Diverted Catchment (%) - - 3.1 0.0

Total (%) 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


6-21

Although surface water modelling does not predict changes to the pool level, the modelling results

indicate the potential for reduced runoff to offset the small possible increase in the pool level caused

by increased baseflow. The net effect on the pool level is likely to be small to negligible, with seasonal

fluctuations that far exceed the potential changes caused by mining and diversion. As surface flow

paths and recharge are restored post-mining, the water balance of Big Footprint Swamp will tend

towards the pre-mining conditions.

The surface water AWBM results are reported in the EIS and management strategies provided to

progressively rehabilitate mine pits and restore existing flow paths to Big Footprint Swamp. With

these management measures in place it is likely that recharge will be increased in Big Footprint

Swamp and surface water decreased and the overall volume of water reporting to Big Footprint

Swamp maintained roughly equal to existing conditions – albeit through different pathways i.e.

more (4%) recharge and less (7%) runoff.

Further information is included in the EIS at Section 10.5.1 which describes the AWBM and Section

10.5.1.3 which specifically assesses the mine impact to Big Footprint Swamp.

6.5.3 Groundwater Impacts

Groundwater resources are present within the Project area and are assessed in Chapter 10 – Water

Resources and Appendix E1 of the EIS. An assessment of the groundwater resources in the Project

area has been completed and potential impacts to groundwater discussed. One potential area of

impact is due to clearing of vegetation and lowering of the ground surface during mining that has

the potential to temporarily increase recharge rates.

Numerical groundwater modelling predicts that groundwater discharge rates to Big Footprint

Swamp and Skardon River (including the tributaries and estuary) may increase during mining. The

quality of recharge water is expected to remain unaffected and relatively small additional volumes

of groundwater discharged to the Skardon River are not expected to adversely affect aquatic or

riparian ecosystem function.

Big Footprint Swamp – Palustrine Wetland

Numerical groundwater modelling for the Project predicts that groundwater discharge rates to Big

Footprint Swamp will have a minor net increase during and post mining activities. Using baseline

information gathered for Big Footprint Swamp, the groundwater modelling predicts that with, and

without the Project, pool level fluctuations between wet and dry seasons would be very similar.

With mining, a maximum increase in pool level of 0.35 metres (m) above the pre-disturbance

baseline may occur, although the peak pool level, at the height of the wet season, is predicted to be

only 0.15 m greater (a very small increase relative to observed pool level fluctuations of 3 m).

Currently Big Footprint Swamp has an area absent of any tree species encompassing the area of

standing water during the dry season. If standing water during the dry season significantly increases

in area, and does not recede over several years, it is possible for Melaleuca trees to be impacted by

anaerobic soil conditions. The modelling results indicate this to be highly unlikely due to the

negligible effect on the extent of the inundation zone (due to the 0.15 m increase in peak pool level)

and connectivity of the swamp with groundwater. It is expected that the size of the inundation zone

and standing pool of water present in the dry season will vary far more significantly with different

year-on-year climatic conditions (with the effects of mining potentially not discernible). As with

most ecosystems associated with variable and perennial inundation, aquatic and terrestrial ecology

values are likely to be tolerant of significant changes in abiotic conditions and the predicted low

level changes during mining are highly unlikely to alter the overall aquatic flora diversity. As


6-22

recharge and groundwater discharge are expected to reduce following rehabilitation, any area of

the swamp affected temporarily will likely be recolonised by Melaleuca trees post-mining.

The combined impact, from both the modelled surface water and groundwater impacts, to Big

Footprint Swamp are discussed in Section 6.5.4.

Skardon River - Estuarine

The Skardon River receives baseflow and ecosystems (particularly the aquatic ecosystems) depend

on this discharge. Additional volumes of groundwater introduced temporarily are predicted to be

small (an increase of up to 5%), affecting only the peak discharge, and any changes are likely to be

well within natural ranges of ecosystem resilience and resistance. The quality of recharge water is

also expected to be unaffected as the mined pits are backfilled with in-situ material. Therefore,

potential small increases in groundwater discharge rates to the Skardon River are not considered

by Metro Mining to adversely affect aquatic or riparian ecosystem function.

6.5.4 Cumulative Impacts

Surface Water

Cumulative impact assessments on wetlands were conducted as part of Gulf Alumina’s SRBP and

documented in Appendix 4 of the SRBP EIS. The results of this assessment are summarised in the

Project EIS (refer Surface Water Technical Report Appendix E2 of the EIS). Additional cumulative

impact assessments were undertaken by Metro Mining on Big Footprint and Lunette Swamps, the

southern tributary of the Skardon River and other relevant drainages, with results provided in the

Surface Water Technical Report, Appendix E2 of the Project EIS. The relocation of the port

infrastructure (MIA, BLF and RoRo) and haul roads will not change any of the predicted cumulative

impacts to as the north-south haul road and MIA area lie outside of the catchment of the swamps.

The Surface Water Technical Report states that the water supply impact on Big Footprint Swamp

will largely be as a result of mining proposed under the Project as it accounts for the majority of the

mine pit area (193 ha) within the Big Footprint Swamp catchment (923 ha). The impact assessment

assumes that catchments to the east of the SRBP haul road (i.e. an area of 112 ha within the SRBP

ML) will be diverted as clean water runoff around BH6 west mining pit (i.e. around Big Footprint

Swamp), thus preventing runoff generated within this catchment from entering Big Footprint

Swamp. The cumulative impact of both Projects is estimated to be a 33% (predicted worst case

scenario) reduction in surface water runoff to Big Footprint Swamp during any combined years of

mining operations in the catchment (i.e. years 10 – 12 of Metro Mining’s operations).

The Project is not expected to impact on Lunette Swamp as the pits are downstream or

downgradient of the surface and groundwater hydrologic processes, respectively. The SRBP has

several small pits within the Lunette Swamp catchment that may affect surface and groundwater

but there is little potential for a cumulative impact on the hydrology of Lunette Swamp. There is a

potential for localised cumulative impacts on small drainage gullies to the west of the BH6 due to

the Bauxite Hills and SRBP mining activities.

Groundwater

Both this Project and SRBP do not expect direct impacts on the two palustrine wetlands; Big

Footprint Swamp and Lunette Swamp. The two wetlands are outside of proposed mining and

infrastructure areas, however it is noted that the Projects will be undertaking some clearing and

mining in proximity to these areas. Therefore, there is potential for indirect impacts to wetlands


6-23

through changes to hydrology, potential for increased pest animals and plants and altered fire

regimes.

