\

Urquhart Bauxite Project

Preliminary Documentation

May 2017

Oresome Bauxite Pty Ltd

1

Contents Adequacy Checklist ................................................................................................................................. 4

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................. 5

1.0 Introduction to the Project ............................................................................................................... 7

1.1 Site Description and Details .................................................................................................... 7

1.1.1 General Environmental Values ............................................................................................ 12

1.2 Description of Action .................................................................................................................. 12

1.3 EPBC Process ............................................................................................................................... 15

1.4 Purpose of the Preliminary Documentation Report ................................................................... 15

1.5 Summary of the Existing Environment at UBx ............................................................................ 15

2.0 Introduction to the Species ............................................................................................................. 17

2.1 Palm Cockatoo ............................................................................................................................ 17

2.1.1 Available Research on Palm Cockatoo Breeding Ecology .................................................... 17

2.1.2 Palm Cockatoo Ecology ........................................................................................................ 17

2.1.3 Future Potential Breeding Habitat ....................................................................................... 19

2.2 Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat ....................................................................................................... 19

3.0 Targeted Ecological Surveys ............................................................................................................ 21

3.1 Palm Cockatoo (Australian) ......................................................................................................... 21

3.1.1 Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 21

3.2 Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat ....................................................................................................... 24

3.2.1 Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 24

4.0 Results ............................................................................................................................................. 26

4.1 Palm Cockatoo ............................................................................................................................ 26

4.2 Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat ....................................................................................................... 28

4.3 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 30

5.0 Offset Proposal................................................................................................................................ 31

5.1 Background of Environmental Offset.................................................................................... 31

5.2 Purpose of Offset Proposal ................................................................................................... 31

5.3 Environmental Offsets Assessment ...................................................................................... 32

5.4 Offset Requirement .............................................................................................................. 33

5.5 Policy Principles .................................................................................................................... 35

5.6 Palm Cockatoo Habitat Assessment ..................................................................................... 35

5.6.1 Key Habitat Features for Palm Cockatoo ...................................................................... 36

5.6.2 Scoring of Habitat Feature Criteria ............................................................................... 36

2

5.7 Habitat Suitability at UBx ...................................................................................................... 38

5.7.1 Overview of Impact Site ................................................................................................ 38

5.7.2 Overview of Offset Area ................................................................................................ 40

5.7.3 Calculator Scores ........................................................................................................... 42

5.8 Offset Sites Start Values ........................................................................................................ 42

5.9 Offset Logistics ...................................................................................................................... 42

5.9.1 Legally Securing the Offset............................................................................................ 42

5.9.2 Offset Management Actions ......................................................................................... 43

5.9.3 Monitoring and Reporting ............................................................................................ 47

5.9.4 Governance Arrangements ........................................................................................... 50

6.0 Social and Economic Matters .......................................................................................................... 51

6.1 Economic Analysis ................................................................................................................. 51

6.1.1 Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 51

6.1.2 Assumptions for Economic Analysis and Economic Estimates ............................................ 53

6.1.3 Economic Results ................................................................................................................. 55

7.0 ESD Principles .................................................................................................................................. 57

8.0 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 60

References ............................................................................................................................................ 61

Figures

Figure 1 Regional Location ...................................................................................................................... 9 Figure 2 Local Map ................................................................................................................................ 10 Figure 3 Mine Process ........................................................................................................................... 11 Figure 4 Common UBx Transitional Area .............................................................................................. 14 Figure 5 Survey site locations within MLA1000444 and Proposed offset locations ............................. 23 Figure 6 Survey effort focus for Palm Cockatoo (July 2016) ................................................................. 37 Figure 7 BioCondition Reference Site Locations ................................................................................... 41

Tables

Table 1 PD Assessment Criteria .............................................................................................................. 4 Table 2 Project Disturbance and Infrastructure Locations ..................................................................... 7 Table 3 Summarised Impact (mine Area A) and Proposed Offset Area ................................................ 33 Table 4 Key breeding habitat features for Palm Cockatoo ................................................................... 36 Table 5 Impact Area Details .................................................................................................................. 39 Table 6 Details of Proposed Offset Area within MLA100044 ............................................................... 40 Table 7 Palm Cockatoo Offset - Area - Calculator Input (start) and Offset Area future quality (outcome) scores .................................................................................................................................. 42 Table 8 Management Actions for Offset Area ..................................................................................... 44

3

Table 9 Reference Site Locations for BioCondition Assessment ........................................................... 47 Table 10 Monitoring and Reporting Requirements .............................................................................. 48 Table 11 Reporting Schedule ................................................................................................................ 49 Table 12 Assessment of ESD Principles ................................................................................................. 57

Plates

Plate 1 Examining tree hollows …………………………………………………………………………………………………….22 Plate 2 Examining tree hollows ......................................................................................................... 24 Plate 3 Song Meter harnessed to tree ………………………………………………………………………………………….24 Plate 4 Motion camera facing tree hollow ........................................................................................... 25 Plate 5 Chewed Parinari nonda fruit ……………………………………………………………………………………………….26 Plate 6 Evidence of Sulphur-Crested Cockatoo and chewed Parinari nonda fruit ............................... 27

Appendices

Appendix A – EPBC Referral 2016/7706 ............................................................................................... 63

Appendix B – METServe Terrestrial Ecology Report ............................................................................. 64

Appendix C – Request for Additional Information from DEE ................................................................ 65

Appendix D – Microbat Call Identification Report by Balance! Environmental .................................... 66

Appendix E – EPBC Offset Calculator for Palm Cockatoo ..................................................................... 67

4

Adequacy Checklist In order to satisfactorily comply with the Australian Government Department of the Environment and Energy (DEE) Controlled Action Assessment (2016/7706) for the Urquhart Bauxite Project, an adequacy checklist for this Preliminary Documentation (PD) has been developed in order to guide Assessing Officers to relevant sections throughout the document (Table 1).