Both Projects have stated there is likely to be potential for changes to surface water runoff and

groundwater levels in these wetland systems. Where the water table is deeper, enhanced recharge

due to mining has the potential to increase the height of the peak water table relative to the pre-

mining condition by a small amount. In parts of the site where the pre-mining water table already

reaches the ground surface, removal of bauxite could result in lower peak water table relative to the

pre-mining condition. As mining and backfilling occur progressively, the changes to the height of the

peak water table at a given location will occur dynamically and relative to these activities. Once

rehabilitation occurs, peak water table levels will tend towards pre-mining levels.

In the vicinity of Big Footprint Swamp, Ewan Wilson Consulting (2015) identifies two time periods

when changes to the water table from the SRBP are most significant:

Year 2022 when the peak water table to the north of Big Footprint Swamp is predicted to

decrease by 0.1 m and the peak water table to the south is predicted to increase by 0.1 m; and

Year 2026 when the peak water table in the south of Big Footprint Swamp is predicted to

increase by 0.1 m.

At these times the Project groundwater modelling is showing small to negligible increases in peak

pool level. It could be viewed that a small predicted drawdown of <0.1 m in the north of Big

Footprint Swamp by the SRBP in year 2022 will be offset by the predicted increase of 0.05 to 0.14

m in the pool level by the Project. In year 2026 the peak pool level is predicted to increase by less

than 0.1 m due to the Bauxite Hills Project whereas the SRBP is predicted to cause an increase of 0.1

m locally in the south. Therefore, a combined peak pool level increase is no more than 0.2 m. Further

information in relation to the groundwater modelling is provided in the SRBP EIS Chapter 13 and

Appendix E1 of the EIS.

It is not expected the minor changes to pool level and subsequent potential increase in the

inundation zone for the limited periods identified will have a significant impact on the wetlands

ecological function and biodiversity. The wetlands are resilient to changes in water level and

duration of inundation due to natural conditions being quite dynamic between wet and dry seasons

and monsoons. The wetlands will still provide habitat for aquatic and terrestrial flora and fauna.

In the vicinity of the Skardon River, drawdown of 0.2 to 0.3 m is predicted due to the SRBP (in year

2022). Drawdown is not predicted in this area by the Bauxite Hills Project; therefore, there is

negligible potential for cumulative drawdown impacts near the Skardon River.

In the early post-mining period (i.e. after 2026 when the SRBP ceases), the water table in the vicinity

of the Skardon River is predicted to increase by 0.1 to 0.3 m due to the SRBP, which may lead to a

small increase in the net volume of groundwater discharged to the Skardon River. The SRBP EIS did

not present predicted changes in volumes of groundwater discharged to the Skardon River;

however, on the basis of similar predicted increases in the water table near the Skardon River by

the two projects, the potential net increase in groundwater discharge rate could be approximately

7 – 8%. The real net increase is not able to be determined due to the lack of information in Gulf

Alumina’s EIS and hence the impact is not confirmed; however, it is assumed that impacts would

decrease after 2027, as rehabilitation takes place and recharge over mined areas is reduced.


6-24

6.6 Surface Water Management

All stormwater runoff capturing devices, will be sized and managed in accordance with the Bauxite

Hills EA approval and associated ESCPs.

Runoff from the network of existing and proposed haul roads will be captured in table drains and

turned out to vegetated areas via spoon drains at regular intervals. Due to the generally flat

topography it is not anticipated these drains will carry a significant sediment load. Where haul roads

cross watercourses a culvert arrangement will be utilised. Sediment removal and scour protection

devices will be incorporated in the watercourse crossing design, where appropriate, to reduce

sediment loads entering the system as part of the Project ESCP. These measures typically include,

but are not limited to:

Siltation fencing to capture mobilised sediments;

Riprap scour protection aprons and stilling basins at culvert outlets where high velocities may

develop;

Check dams, geofabric and other liners where high velocities develop in roadside drains;

The use of concrete or cement stabilised pavements for floodway crossings to reduce scour

potential and subsequent migration of sediments;

The use of riprap mattresses on the downstream floodway embankment to reduce scour

potential;

Maintenance of vegetation buffers at spoon drain outlets to intercept sediments prior to

entering the receiving waters; and

Rock dissipation aprons to return concentrated flow in spoon drains to sheet flow where drains

are turned out to vegetated areas.

Mine pit areas are generally located on plateaus and thus are naturally inward draining i.e. once

excavated below the surrounding ground surface any rainfall falling on the pits accumulates in the

pit. Furthermore, there is no external catchment runoff to divert where pits are excavated on

plateaus. Due to the depth of the mine pits and fast infiltration rates through the bauxite layer, the

mine pit areas act as a self-draining sediment trap for runoff from disturbed mine areas. This occurs

at the existing Rio Tinto Alcan Weipa mine, was approved for the South of Embley (now Amrun)

Project and the SRBP and is considered the best management option both to minimise the mining

footprint, and maintain baseflow to surrounding wetland areas.

The two mine pits west of the Skardon River (BH6 east and BH6 west) accept contributing clean

water runoff from natural (i.e. undeveloped) catchments. To separate clean and dirty water runoff,

clean water diversion drains and bunds will be constructed. The diversion drains will be constructed

on flat gradients to minimise potential scour and sediment transportation.

6.7 Groundwater Management

A Water Management Plan (WMP) will be developed for the Bauxite Hills Project that is consistent

with the WMP that will be prepared for the SRBP. Ultimately both plans will be consolidated into a

single WMP which will enable a more targeted and strategic approach to the monitoring of

groundwater across both Project areas.

Groundwater levels monitored in the vicinity of the Big Footprint Swamp and pool levels monitored

within the swamp (including both wet and dry season extent of standing water) will enable ongoing


6-25

refinement of the understanding of the hydrogeological regime of the swamp. Similarly, monitoring

of groundwater levels between the Skardon River and the mine will be undertaken to identify any

discernible changes in hydraulic gradient towards the river to verify predicted low level impacts on

baseflow.

Monitoring of groundwater quality shall take as a minimum, at the start and end of the dry season

i.e. start and end of mining operation in each year. Monitoring will involve sampling from all

monitoring bores at the start of the dry season and from deep monitoring bores at the end of the

dry season. Samples will be analysed for major ions, total dissolved solids, pH, metals and potentially

harmful substances associated with oil, fuel and chemicals handled on site during operations (e.g.

volatile organic compounds).

Groundwater chemistry data will be analysed graphically for trends and any correlation with

observed groundwater levels, rainfall and stream flow data. The groundwater model developed for

the Project will then be updated as additional data become available. The frequency and

requirement of updates will be assessed on an annual basis based on the ongoing review of the data.

Model updates will be triggered if/when impact verification identifies significant discrepancies

between the observed and predicted changes to groundwater levels (e.g. near Big Footprint Swamp)

or additional data result in significant revisions of the existing hydrogeological model (e.g.

additional monitoring data in Big Footprint Swamp).

6.8 Buffer Zones

Buffer zones will be established around watercourses to minimise land disturbance and erosion and

sediment mobilisation as follows:

a) 50 m for stream order 1 or 2 watercourses;

b) 100 m for stream order 3 or 4 watercourses; and

c) 200 m for stream order 5 or greater watercourses.

A minimum buffer zone of 100 m has also been established between the mining activities at BH6

west and Big Footprint Swamp. No vegetation clearing activities are proposed within this buffer

area to ensure minimal disturbance to Big Footprint Swamp.

Where buffer zones cannot be avoided (see Figure 5-2), as is the case for small sections of the east-

west BH1 haul road, specific ESCs will be implemented.

Environmental offsetting may also be appropriate for the areas where buffer zones cannot be

applied, as described in the proposed Offsets Strategy (see Appendix C of the EIS for the proposed

Offsets Strategy). Note that the offsets package will be further developed in consultation with EHP,

DILGP and DAF in parallel to the finalisation of the MLs for the Project.

6.9 Big Footprint Swamp – Monitoring Program

The Project WMP will include specific requirements for monitoring Big Footprint Swamp. The

monitoring will be based on appropriate water quality indicators derived from Project-based water

quality measurements obtained during and post the EIS process. Appendix I of the Supplementary

Report details the proposed monitoring locations (including two additional monitoring bores

around Big Footprint Swamp), monitoring frequency and water quality triggers for the Project.


6-26

The present draft EA conditions detail monthly monitoring (refer to the updated draft EA conditions

presented in Appendix I of the Supplementary Report) of Big Footprint Swamp at site SW03 (refer

Table 6-1, Figure 6-2), where previous surface water sampling has been carried out for the Project.

Water chemistry data will be analysed graphically for trends and any changes in the water quality

will be assessed and suitable mitigation measures will be developed and implemented as required.

The groundwater and surface water modelling relating to BH6 west activities and Big Footprint

Swamp indicate that the net effect on the pool level is likely to be small to negligible (4.4% net

reduction), with seasonal fluctuations that far exceed the potential changes caused by mining and

diversion. Note that the net reduction is anticipated to occur only during years 10 to 12 associated

with BH6 west mining activities. Ongoing monitoring of groundwater levels in the vicinity of the

swamp and pool levels within the swamp (including the dry season extent of standing water) will

enable verification of predicted low level impacts and refinement of the understanding of the

hydrogeological regime of the swamp.

If the outcome of further monitoring and investigation identifies any potential significant risks to

the Big Footprint Swamp ecology, direct management options, such as redirection of excess water,

may become necessary i.e. minimise the extent of the dry season inundation zone to facilitate

aeration of the root zone and maintain the existing extent of Melaleuca trees.

6.10 Receiving Environment Monitoring Program

Monitoring will supplement the water management strategy to confirm that any potential

discharges (controlled or uncontrolled), contamination from wastes, hydrocarbons or chemicals, or

salt water ingress to the shallow groundwater aquifers, do not adversely impact on downstream

water quality. Monitoring will also serve as a continual improvement mechanism for the ongoing

management of stormwater through collection of ongoing site-specific data to feed into the

operational calibration of the water balance model developed for the Project area.

The REMP will include monitoring of both surface water and groundwater, including at Big

Footprint Swamp, and will be developed by Metro Mining in accordance with EHP Guidelines

including EHP Technical Guideline - Wastewater release to Queensland waters (EM112 – Version

1). It is noted that no wastewater is proposed to be released to Big Footprint Swamp. The REMP will

be implemented by Metro Mining through the Environmental Management Program (EMP) and will

incorporate the following elements:

Water quality monitoring will be undertaken in accordance with relevant guidelines including

the Department of Environment and Resource Management (DERM) (former) Monitoring and

Sampling Manual 2009 (DERM 2009b), QWQG (DERM 2009a), and AWQG guidelines. The

monitoring program will outline, as a minimum:

Measures to further derive local WQOs from data collected from reference sites,

chosen in accordance with the QWQG and AWQG

Frequency and locations for sampling

Relevant water quality parameters, including physico-chemical and estimation of local

stream flow

Water quality sampling methods

Interim Site Specific Water Quality Objectives (WQO) outlining the 20th, 50th and 80th percentiles

of background/reference conditions have been established for the majority of parameters based

on the minimum number of data points (see Chapter 9 of the supplementary report). The site


6-27

specific WQOs will be refined with ongoing water quality monitoring. For parameters where the

number of data points is currently insufficient, default WQO trigger values from the AWQG

guidelines for 99% species protection (where available) or otherwise determine by EHP have

been applied;

All data used to determine locally derived WQOs shall be recorded in an electronic format for

review by the administering authority if requested;

Water quality monitoring will be undertaken up and down stream of the MIA (in conjunction

with the approved SRBP monitoring program) and the shared accommodation STP treated

effluent irrigation area release points, with a monitoring site also located at Big Footprint

Swamp;

In the event a trigger level is exceeded during monitoring, a response mechanism will be

implemented to include the following:

In the event of an exceedance of results against the WQOs trigger levels, compare

downstream results to upstream results and if the two are similar, an exceedance is

unlikely to be a result of Project related activities. If downstream results are noticeably

higher than upstream, carry out a visual inspection of the works site to identify

potential sources of contaminants

Corrective actions arising from the investigation will be identified and implemented

to address exceedances

Reporting processes to EHP will be undertaken as per EA conditions.

6.11 Dry Season Ecology Surveys – June 2016

Terrestrial ecology surveys were originally undertaken for the EIS between 4 and 11 November

2014, corresponding to the late dry season. Follow-up surveys were undertaken between 31

January and 6 February 2015, corresponding to the early wet season. An additional early dry season

survey was carried out following the publication of the EIS from 11 to 15 June 2016 (Appendix C of

the Supplementary Report). It should be noted that this additional survey work was carried on the

original location of the proposed MIA and haul road areas, and as such is no longer directly relevant

given Metro Mining’s intent to utilise the approved SRBP MIA and barge loading infrastructure, in

addition to the use of the existing SRBP haul road from the Bauxite Hills mine pits to the MIA. The

information is still generally applicable in terms of better identifying the local ecological baseline

and has been included in this Supplementary Report for completeness.