Table 1 PD Assessment Criteria

Requested information Detail Relevant Section

Offset proposal - Measures to compensate for residual impacts to Palm Cockatoo and Bare-rumped Sheathtail bat

- Details of offset package - An analysis of how offset package meets the

requirements

Section 3.0, 3.1 and 3.2 and 4.0, 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3.

Section 5.0

Social and economic matters

- Details of public consultation activities undertaken and their outcomes

- Details of any consultation with Indigenous stakeholders

- Projected economic costs and benefits of the project, including the basis for their estimation through cost/benefit analysis or similar studies

- Employment opportunities expected to be generated

All of section 6.0

Identification of affected parties

- Statement mentioning any communities that may be affected

Section 6.1.3.3

Ecologically sustainable development principles

- Discussion of how the proposal will conform to the principles of ESD

Section 7.0

5

Executive Summary Oresome Bauxite Pty Ltd (Oresome) is planning to develop a small bauxite mine on western Cape York, the Urquhart Bauxite Project (UBx). The UBx comprises two bauxite deposits (mine Area A and mine Area B) within the northeast of Exploration Permit for Minerals 15268.

This Preliminary Documentation Report provides the information requested by the Australian Government Department of the Environment and Energy (DEE) to assist with the assessment of the UBx. In developing the UBx, all necessary precautions and measures have been taken to ensure compliance and the best possible environmental, social and economic outcomes. Residual impacts, offset requirements, social and economic matters and ecological sustainability pertaining to UBx are outlined in this report.

In June 2016, DEE determined that the action was controlled and required assessment by way of Preliminary Documentation. The determination was based on the likelihood that the proposed action will have a significant impact on Listed threatened species and communities (Section 18). To provide DEE with an accurate assessment of impacts to Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat and Palm Cockatoo, additional field surveys were subsequently conducted between 24-29 July 2016 and 13-16 December 2016. The purpose of the field surveys was to assess the potential for breeding sites for Palm Cockatoo to occur within the proposed mining areas and to assess the potential for the presence of Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat.

The UBx will not result in a residual impact to known breeding habitat for Palm Cockatoo and will not result in residual impacts to the presence of Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat. There is a low potential that the Palm Cockatoo could breed in sections of woodland present at the UBx in the future, so an offset proposal has been prepared to address the possible, but unlikely, scenario regarding impacts to those areas of the site. However, as Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat is not present on the site and unlikely to use the site in the future, there can be no residual impact and no offset is therefore required.

The proposed offsets will directly contribute to the ongoing potential, future viability of Palm Cockatoo habitat in the region around the UBx and deliver an overall conservation outcome that improves or maintains the viability of Palm Cockatoo and other Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES) species as compared to what is likely to have occurred if neither the action nor the offset had taken place.

An Offset Area Management Plan (OAMP) will be prepared in accordance with the specific requirements contained within this Offset Proposal. The OAMP includes, but is not limited to, information on the threats and the management actions required on the offset site to abate those threats identified to the Palm Cockatoo. The OAMP contains details of the management and the reporting and monitoring program that will extend until the management outcomes are achieved.

Construction and operation of the UBx is expected to directly benefit the local region both socially and economically. The indirect effect of UBx will represent an increase in employment across all support sectors (i.e. sectors providing inputs to supply sectors).

Furthermore, following the National Strategy for achieving Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD), UBx met the following core objectives;

• Individual and community well-being enhancement by following a path of economic development that safeguards the welfare of future generations

6

• Equity within and between generations • Protection of biological diversity and essential ecological processes

Through this document, Oresome Bauxite Pty Ltd (Oresome) has met its requirement to provide the Department with a response to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) Controlled Action Assessment (2016/7706) for the Urquhart Bauxite Project.

7

1.0 Introduction to the Project Oresome Bauxite Pty Ltd (Oresome) is pleased to provide the Australian Government Department of the Environment and Energy (DEE) a response to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) Controlled Action Assessment (2016/7706) for the Urquhart Bauxite Project (UBx).

A referral for a ‘not controlled’ action was made by Oresome under the EPBC Act however; the action was determined to be a ‘controlled’ action requiring assessment by way of Preliminary Documentation on 17 June 2016 (Refer Appendix A for Referral Document). The controlled action determination by the DEE was based on the likelihood that the proposed action will have a significant impact on Listed Threatened Species and Communities (Section 18).

The purpose of this document is to address the requirements requested by the DEE in regards to the project and the assessment by Preliminary Documentation.

1.1 Site Description and Details The UBx is located on the western side of Cape York on the Gulf of Carpentaria within Mine Lease Application (MLA) 100044 and includes an area of approximately 1,359 ha (refer Figure 1 and Figure 2). The UBx area is located south of the Embley River and adjacent both the Urquhart Heavy Mineral Sands and Amrun projects. The UBx MLA is situated on Lot 213, SP241407 (Aurukun Shire Council) and Lot 10, SP266623 (Napranum Aboriginal Shire). To the west, the UBx is bounded by Roberts Creek and to the south, Wooldrum Creek.