The 2016 survey focussed on those areas not surveyed previously including:

Flora surveys within the originally proposed MIA and northern section of the north-south haul

road;

Flora surveys of the originally proposed east-west BH1 haul road (connecting BH6 east with

BH1);

Fauna surveys within the originally proposed MIA and northern section of the north-south haul

road including targeted surveys for two threatened species: Water Mouse (Xeromys myoides)

and Black-footed Tree-rat (Mesembriomys gouldii rattoides). Survey methods included:

Elliott trapping at six sites in Darwin Stringybark woodland (total of 600 trap nights)

Camera traps at eight sites within mangroves targeting Water Mouse (32 trap nights)


6-28

Camera traps at eleven sites within woodlands targeting Black-footed Tree-rat (44

trap nights)

Microbat call recording at five sites

Active searches of mangrove habitat for Water Mouse presence (e.g. nesting mounds

and prey middens) along four transects

General survey methods such as bird surveys, spotlighting, active searches and habitat

assessments (refer Appendix C of the Supplementary Report).

Further opportunistic fauna records that were collected during the surveys for marine plants that

was carried out over the period 7 – 10 June 2016 (CDM Smith 2016), have also been included.

6.11.1 Early Dry Season Flora Survey Summary – June 2016

The early dry season survey (June 2016) recorded seven REs, one of which is listed as Of Concern

under the VM Act (RE 3.3.12). The survey found minor differences with DNRM vegetation mapping

(refer Appendix C of the Supplementary Report). The 2016 survey recorded two additional REs not

detected in previous surveys: RE 3.1.2 and RE 3.3.63. Table 6-8 provides a brief description of the

REs found within the survey area. More detail is located within the EIS and Appendix C of this


Table 6-8 Project vegetation community descriptions

RE DNRM description VM Act EP Act June 2016 survey study area

3.1.1 Closed forest of Rhizophora stylosa ± Bruguiera gymnorhiza as outer mangroves

Least Concern No Concern Present throughout

3.1.2 Avicennia marina low open mangrove forest on landward side of tidal zone

Least Concern No Concern Present in small areas of north-south haul road

3.1.3 Ceriops tagal ± A. marina low closed forest on intertidal areas.

Least Concern No Concern Eastern end of BH1 haul road

3.3.12 Melaleuca quinquenervia open forest associated with scattered coastal swamps

Of Concern Of Concern Western end of east-west BH1 haul road

3.3.14 M. saligna ± M. viridiflora, Lophostemon suaveolens woodland on drainage swamps.

Least Concern No Concern N/A

3.3.22 Corymbia clarksoniana or C. novoguineensis woodland on alluvial plains.

Least Concern No Concern Patches within east-west BH1 haul road

3.3.32 M. viridiflora +/- M. saligna woodland in sinkholes and drainage depressions.


3.3.42 Low woodland of M.viridiflora +/- emergent C. clarksoniana.

Least Concern No Concern Small patches throughout bordering mangroves

3.3.49 M. viridiflora low open woodland on low plains.


3.3.51 M. acacioides +/- Hakea pedunculata tall shrubland on marine plains.

Of Concern Of Concern N/A

3.3.63 Eleocharis dulcis dominated closed sedgeland on seasonally flooded marine plains

Least Concern No Concern Western end of east-west BH1 haul road

3.3.65 Ephemeral lakes and lagoons on alluvial plains and depressions.


3.5.2 Eucalyptus tetrodonta, C. nesophila tall woodland on deeply weathered plateaus and remnants.

Least Concern No Concern Present throughout

3.5.22 C. clarksoniana, Erythrophleum chlorostachys and other eucalypt woodland on plains.



6-29

A total of 128 flora species were identified during the 2016 dry season survey, 11 of which had not

been recorded on previous surveys for Metro Mining or Gulf Almina’s SRBP. None of the species are

listed as EVNT under State or Commonwealth legislation. Most of the records were native species

with only three introduced weed species recorded. A full species list is included in Appendix C of the


6.11.2 Fauna Survey Summary – June 2016

The fauna survey recorded a total of 88 fauna species including 19 species not previously recorded

on previous surveys for Metro Mining or Gulf Almina’s SRBP. No observations, or evidence of

presence of Black-footed Tree-rat or Water Mouse were recorded during the survey. The survey

recorded two observations of Palm Cockatoo (Probosciger aterrimus macgillivrayi), one to the west

of the original location of the proposed MIA and another area on Namaleta Creek to the south of the

Project area (refer Figure 3-3, Appendix C of the Supplementary Report).

Further records of threatened species were collected from the wider area during the marine plant

survey (CDM Smith 2016) period including:

Estuarine Crocodile (Crocodylus porosus) (Vulnerable – NC Act, Migratory – EPBC Act) – near

the existing jetty area;

Australian Hump-backed Dolphin (Sousa sahulensis) (Vulnerable – NC Act, Migratory – EPBC

Act) recorded foraging along the beach edge west of the Skardon River airport;

Beach Stone-curlew (Esacus magnirostris) (Vulnerable – NC Act) also recorded along the beach

west of the Skardon River airport;

Eastern Curlew (Numenius madagascariensis) (Near Threatened – NC Act; Critically Endangered

and Migratory – EPBC Act) was recorded (single individual) foraging on an exposed mudflat

approximately 4 km downstream of the originally proposed Project area; and

Whimbrel (Numenius phaeopus) (Migratory – EPBC Act) was recorded on several occasions

foraging on mudflats and flushed from roost sites in mangroves.

Location data for these records is provided in the Opportunistic Fauna Records in Appendix C of the


6.12 Matters of State Environmental Significance Confirmed

This section updates the analysis (following relocation of infrastructure, ecology surveys and

seagrass surveys undertaken in June 2016, Appendix C and Appendix D, respectively of the

Supplementary Report) that has been completed to determine the Matters of State Environmental

Significance (MSES) that are known or likely to occur in the Project area, and whether the Project

will have a ‘significant, residual impact’ to MSES. MSES are prescribed environmental matters

defined in Schedule 2 of the Environmental Offsets Regulation 2014.