The UBx comprises two bauxite deposits (Area A and Area B). These bauxite deposits are located within the northeast of Exploration Permit for Minerals (EPM) 15268 and comprise an area of approximately 774 ha. An additional 12 ha of land will be required to support haul roads and associated mine infrastructure. A MLA has been lodged for the activity – MLA100044.

Mined material would be hauled approximately 16 km by truck across Mine Lease (ML) 7024 to the existing Hey Point Bauxite Project (HPBP) loading facility on ML201611 (EPBC 2014/7382) which is operated by Green Coast Resources. Refer to Figure 3 for the layout of the UBx Project in relation to adjacent projects, the haul road and the HPBP.

Access to the UBx for construction will be from the Peninsula Developmental Road (PDR) via the Aurukun Road, and existing access tracks through private land and ML7024. Up to 25 construction and operational staff are expected to travel daily to site from Weipa using the Hey Point ferry service. No onsite accommodation will be required for the Project during its construction or operational phases. Refer Table 2 for project disturbance and infrastructure locations.

Table 2 Project Disturbance and Infrastructure Locations

Aspect Area Total mine lease area 1,359 ha Mine Area A (investigated impact area which includes a 50 m buffer) 227 ha Mine Area B (not considered part of the impact area) 547 ha Haul road (internal to mine lease area) 22 ha Haul road (external to mine lease area) 26 ha Workshop, office and port-a-loo 0.00545 ha 50 m buffer within mine Area A (included in investigated impact area) 50.9 ha Area of impact in mine Area A (mine Area A (227 ha) minus 50 m buffer (50.9 ha))

176 ha

8

There are no conservation reserves, stock routes, easements or public road reserves within the Project area. No additional land tenures than those described above would be affected by the Project.

No planning schemes or Regional Plans apply to the area; therefore, the site is not subject to zoning or strategic designation under a statutory planning document.

12

1.1.1 General Environmental Values The natural values of the areas within and adjacent UBx were assessed through a review of previous studies and public databases, as well as wet season and dry season surveys of the mining lease completed in 2015 and targeted ecological surveys completed in July and December 2016. A full description of the methodology and results of the 2015 surveys was published with the EPBC Act Referral for the UBx and is included at Appendix B (METServe 2016). The methods and results from the targeted 2016 surveys are provided below.

Minimisation of ecological impacts has been a major consideration in the planning of the UBx Project. Despite this, the construction and operation of the UBx may have a number of potential short and long-term impacts on environmental values. These impacts are summarised below:

• Approximately 774 ha is required for the two mine Areas and an additional 12 ha (from a total of 1,359 ha) for access tracks, temporary materials stockpiles and minor haul roads. The area for planned mining in mine Area A has been verified through resource drilling whereas drilling has not been completed in mine Area B. Therefore, the total area of mining is expected to decrease once the resource is defined in mine Area B

• Remaining 585 ha of MLA100044 will remain unmined. This area will increase following definition of the resource in mine Area B. Additionally, a buffer of at least 50 m (50.9 ha) will be established from the edge of mining areas towards the western coast to avoid impacts to coastal wetland, vine thicket, mangrove and ephemeral freshwater wetlands

• General mining activities, there is a potential for direct mortality of fauna through mining operations, dust generation, land clearances, waste disposal and human activities, all of which can disturb the regular behaviour of wildlife

• All mined panels will commence rehabilitation activities prior to the shut-down of operations at the end of each dry season. With this progressive rehabilitation approach, it is expected that vegetation will begin the process of rehabilitation during the subsequent wet season

• Cumulative impacts, contribution of environmental degradation in the region through increased footprint of land disturbance from bauxite mining

1.2 Description of Action Oresome is proposing to develop the UBx Project at a site approximately 5 km south of the township of Weipa on the west coast of Cape York Peninsula, Queensland. The area is well known for bauxite mining of a scale much larger than that proposed for UBx. The UBx is in the vicinity of other approved projects, with the Urquhart Heavy Mineral Sands project (EPBC 2010/5707) to the west and Rio Tinto’s Amrun project (EPBC 2008/4435) to the south and east. In June 2015, Oresome lodged a Mining Lease Application (MLA100044) for the UBx, comprising 1,359 ha and covering two areas of bauxite – Area A and Area B. Additional planned drilling in mine Area B will reduce the footprint based on the location of the bauxite resource.

Area A and Area B will be mined sequentially during the dry season (from April to November) over the life of the mine. Mining will commence at Area A which will be mined at a maximum rate of less than 1.5 Mt of bauxite per year for a 4 year mine life period. The inferred resource available in mine Area A is approximately 7 Mt of bauxite, restricting the resource both in terms of production rate and physical availability. Mining of Area B will follow completion at mine Area A and is expected to have a smaller volume of resource and approximate 4 year mine life. Physical constraints on production will ensure that maximum production rates are not exceeded. Due to the quality of the resource being largely Direct Shipping Bauxite (DSB), no beneficiation onsite is required, apart from

13

minor screening to separate debris. This means that no washing of the bauxite will occur onsite, avoiding the requirement for any associated sediment detention ponds or risks of releasing turbid waters to adjacent creeks.

Mined bauxite will be hauled approximately 16 km by truck from the Project site, across the approved Amrun ML7024, to a stockpile location within Green Coast Resources’ approved Hey Point Bauxite Project (HPBP) (EPBC 2014/7382) on ML20611 (Figure 4). Stockpiled bauxite would be conveyed and exported by barge under an existing approval held by Green Coast Resources. The inclusion of bauxite from UBx is within the limits of the existing HPBP approval and will not require any amendment to the HPBP conditions of approval. In order to support both projects, a commercial agreement between Oresome and Green Coast Resources was reached in April 2016. Similarly, Oresome is seeking to reach an agreement with Rio Tinto regarding the hauling of ore across ML7024. Oresome will lodge a ML application under s316 of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (MR Act) for transportation across ML7024.