The clearing requirements for each component of the Project are shown at Table 6-9 and Table 6-

10. Predicted impacts to MSES requiring offsetting have been updated since the release of the EIS,

following relocation of site infrastructure and seagrass surveys (Appendix D of the Supplementary

Report) and are identified in Table 6-11. This has resulted in the elimination of any direct impacts

to mangrove and estuarine saltpan REs. It has also eliminated impacts to wetland REs that are not

featured on current DNRM vegetation mapping but were identified during ground-truthing surveys


6-30

such as patches of RE 3.3.12 (refer Appendix C). The overall amount of clearing required for the BH1

haul road has increased due to the increase in the length of the road in order to avoid wetland

habitat. However it should be noted the clearing area is based on the maximum footprint area

estimated for each Project component. The clearing for the BH1 haul road is based on a 70 m wide

footprint. On-ground clearing for the BH1 haul road, is likely in reality, to be less than estimated

here. The relocation of the north-south haul road and other mine infrastructure to the SRBP

components has led to a significant decrease in the overall Project footprint.

It should also be noted that no waterway barrier works are proposed outside of the ML (refer to

Section 3.1.1) and haul road crossings are proposed to be constructed to avoid becoming a

waterway barrier. If a crossing is deemed to be a waterway barrier the affected area will be subject

to the Project’s Offsets Delivery Plan.

Table 6-9 Projected clearing of remnant vegetation

Project component RE VM Act Status Clearing Area (ha)

BH1 – Pit Extraction Area 3.5.2 LC 664.39

BH6 East – Pit Extraction Area 3.3.14 LC 7.9

3.5.2 LC 284.3

BH6 West – pit extraction area

3.5.2 LC 394.65

BH1 haul road 3.3.49b/3.3.9 LC 4.62

3.3.49b/3.3.22a/3.3.64 LC 4.2

3.7.3/3.3.49 LC 3.14

3.5.2 LC 61.66

Internal haul roads 3.5.2 LC 5.3

Table 6-10 Total clearing of remnant vegetation

RE VM Act Status Clearing Area (ha)

Within 20 km radius of Project (ha)*

Within Cape York Bioregion (ha)*

3.3.14 LC 7.9 N/A 6,355.0 (3.3.14a)

3.3.49b/3.3.9 LC 4.62 483.9 1,530.95

3.3.49b/3.3.22a/3.3.64 LC 4.2 253.9 286.7

3.5.2 LC 1,410.3 44,280.9 528,862.4

3.7.3/3.3.49 LC 3.14 235.3 2,963.18

Total 1,430.16

*Based on DNRM mapping and RE is the dominant RE i.e. not mixed with other REs in mixed vegetation polygons

Table 6-11 Impacts to MSES as a result of clearing

MSES Trigger VM Act or NC Act Direct Impact

Status Area of estimated disturbance (ha; max)

Endangered and OC REs

None - -

Watercourse REs (within a defined distance

from a Strahler stream order)

Stream Order 2 (25m Buffer)

RE 3.3.49b/3.3.9 - 0.35 ha (BH1 haul road)

Stream Order 2 (25m Buffer)

RE 3.3.49b/3.3.22a/3.3.64 - 0.35 ha (BH1 haul road)

Stream Order 1 (25 m buffer)

RE 3.5.2 - 0.35 ha (BH1 haul road)

Total 1.05 ha

Connectivity

The connectivity tool was run and the result

stated there is no significant impact to

connectivity.

- 0


6-31

MSES Trigger VM Act or NC Act Direct Impact

Status Area of estimated disturbance (ha; max)

Waterways barrier works – estuary

All categories - 0

Waterways barrier works – stream

All categories - 0

Mapped essential habitat

None - -

Fish habitat areas

None - -

Queensland protected flora trigger area

None - -

Strategic environmental areas

None - -

Vegetation management mapped wetlands

None - -

Wetland Areas HES

None - -

Wetland protection area trigger

None - -

Endangered and Vulnerable fauna species

Black-footed Tree-rat V (EPBC Act) Assessed as MNES. No significant residual

impacts have been confirmed.

Eastern Curlew CE (EPBC Act) Assessed as MNES. No significant residual


Beach stone-curlew V

Assessed as MSES (refer Chapter 5 –

Terrestrial Ecology). No significant residual


Estuarine crocodile V

Assessed as MSES (refer Chapter 5 –

Terrestrial Ecology). No significant residual


Endangered and Vulnerable flora species

Chocolate tea tree orchid V Assessed as MNES. No significant residual


Marine plants

Seagrass communities -

Existing offset areas

None -

Total impact to MSES

Watercourse REs +seagrass communities 1.05 ha

The Offset Strategy for the Project was included as Appendix C of the EIS and described several

approaches to proposed offsets. With the removal of the north-south haul road, MIA, BLF, RoRo and

accommodation camp, the majority of offsetting requirements for the Project have been avoided.

The general approach that has been described in the Offset Strategy will; however, be maintained.

The final Project Offsets Delivery Plan will reflect the changes from the original EIS concept to the

acquisition and will be provided for approval following consultation with the appropriate

government departments including EHP and DAF.


6-32

6.13 Species of Significance Occurrence Assessments

EHP and DotEE have both noted concerns in several of their EIS submissions regarding the

occurrence of particular conservation significant fauna species detailed in Table 5-9 and Table 7-15

of the EIS. The species of concern are all considered as having ‘potential’ to occur and comprise the

following species:

Red Goshawk (Erythrotriorchis radiatus) – Endangered NC Act, Vulnerable EPBC Act;

Masked Owl (Northern) (Tyto novaehollandiae kimberlii) - Vulnerable NC Act and EPBC Act;

Northern Quoll (Dasyurus hallucatus) – Vulnerable EPBC Act; and

Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat (Saccolaimus nudicluniatus) - Endangered NC Act, Critically

Endangered EPBC Act.

It is noted the listing for Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat under the EPBC Act was changed by DotEE

from Critically Endangered to Vulnerable on 7 December 2016.

Species are considered to have ‘potential’ to occur where there is a ‘possibility of suitable habitat or

limited records of the species occurring within or around the Project area’ as stated in Section 5.4.4.3

of the EIS. Species under this occurrence rating are not discussed further regarding the Project

impact assessment, where only species considered ‘likely’ or ‘known’ to occur are discussed which

is a standard practice in EIS impact assessment. It is noted that DotEE recognise this in their

submissions on the Project EIS where they state ‘the Department considers species assessed against

the significant impact criteria should be categorised as no less than ‘Likely’ to occur'.