During development of the draft Environmental Authority (EA) required for Queensland Government assessment of the Project under the Environmental Protection Act 1994, Oresome identified a number of activities and operational efficiencies to minimise potential impacts to Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES), including the following:

• Use of traditional shallow pit, panel bauxite mining methods, with truck and shovel or scraper operations within defined mine Area A and mine Area B

• Mining operation limited to the dry season, with progressive rehabilitation occurring as part of the annual shut-down program and prior to the commencement of the wet season

• Sediment and erosion control measures appropriate to stabilise mined areas prior to the site being shut-down before the wet season

• Clean water drainage diverted away from mining areas. Mine-affected water will be captured and contained within the mine workings and managed for reuse during the dry season operation. The mine will not require any defined discharge locations

• Shallow mine pit will not interact with deeper confined groundwater reserves. Unconfined, surface aquifer will be largely dry during operations

• Retaining an unmined portion of the site of approximately 585 ha • A buffer of at least 50 m will be established from the edge of mining areas towards the

western coast • Product bauxite to be hauled by truck from the UBx across a haul road through a transport

mine lease across the adjacent ML7024 to the HPBP stockpile • Storage and export from the HPBP will be according to the conditions of approval for the

HPBP and will not require amendment to accommodate bauxite from the UBx Project, apart from an extension to the duration of the barging activity beyond 2020

• Power will be supplied from a combination of diesel-fuelled generators and renewable energy (solar panels). A self-bunded diesel re-fuelling facility for plant and equipment will be located at HPBP, avoiding the need for any re-fuelling at the Project site

• Water will be required for potable supplies and dust suppression • Staff will access site daily by small boat from Weipa. All plant and equipment will be brought

in via the road network from Weipa as and when required. Major transportable plant will be stored at the HPBP site

• Mining activities will occur seven days a week, with one 12 hour shift per day. Oresome will however reserve the right to undertake a double-shift in order to meet productivity needs

15

1.3 EPBC Process The EPBC Act is the key piece of Commonwealth legislation governing environmental protection in Australia. Under Part 3 of the EPBC Act, a person must not undertake an action (e.g. a project, a development, an undertaking, an activity or a series of activities, or an alteration of any of these things) that will have, or is likely to have, a significant impact on a protected matter, without approval from the Minister for the DEE (the Minister).

The UBx was referred to the DEE and on 17 June 2016, was determined to be a ‘controlled action’ with the assessment method as Preliminary Documentation. The DEE was primarily concerned with the potential for significant impacts to the vulnerable Palm Cockatoo (Probosciger aterrimus) and Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat (Saccolaimus saccolaimus). On 7 December 2016, the DEE downgraded the Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat conservation listing to Vulnerable. This downgrading was part of a rigorous scientific assessment of the species and was undertaken by the Threatened Species Scientific Committee within the DEE. DEE considered that further information on the two species was required to facilitate the assessment of impacts. This was based on the DEEs understanding that the UBx involves the clearing of native vegetation that is known to provide breeding habitat for Palm Cockatoo and may provide habitat for Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat as the Department was unable to determine that the species did not occur in the UBx area.

The specific requirements that DEE requested are detailed in Appendix C and summarised as:

1. Potential residual impacts resulting from a loss of 760 ha of habitat suitable for Palm Cockatoo and Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat

2. Details on social and economic impacts in relation to the proposed action

3. Discussion on how the proposal will conform to the principles of Ecologically Sustainable Development

1.4 Purpose of the Preliminary Documentation Report The purpose of this Preliminary Documentation Report is to provide additional information to the DEE to assist the Preliminary Documentation assessment process and ultimately, obtain formal approval for the UBx Project. To achieve this purpose, the structure of the report responds to the request for additional information (Appendix C) in a logical manner and at times refers to appended technical reports which provide further information.

1.5 Summary of the Existing Environment at UBx The UBx comprises two bauxite deposits (Area A and Area B), comprising an area of approximately 774 ha. Mine Area A comprises a total of 227 ha, including the 50 m environmental buffer. The 50 m environmental buffer (covering 50.9 ha in total) has been excluded from the impact area, bringing the total impact area within mine Area A to 176.1 ha.

Mine Area B also includes a 50 m environmental buffer. The actual impact area for mine Area B will require further investigation to determine the extent of mine area (following extensive drilling and resource examination). The environmental buffer (50.9 ha in total) will function to create a natural separation between the impact area and the proposed offset.

Certified Queensland State Regional Ecosystem (RE) mapping shows the entire UBx area is comprised of remnant vegetation under Queensland’s Regulated Vegetation Management Map. This

16

remnant vegetation comprises 17 regional ecosystems, with RE 3.2.10 (E. tetrodonta open forest/woodland) dominating mine Area A. These include the following REs:

• RE 3.2.10 - Eucalyptus tetrodonta and Corymbia clarksoniana +/- E. brassiana or Erythrophleum chlorostachys woodland on stabilised dunes

• RE 3.3.22 - Corymbia clarksoniana or C. novoguinensis woodland on alluvial plains • RE 3.5.22c - Corymbia clarksoniana (Clarkson's bloodwood) dominates the sparse canopy. In

the northern areas, this species is replaced by another bloodwood, C. novoguinensis. Lophostemon suaveolens (swamp mahogany), Parinari nonda (nonda) and less frequently Erythrophleum chlorostachys (Cooktown ironwood) are subdominant trees

• RE 3.5.2 - Eucalyptus tetrodonta and Corymbia nesophila tall woodland The E. tetrodonta woodland community is relatively homogenous for fauna and is the most abundant vegetation type across Cape York and the broader gulf. Outside of the proposed mine areas, a mosaic of mangrove, vine thicket, saltmarsh, grassland and paperbark swamps are represented (RE 3.2.2a – deciduous vine thicket). There is a lack of rainforest (RE 3.5.4 - Semi deciduous notophyll vine forest) across mine Area A. There is a small area of RE 3.5.4 (3.324 ha) within mine Area B. This area will not be affected as result of mining.

17

2.0 Introduction to the Species 2.1 Palm Cockatoo 2.1.1 Available Research on Palm Cockatoo Breeding Ecology The Palm Cockatoo (Probosciger aterrimus macgillivrayi) was listed as ‘Vulnerable’ under the EPBC Act in late 2015 and is yet to have a formal Recovery Plan prepared.

There have been few detailed studies on the ecology of Cockatoo species in the wild, meaning there is limited available information on the breeding ecology of Palm Cockatoo in the Cape York Peninsula. Murphy et al. (2003) studied the breeding of Palm Cockatoo for three years from July 1999 to February 2002 in and around the Iron Range National Park, (east) Cape York Peninsula, Australia. This peer-reviewed paper remains the seminal study on the breeding of Palm Cockatoo in the wild and is the main piece of literature used in this document.

The limitations of Murphy et al. (2003) include a small sample size (28 nests in total) and a limited observational period which focused on one part of the species range. However, the significance of this study is that it highlighted several key features of its breeding habitat including hollow tree characteristics and distance from rainforest. In this study, nesting was found in large hollow trees with an entrance diameter greater than 20 cm in diameter with a total depth to nest greater than 90 cm, usually within 320 m from rainforest (Murphy et al. 2003).

Considering the available literature, and the emphasis on rainforest (RE 3.5.4) as outlined in Murphy et al. (2003), vine thicket was used as a surrogate habitat for rainforest to describe possible resting and shade opportunities for the species at UBx. The inclusion of vine thicket as a surrogate was made primarily for the purpose of defining the impact and offset areas and was in no way included to suggest that vine thicket acted in the same manner as rainforest for Palm Cockatoo. Section 2.2 discusses the species reliance on rainforest in more detail.

2.1.2 Palm Cockatoo Ecology Rainforest Preference

Palm Cockatoos have been described as both birds of ‘scrub or jungle’ habitats that range into surrounding woodland and as woodland species that feed in rainforest (Wood 1988). Winter and Lethbridge (1995) considered Palm Cockatoo a rainforest specialist. Certainly, the species is recorded in woodland, open forest and closed habitats and is often observed in the ecotone between open savannah woodland and rainforest (Higgins 1999).

The species was found to occupy year-round territories and is a weak seasonal breeder, potentially breeding from late July to early May (Wood 1988). Heinsohn et al. (2009) states nesting in woodland allows Palm Cockatoo to have access to a greater number of hollow trees while remaining close to their rainforest food sources. However, Forshaw and Muller (1978 in Higgins 1999) state that the species moved to rainforest in the late morning to loaf.

In rainforest, they are usually found only on edges (Wood 1988) and in woodland they are usually within 1 km of rainforest (Higgins 1999). Nests are almost always in woodland, at an average distance of 320 m, and up to 1.04 km, from rainforest (Murphy et al. 2003). We note that rainforest is not present at UBx within mine Area A.

18

Weipa – Historical Records

Palm Cockatoo has been described as locally common in the Weipa area (Winter and Atherton 1985), though local declines have been suggested (Garnett et al. 2011). The species was not recorded in northern parts of Cape Urquhart (including Urquhart Point) by Thomas (2004) in six visits between October 1991 to March 1993.

Searches of the Atlas of Living Australia and Queensland’s WildNet database (DEHP 2016c)1, maintained by the Departments of Environment and Heritage Protection (DEHP) and Science, Information Technology and Innovation (DSITI), identify 12 sighting records for the northern part of Urquhart Point, encompassing the UBx and extending to Hey Point in the east. Five of these are WildNet records without location details. ALA typically includes coordinates and date of record, though spatially imprecise records are also included. The ALA and WildNet records may not be mutually exclusive and cannot be relied upon. There are no records of breeding by Palm Cockatoo at or in the vicinity of the UBx.

Based on the available data there is no evidence to suggest the use of woodland / open forest compared to ‘rainforest’ by Palm Cockatoo. Mapping of the 14 historical records for which co-ordinates were available showed no presence within vine thicket, though 11 records were within 2 km of vine thicket patches and two records were immediately adjacent to patches of RE 3.5.4 (rainforest), refer to Figure 6.

Records of the species from mine Area A may represent individuals traversing between areas of habitat. Further, the presence of Sulphur-crested Cockatoos at the site cannot be ruled out as a process that is limiting use by Palm Cockatoo. Evidence of interference competition by conspecifics has suggested strong competition for nest sites (Murphy et al. 2003).