All of the Project’s ecological surveys were undertaken with consideration of the relevant State and

Commonwealth standards, and undertaken by suitably qualified and experienced ecologists who

have determined these species are not “likely” to occur in the Project area, including the proposed

species in the impact assessment sections with no additional scientific justification or confirmation

as to their presence in the area will simply produce a superfluous result of 'no residual impact' on

that species. Assessing species against significant impact criteria that, following detailed surveys by

qualified and experienced ecologists, have been determined not to meet the criteria of being Likely

to occur in the area, is not required and has not been undertaken.

In response to the EHP and DotEE submissions, an additional desktop review has been carried out

on the status of occurrence of these species in or near the Project area and has been presented

below. The review utilised the findings in all the ecology surveys that have been undertaken for both

this Project and the SRBP, as well as advice from the fauna ecologist experienced with the site (Mark

Sanders), including the following:

Two comprehensive general fauna surveys of sites located across the Project area carried out

over six survey days in both November 2014 and January/February 2015;

A comprehensive fauna survey of sites that had not been surveyed previously in the Project area

including the originally proposed BLF, RoRo, haul roads and MIA area was carried out over five

days in June 2016. While the MIA, BLF, RoRo and north south haul road have since been removed

from the Project scope to avoid potential environmental impacts, and the BH1 haul road has

been relocated to avoid sensitive HES wetlands the information collected in these surveys is still

relevant for the general area. The survey also included targeted trapping for Water Mouse and

Black-footed Tree-rat;

General onsite fauna observations carried out for the SRBP over 5 days in June 2010;


6-33

Targeted surveys for threatened fauna carried out in September/October 2014 including:

Surveys for Red Goshawk and Spectacled Flying-fox (Petropus conspicillatus) carried

out over five days in September 2014

Extended targeted surveys using echolocation call for recording for Bare-rumped

Sheathtail Bat carried out over 12 days in September 2014

Extended and comprehensive targeted surveys using baited camera traps at 51 sites

for Northern Quoll carried out over 17 September to 4 October 2014

A comprehensive general fauna survey of sites within the SRBP carried out over six days in

February 2015.

A review has been carried out on the status of occurrence of these species in or near the Project area

and has been presented below. The review investigated the Atlas of Living Australia (ALA) database

records, EHPs WildNet database records, as well as other appropriate reference material including:

The Action Plan for Australian Birds (Garnett et al., 2011); and

The New Atlas of Australian Birds (Barrett et al., 2003).

6.13.1 Red Goshawk

The nearest ALA and WildNet records of Red Goshawk to the Project area include: one 1990 record

from Bamaga (100 km to the north); a January 2016 record from Weipa (90 km to the south); a pre-

1980's record 90 km southeast of the site; and a 2011 and 2013 record approximately 100 km

southeast of the site. The Action Plan for Australian Birds (Garnett et al., 2011) species account

shows a single record to the east of Weipa and no other records north of this point.

EHP has commented there is an active Red Goshawk nest approximately 40 km south of the Project

area and this is within foraging range for the species. It has been noted this information is also

included in the June 2016 EHP assessment report of the SRBP EIS. However, extensive field surveys

have not identified the species on site, there is no record of the Red Goshawk nest site in any of the

recognised databases, and the information provided by EHP has not been verified. Limited studies

have recorded that male Red Goshawks in the non-breeding season move up to 7 km from the nest

site hunting within an estimated home range of up to 200 km2. During the breeding season females

were recorded moving up to 5 km in all directions from the nest site with an estimated home range

of 120 km2 (Aumann and Baker-Gabb, 1991). The stated nest site is located quite a distance (40 km)

away from the Project area and there are extensive foraging habitats in all directions surrounding

the supposed nest. Consequently, it is considered unlikely the Project lies within the foraging range

of the individual’s resident at this nest site.

EHP also note there are confirmed records in the Steve Irwin Reserve. This and the aforementioned

occurrence information is not a publicly available confirmed record, was not documented to Metro

Mining at any stage and is not referenced or attributed to any source. The original information

searches for the EIS were carried out using the best available information at the time. The species

has not been recorded in the wider Weipa area during extensive recent surveys for several

development projects in the region. As such no change is proposed to the status of occurrence

(potential to occur) of Red Goshawk in the Project area.

Potential impacts under the Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1 (DotE, 2013) (hereon called ‘the

Guidelines’) on the Red Goshawk have not been assessed as it has determined it is not likely to be in

the area. Notwithstanding, the species is not anticipated to occur, as part of mitigation measures


6-34

that have already been proposed in the EIS, raptor species in general will be included as part of the

Project Significant Species Management Plan (SSMP). A qualified fauna spotter will thoroughly

inspect all areas requiring vegetation clearing prior to any clearing activity and this will include the

identification of potential raptor nests. In the unlikely event an active nest of the species is found to

occur EHP will be notified and measures within the SSMP will identify impact mitigation strategies

such as appropriate ‘no-clearing’ buffer distances. Given the extensive similar habitat available in

the wider region and the relatively minor impacts proposed by the Project within this area, it is

considered unlikely that there will be significant impacts resulting from the Project on the Red

Goshawk.

6.13.2 Masked Owl (Northern)

There are no recent records of Masked Owl from Cape York. The nearest record to the site (ALA and

WildNet) is from 1913 near the Claudie River on eastern Cape York (150 km southeast of the Project

area). There is a 1995 record from the Flinders Island group near Cape Melville (350 km southeast

of the Project area). The Action Plan for Australian Birds (Garnett et al., 2011) species account shows

only a single record occurring near Arukun (170 km south of the Project area) and does not consider

the Project area is encompassed under the species range based of previous occurrence. The DotEE

Species Profile and Threats Database notes that on Cape York Peninsula there are historical records

from the Pascoe, Archer and Chester Rivers on the east coast (between 150 and 250 km south-east

of the Project area), Normanton (over 650 km south of the Project area) and the Watson River at

Aurukun (Higgins 1999; Mees 1964; Storr 1984). The New Atlas of Australian Birds (Barrett et al.,

2003) compiles records of standardised bird surveys across Australia carried out from 1998 to 2002

and does not record the species from the entirety of Cape York Peninsula. Expert distribution

mapping on the ALA database designates the subspecies as ‘maybe’ occurring in or near the Project

area. The species has not been recorded in the Weipa region (including the Project area) despite

extensive recent surveys for several development projects in the region. As such the assessment of

‘potential to occur’ rather than likely is considered appropriate.