Nesting

Nests are in large hollow trees, primarily large eucalypts in woodland, with an average distance of 320 m to rainforest (Murphy et al. 2003). Large hollow trees possess an entrance diameter greater than 20 cm in diameter with a total depth to nest greater than 90 cm (Murphy et al. 2003). These dimensions constitute successful nesting sites for raising of young (Murphy et al. 2003). Other hollow trees may be claimed by pairs as display sites (Wood 1998; Murphy et al. 2003). Murphy et al. (2003) further discussed the characteristics of nests, going on to describe that active Palm Cockatoo nests were in existing hollow trees in eight species of savannah tree and one species of rainforest tree (Blepharocarya involucrigera). The majority of active nests were found within living trees (62.1 percent) and access to most (62.1 percent) was gained via the trunk shearing (as opposed to branch dropping) (Murphy et al. 2003). Murphy et al. (2003) thus surmised that the typical Palm Cockatoo active nest was found to be in a slightly off-vertical hollow with an opening that faced skywards in a living tree.

1 The WildNet database contains records of wildlife from Queensland Government departments and external organisations. The data sources include specimen collections, research and monitoring programs, inventory programs including extension activities, literature records, wildlife permit returns and community wildlife recording programs and although most of the records are reasonably accurate spatially many of the records are unverified.

19

2.1.3 Future Potential Breeding Habitat Based on studies completed in 2015 and 2016 and historical records, the UBx site does not support breeding of the Palm Cockatoo. Largely, this is due to the lack of rainforest and large, hollow trees. However, with specific management activities, the woodland habitat at UBx may develop hollow characteristics that are closer to known breeding sites, despite the lack of rainforest. The implementation of improved fire management at mine Area A of the site could reduce the frequency of burning of E. tetrodonta woodland which is known to currently be a limiting factor to the formation of hollow trees.

Native Australian trees do not usually develop hollows suitable for use by vertebrates until they are very old. Severe fires can reduce numbers of hollow trees by killing most of a particular cohort of trees, resulting in a relatively even-aged regrowth with a few old or dead trees.

Murphy et al. 2003 found that active nest trees utilised for breeding by Palm Cockatoo were commonly found in E. tetrodonta – a species that dominates the UBx site. However, because of the frequent burning of the landscape at UBx, hollow trees are not prevalent because they are either destroyed during fires or do not have time to develop sufficient hollow depth before being destroyed in subsequent fire events.

Ecological burning to achieve biodiversity conservation outcomes is a useful tool to alter habitat structure and manage for the loss of hollow trees. Fuel reduction burns are fires of low intensity used to remove the fine. This technique could be used to increase the development of hollow trees at UBx as part of the Offset Area Management Plan to facilitate the formation of hollows that were similar to known breeding habitat for Palm Cockatoo.

2.2 Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat Based on known distributions, there are two populations of S. saccolaimus – one from north-eastern Queensland and another from the Kakadu region in the Northern Territory. Both populations occur in geographically separate areas and may represent two different sub-species or species. The sub-species Saccolaimus saccolaimus nudicluniatus has been referred to the north-eastern Queensland population (Koopman 1994), but the status of the Northern Territory population has not been considered (Duncan et al. 1999; McKean et al. 1981, Thompson 1991).

There are no recent (less than 10 years) records for the species and no records from any location between Kakadu and the eastern Cape York. Despite a significant effort to locate the species from projects on western Cape York, none have recorded the species, thus it is considered highly unlikely that the species occurs at the UBx or other sites on the western side of Cape York.

The Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat is listed as ‘Vulnerable’ under the EPBC Act. Little is understood about the biology and ecology of the Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat and the taxonomy is unclear.

Based on known distributions, there are possibly two populations, one from the Northern Territory and the second from north-eastern Queensland. Both populations occur in geographically separate areas and may represent two different sub-species or species.

There are no recent records for the species and it is considered highly unlikely that Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat occurs at sites on the west of Cape York.

Despite the lack of roosting ecology studies the species has been recorded from roosts within E. tetrodonta woodland at Iron Range on the east of Cape York. This record has been extrapolated to infer that the UBx could provide potential roosting habitat for the Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat. The

20

small number of confirmed roosts located on the eastern Cape York were in tree hollows of various species of Eucalyptus at 10-15 m in height. Roost entrances were typically 6-7 m above the ground (Murphy 2002). Again, these records were applied to the presence of hollows in E. tetrodonta at the UBx, despite the lack of records for the species.

Recent studies on call attributes have been able to unambiguously identify the call signatures of closely related Saccolaimus spp., giving greater certainty in identifying the presence or absence of S. saccolaimus using full-spectrum echolocation bat detectors (Milne et al. 2009).

The Amrun project south of Weipa (Rio Tinto 2011) completed an unprecedented level of survey effort for the Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat in two survey blocks during the 2011 dry season. The survey sites are directly south of the UBx. Survey methods and effort were consistent with the Commonwealth's Survey Guidelines for Australia's Threatened Bats (DEWHA 2010a), and included representation in the dominant E. tetrodonta closed forest habitat as well as riparian vegetation communities, both inside and outside the planned infrastructure footprints. Survey methods were designed to maximise the likelihood of detection of the high flying Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat and included trapping with harp traps and mist nets in the forest canopy, and acoustic surveys based on full spectrum (high quality) recordings with ultrasonic recorders. The study remains the largest and most comprehensive search for Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat in Australia, involving 20 detection/capture nights, with multiple traps/nets or detectors deployed per night and the most effort with an appropriate capture technique (rope-mounted mist nets in the tree canopy). Despite this effort, the species was not confirmed to be present and there was no evidence to suggest that the species utilised the area surveyed.