Potential impacts under the Guidelines on Masked Owl have not been assessed as the species is not

known to occur in the region and so it has been determined it is not likely to be in the Project area.

As part of mitigation measures that have already been proposed in the EIS a qualified fauna spotter

will thoroughly inspect all areas requiring vegetation clearing prior to any clearing activity. The

inspection will include large tree hollows that may serve as roosting sites for this species. Given lack

of any records of this species in the wider region, the extensive similar habitat available in the wider

region, and the relatively minor impacts proposed by the Project within this area, it is considered

unlikely that there will be significant impacts resulting from the Project on Masked Owl, should it

even occur in the region.

6.13.3 Northern Quoll

There are several Atlas of Living Australia/EHP Wildnet records from the early 1980s located

approximately 22 km south of the site at Red Beach near Mapoon. These are the closest records to

the site albeit recorded in the 1980s. Targeted surveys for Northern Quolls at Big Swamp and Red

Beach, Mapoon, in December 2006 did not record any quolls (Woinarski et al., 2008). There is a

relatively recent 2010 EHP record located approximately 37 km to the south of the Project area at

Blue Bottle Spring.

The original EIS text noted anecdotal information stating populations of this species have been

recently found approximately 20 km north of Weipa (at an undisclosed site) during works for Rio

Tinto Alcan and at RAAF Base Scherger (east of Weipa). There are no publicly available records or

site information for either of these reports. Regardless, both of these areas are over 50 km from the


6-35

Project area. EHP have commented there is a record of Northern Quoll in the Steve Irwin Reserve

located to the south of the Project area and east of the 2010 record noted above. This occurrence

information is not publicly available, was not provided to Metro Mining at any stage and is not

referenced or attributed to any source. The original information searches were carried out using the

best available information at the time and no subsequent information has been presented that

substantiates any of the additional records that have been raised.

There is no presence data from either the Bauxite Hills or SRBP EIS survey efforts, including targeted

Northern Quoll surveys undertaken for the SRBP in 2014, and there are no recent records of the

Northern Quoll in the Project area. Trapping for the SRBP and Bauxite Hills EIS has included over

2,000 trap nights using small Elliott traps, 63 trap nights using baited cage traps and cameras, and

488 nights of baited camera traps and no Northern Quoll were recorded. Further dry season surveys

in June 2016 included 600 trap nights using small Elliott traps and 44 nights of baited camera traps

(refer Appendix C of the Supplementary Report).

The assessment of the Northern Quoll as possibly occurring is consistent with the findings in the

approved SRBP EIS and previous surveys undertaken for the Pisolite Hills Project. There is no rocky

habitat (preferred breeding habitat) in the area. The area is subject to regular burning to reduce fuel

loads thereby impacting potential breeding structures (large hollow woody debris). In the June

2016 assessment report of the SRBP EIS, EHP commented that it is satisfied that the Project site is

not likely to contain important habitat for the species and that the Project is unlikely to have

unacceptable impacts on the Northern Quoll. As such no change is proposed to the status of

occurrence of Northern Quoll in the Project area.

Potential impacts under the Guidelines on Northern Quoll have not been assessed as the Project

ecologists have determined it is not likely to be in the area. As part of mitigation measures that have

already been proposed in the EIS a qualified fauna spotter will thoroughly inspect all areas requiring

vegetation clearing prior to any clearing activity. The inspection will include large fallen woody

debris that may serve as denning sites for this species. Given the lack of any records of the species

presence despite extensive suitable surveys being carried out in the local area, the extensive similar

habitat available in the wider region, and the relatively minor impacts proposed by the Project

within this area, it is considered unlikely that there will be significant impacts resulting from the

Project on Northern Quoll, should it occur in the area.

6.13.4 Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat

There are no records from western Cape York for the Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat. The nearest

confirmed species record available from database searches is from the McIlwraith Range 200 km

southeast of the Project area. In addition to this record, there is a known population being studied

in Iron Range National Park (150 km southeast of the Project area) (pers. comm. J. Broken-Brow);

however, as of August 2016 no voucher specimen from this population has been collected and

submitted to the Queensland Museum. Thereby there is no official database record of the Iron Range

population.

The species is difficult to survey for as it tends to fly high in the canopy and above the height of

general microbat trapping techniques (i.e. harp traps). Targeted canopy mist-netting surveys for the

species located south of Weipa in Darwin Stringybark woodland did not trap Bare-rumped

Sheathtail Bat but did record the two other species of Saccolaimus known from Australia: Yellow-

bellied Sheathtail Bat (Saccolaimus flaviventris); and Papuan Sheathtail Bat (Saccalaimus mixtus)

(Armstrong et al., 2014).

The Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat was detected as possibly occurring from microbat call pass files

recorded from the Project area in surveys undertaken for the EIS; however, there are two other


6-36

species of Saccolaimus potentially, and more likely, occurring in the area. Differentiating calls of

species in the genus is known to be problematic. Subsequent dry season fauna surveys have been

carried out in June 2016 for Metro Mining since the publication of the EIS (refer Appendix C of the

Supplementary Report). No recordings, either confirmed or potential, for the Bare-rumped

Sheathtail Bat were captured.

Further broad spectrum bat call analysis for the Gulf Alumina EIS recorded over a 12 day period in

September/October 2014 identified the presence of both Yellow-bellied Sheathtail Bat and Papuan

Sheathtail Bat. Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat was not recorded and was not considered as possibly

occurring. Given the species has never been recorded on western Cape York Peninsula the rating of

potentially occurring rather than likely is considered appropriate.

6.13.5 Water Mouse

Further ecological surveys were carried out (10th to 16th June 2016) for the Project following the

publication of the EIS. The surveys included methods targeting Water Mouse as recommended

under the Referral guideline for the vulnerable water mouse Xeromys myoides (DotE, 2015a) in

mangrove habitat that was originally identified as being impacted by proposed Project

infrastructure including the north-south haul road, RoRo and MIA (refer Appendix C of the

Supplementary Report). The north-south haul road, BLF, RoRo and MIA have since been removed

from the scope as the existing or proposed infrastructure associated with the SRBP will be utilised.

Moreover, the BH1 haul road has been relocated to avoid sensitive HES wetlands associated with

the Skardon River. Given there will now be no impact to mangrove or estuarine saltpan habitat the

Project is not considered to have any impact on Water Mouse should a local population occur.

Nevertheless, the information gained from the early dry season survey is presented in the following

section.

The surveys included the following survey methods:

Searches within mangrove communities focused on locating Water Mouse feed middens

(typically found in locations such as at the base of mangrove flutes), prints in the mud, mud

plugs in hollow roots/branches (indicating a nest tree), or other nesting signs (mounds etc.)

with a total search effort of six hours at four search transects; and

Eight motion sensing cameras were located within mangroves on logs or debris above the high-

tide mark. Cameras were baited with liberal volumes of tuna oil, peanut butter and pilchards,

and left in situ for four consecutive nights for a total of 32 survey nights.

No Water Mouse were detected using the baited camera traps or active daytime searches targeting

habitat areas. The intertidal community at the area of interest was restricted, often not exceeding

more than 10 m in width and dominated by mangrove fern or sedge (e.g. Acrostichum and

Eleocharis). These areas are not considered suitable for Water Mouse nesting. However, Water

Mouse can also nest in tree hollows, utilising sloping trunks or narrow diameter vertical

trunks/branches/root systems (M. Sanders pers. obs; I. Gynther pers. comm). While searches at

Bauxite Hills were successful in locating numerous hollow trees throughout the mangrove

community, most had very large and vertical hollows. Of the few trees that were suitable, none had

obvious mud plugs or entrances with signs of frequent use. Water Mouse food middens, which can

be found in locations such as shallow hollows or at the base of mangrove buttresses, were absent.

The species has never been recorded north of Proserpine in Queensland. Russel and Hale (2009)

note that many searches in selected regions with apparently suitable habitat failed to detect the

species. While limited survey effort for Water Mouse has occurred on the west of Cape York,

research carried out by Project survey staff (which has included communication with recognised


6-37

Water Mouse expert Ian Gynther, EHP) has failed to uncover any verifiable Water Mouse records

from the region. The lack of known regional records, and the in-field results of surveys for the

Project suggest this species is unlikely to occur. As such, the designation of ‘unlikely to occur’ in or

near the Project area remains unchanged.

6.14 Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impacts on terrestrial ecological values were assessed within the EIS by considering

impacts on vegetation communities and significant species from past, current and (reasonably

foreseeable) proposed developments within the broader bioregion. For more information on the

cumulative impact assessment methods refer to Chapter 5, Section 5.8 of the EIS. During the EIS,

cumulative impacts were assessed against the adjacent SRBP as at that stage, both Projects were

utilising separate infrastructure. However, as detailed throughout this Supplementary Report, the

originally proposed MIA, BLF and RoRo have all been removed from the scope as the existing or

proposed SRBP MIA and barge loading infrastructure will be utilized. The acquisition of Gulf

Alumina and the SRBP also enables the use of the existing main haul road to the SRBP MIA and the

sharing of the airstrip and accommodation camp to minimise potential noise and dust impacts.

These changes have resulted in a decrease to some of the cumulative impact assessment results as

detailed in the following sections.

6.14.1 Vegetation Communities and Threatened Flora Species

The use of the existing SRBP MIA, barge loading facilities and north-south haul road has resulted in

significant reductions in the extent of impacts on vegetation as follows:

When considered at its maximum possible extent, the Project may require clearing of

approximately 1,430 ha of remnant vegetation and the SRBP will result in a total of

approximately 1,364 ha (refer Table 15-10 of the SRBP EIS). The total combined area of clearing

is 2,794 ha. Over 97% of the total clearing will impact RE 3.5.2 (E. tetrodonta and C. nesophila

tall woodland on deeply weathered plateaus). This is the most widespread vegetation

community in Cape York (refer Table 6-10);

The Project will no longer result in any clearing to the Of Concern RE 3.3.12 (M. quinquenervia

open forest associated with scattered coastal swamps). The SRBP will impact 0.2 ha of this

vegetation community; and

Flora ecology surveys for both projects have not confirmed the presence of any threatened flora

species under the EPBC Act or NC Act. Surveys for the Project potentially recorded D. johannis

within wetland habitats proximate to proposed mining areas. The vast majority of known and

potential habitat for threatened flora species identified as likely to occur in the broader Project

area do not fall within the areas proposed for mining. Orchid species were detected in Melaleuca

swamps and mangrove edges adjacent to proposed mining operations and are unlikely to be

impacted by the proposed mining operations. The relocation of infrastructure has reduced the

potential for any impact further by eliminating the clearing of mangrove communities

altogether from the Project footprint.


6-38

6.14.2 Wetlands

The relocation of the Project infrastructure eliminates the requirement for clearing of any mapped

HES wetland areas as was the case under the original Project footprint. The SRBP will impact a total

of 0.5 ha of mapped HES wetland area.

The relocation of the Project infrastructure will have no additional cumulative impact on Big

Footprint Swamp or Lunette Swamp to those already detailed in the EIS. The BH1 and minor haul

roads are located in areas outside the catchments of these wetlands.

6.14.3 Threatened Fauna Species

Direct impacts to threatened fauna known or potentially occurring in the area would result from

vegetation clearing required to accommodate the mine and infrastructure footprints for the Project

and SRBP. This will in turn result in a loss of foraging and breeding habitats for some species. The

largest impact will be to the E. tetrodonta woodlands and those species that utilise these habitats

for foraging, nesting and breeding. This may include threatened species such as the Palm Cockatoo

and Black-footed Tree-rat. Both Projects will result in a loss of E. tetrodonta woodland in the order

of 2,746 ha, that will be cleared in stages over approximately 15 years. The clearing represents

approximately 6.2% of the extent of this RE within a 20 km radius of the Project and 0.52% of the

total extent of this RE in the bioregion.

There will be large areas of E. tetrodonta woodland that will be retained adjacent to those areas

cleared within the MLs, and in the local region and bioregion. Therefore, the loss of foraging habitat

is unlikely to be significant, including the consideration that a number of species are highly mobile

and will forage over large areas. Hence, the most significant cumulative impact is likely to be the loss

of breeding places such as hollow-bearing trees and fallen logs.

6.14.4 Connectivity and Threatening Processes

The relocation of the Project infrastructure will have no additional impact on the cumulative

impacts detailed in the EIS to connectivity in the region.

Documents

Section 6 Terrestrial and Freshwater Ecology - Metro Mining · 2018-08-09 · freshwater bodies but is unlikely to be present as all known records occur further south than the Project