21

3.0 Targeted Ecological Surveys Comprehensive ecological surveys were completed at the UBx in 2015 with additional surveys in 2016 to identify the presence of current or historic Palm Cockatoo breeding or the presence of Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat. A rigorous review of available data on these species was completed as part of the development of the field method. The method was provided to DEE and comments were received and integrated prior to commencing the targeted surveys in 2016.

The approaches presented are based on the known and accepted scientific records for the two species, documented threatening processes and results from recent survey efforts for adjacent projects. The methods were developed by ecologists qualified in the preparation and implementation of rigorous field assessments and were used to reasonably describe the extent of breeding habitat and likely presence of Palm Cockatoo and Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat, respectively, at the UBx. Further, the involvement of DEE ensured the methods were appropriate and in accordance with the available literature.

The results from the survey were used to determine the extent of habitat, if any, likely to be impacted either directly or indirectly as a result of the mining activity for the UBx. Any residual impacts requiring offsetting would then be determined.

3.1 Palm Cockatoo (Australian) 3.1.1 Methodology The Targeted Species Survey Guidelines for the Palm Cockatoo (Rowland 2013) (based on the DEWHA (2010b) Survey Guidelines for Australia’s Threatened Birds) recommend at a minimum:

• Four (4) hours of search effort over two days per 100 ha • Targeted searches three (3) hours after dawn and before dusk • Systematically searching for birds and signs of their presence (e.g. nest trees and display

hollows) as well as listening for their calls throughout the survey area

The DEWHA (2010b) Survey Guidelines and peer-reviewed studies were reviewed in determining a survey design for Palm Cockatoo. The survey method involved:

• In the absence of rainforest (RE 3.5.4) within mine Area A, vine thicket (RE 3.2.2a) was used as a surrogate habitat community. Similar to rainforest, vine thicket is unlikely to be burnt on a regular basis. This has not been determined in the literature, but provided a basis for assessing sites

• Observations of hollow trees (the known preferred nesting feature for the species) and suitably large tree hollows, were made across the entire site

• Figure 5 outlines the location of potential breeding survey sites. o Impact Sites (IS) - located within mine Area A o Offset Sites (OS) - located outside mine Area A o Comparison Sites (CS) - located at Hey Point

• At a minimum, 4 hours of targeted surveying per day (3 hours after dawn and before dusk) over 6 days. Given the lack of rainforest on the site, focus was on the potential future breeding habitat adjacent potential foraging/feeding habitat

• Surveying was conducted within a period 3 hours after dawn and before dusk • The survey area consisted of:

o Open eucalypt woodland dominated by E. tetrodonta on sandy soils (REs 3.2.10, 3.5.2, 3.5.22c) adjacent vine thicket

o Semi-deciduous vine thicket (RE 3.2.2a) adjacent E. tetrodonta woodland

22

o Seasonally swampy open forests dominated by Melaleuca spp. and/or Lophostemon suaveolens (REs 3.2.4, 3.3.9, 3.3.14b, and 3.3.42) that are adjacent vine thicket and/or E. tetrodonta woodland

• Searches for signs of nesting activity, including: o Piles of small, dead branches at the base of trees indicative of nest building o Branches that have been clearly sheared at an angle of approximately 45 degrees

near hollows and used for displays • Hollows up to 12 m above ground and hollow E. tetrodonta were inspected at the IS, OS and

CS sites via a mounted camera, where safe to do so • Surveys were conducted on foot whilst simultaneously listening for calls

Two surveys were undertaken from 25 to 31 July 2016 and 13 to 16 December 2016 with approximately 120 person-hours spent in the UBx MLA area searching for Palm Cockatoo. The surveys were conducted in accordance with the method described above.

The site was traversed by ATV, providing visual opportunities and also by foot, both as random meanders and as transects, facilitating visual and aural recording. The survey was conducted by Dr Mark Breitfuss, Mr Terry Reis and Dr Andrew Daniel. Mr Reis is an expert in fauna ecology possessing over 40 years’ experience in finding and identifying wildlife. Dr Breitfuss is a Principal Environmental Scientist with over 23 years’ experience in terrestrial ecology and consultancy. Dr Daniel is an Ecologist with over 20 years’ experience in terrestrial ecology, botany and consultancy.

A number of suitably large tree hollows were examined by GoPro camera on an extendable pole, with images streamed to a mobile phone (Plates 1 and 2). This technique was limited by the number of apparently suitable tree hollows sufficiently low to be accessed. The base of suitable hollow-bearing trees was searched for evidence of nesting activity, such as piles of small, dead branches. The number and size of hollows within transects was quantified.

24

Plate 1 Examining tree hollows Plate 2 Examining tree hollows

3.2 Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat 3.2.1 Methodology To make a more reliable determination of the species’ potential occupation of proposed mine areas within the UBx, a targeted survey was employed to observe habitat and collect and analyse full-spectrum echolocation recording data. The survey methodology built upon previous studies in the region including the Amrun Project, Hey Point Bauxite Project (HPBP) and Skardon River Project. The DEWHA (2010a) Survey Guidelines for Australia’s Threatened Bats recommend:

• The use of acoustic detection including overnight static sets as a minimum • Identification and searches of potential roost hollows using cameras or acoustic recording of

emerging bats • A minimum 16 survey nights (i.e. four acoustic detectors deployed over four nights in

suitable habitat areas)

Previous surveys within the Weipa region and DEWHA (2010a) Survey Guidelines were reviewed in determining a survey design suitable for Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat at the UBx. The survey method included:

• Targeted surveys during the late dry season for a total of four (4) nights across a survey area of approximately 200 ha (refer to Figure 5);

• The use of four (4) SM2BAT full-spectrum echolocation bat detectors with ultrasonic recorders deployed for four (4) nights

• Bat detectors were stratified across vegetation representing potentially suitable habitat for the species and including:

o Open eucalypt woodland dominated by E. tetrodonta on sandy soils (REs 3.2.10, 3.5.2, 3.5.22c)

o Semi-deciduous vine thicket (REs 3.2.2a) o Seasonally swampy open forests dominated by Melaleuca spp. and/or Lophostemon

suaveolens (REs 3.2.4, 3.3.9, 3.3.14b, 3.3.42) o Ephemeral wetlands dominated by the sedge Eleocharis sundaica (RE 3.3.63)

• Locations for recording within suitable habitat areas adjacent to tree hollows or near

25

waterbodies where bat activity is typically high • Use of four (4) motion cameras sighted at hollow trees to determine possible roost

exiting/entry • Detectors were set at dusk and remained in operation for the entire night until dawn,

ensuring that recordings take place during periods of peak activity • Echolocation data reviewed by an expert (Greg Ford from Balance! Environmental) • Inspections for potential roost sites (e.g. fallen timber, accessible tree hollows) carried out

for 1-2 hours per survey day

The fast and highly manoeuvrable flight capabilities Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat above the tree canopy makes the species extremely difficult to capture using traditional trapping methods. The risk of mist netting causing injury to non-target species was duly considered. Furthermore, in considering the effort already put into harp trapping and mist netting by previous studies in the area (Amrun and HPBP) and the failure of these measures to capture individuals, mist netting was not employed.

To sample for Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat at UBx, four SM2bat+ full-spectrum echolocation bat detectors with ultrasonic recorders were deployed for four nights, between 26 and 29 July 2016. Rather than locating the detectors based on habitat type, sites were chosen by the presence of apparently suitable tree hollows. Spatial representation was also taken into account. In addition to the proposed methods, motion cameras were installed at each bat detector site and facing towards hollows.

Where applicable, hollows were inspected for potential use as roosts and relevant features described.

Plate 3 Song Meter harnessed to tree Plate 4 Motion camera facing tree hollow

The site was traversed by ATV and on foot. The survey was conducted by Dr Mark Breitfuss and Mr Terry Reis. Data was analysed by Greg Ford of Balance! Environmental Pty Ltd. Mr Ford is an expert in Australian bat ecology and biology, and suitably experienced in the analysis of echolocation data using the latest software. Mr Ford is qualified to provide an expert analysis of software results and to interpret findings.

26

The data set received for analysis included 231 full-spectrum (WAV format) files, recorded using Song Meter detectors (Wildlife Acoustics, USA) deployed at the four sites. Wildlife Acoustics’ Kaleidoscope Version 2.3.0 was used to convert the WAV files to individual bat call sequence files in both zero-crossing analysis (ZC) format and WAV format. The “Advanced signal enhancement” feature of Kaleidoscope was disabled to ensure all files contained more complete ZC sequences.

A subset of files containing representative samples of all call types recorded each night at each site were selected for further analysis. Calls with fewer than four clearly-defined, non-fragmented pulses were excluded from the identification process. Identification of species from the Vespertilionidae, Miniopteridae, Megadermatidae, Hipposideridae and Rhinolophidae Families was based solely on the preliminary analysis in AnalookW.

All calls identified with characteristic frequency of 18-28 kHz were considered to belong to a group of Emballonurid and Molossid species that includes Saccolaimus saccolaimus. Further clarification of the identity of these calls was achieved by following the Saccolaimus identification scheme proposed by species expert, Dr Kyle Armstrong. The two key components of this approach were to:

• View spectrograms of the matching full-spectrum (WAV) files with Kaleidoscope Viewer to ascertain call harmonic structure

• Extract call parameters using AnalookW and compare those statistically (Discriminant Function Analysis) with the parameters measured from reference calls of several species that call in the same frequency range

4.0 Results 4.1 Palm Cockatoo Sightings

During the 2016 surveys, no Palm Cockatoo was recorded at impact sites or offset sites within UBx. No evidence of current or historic breeding, display or roosting was recorded within the UBx area.

Feeding activity from a cockatoo was possibly recorded, but due to the age of the fruits it not possible to determine the species responsible (Plate 5).

A single Palm Cockatoo was recorded at a comparison site, south of Hey Point while in transit, approximately 8 km east of mine Area A and 9.5 km east northeast of mine Area B of the UBx area (Figure 5). The bird was initially seen in flight. It landed in a large E. tetrodonta within 20 m of a patch of semi-deciduous notophyll vine forest (RE 3.5.4 rainforest). This observation is consistent with the study conducted and described in Murphy et al. (2003). After a few minutes the bird flew off in a north-easterly direction. A search of the immediate area, at Hey Point, revealed a number of tree hollows (but no hollow trees) and a number of fruiting Parinari nonda, a known food tree for Palm Cockatoo (Wood 1988). There were chewed fruits beneath two of the trees, though Sulphur-crested Cockatoo Cacatua galerita feathers were present on the ground under one tree, suggesting that this species may have been partly or wholly responsible (Plate 6).

27

Plate 5 Chewed Parinari nonda fruit Plate 6 Evidence of Sulphur-Crested Cockatoo and chewed Parinari nonda fruit

Feeding

Parinari nonda was common in mine Area A and mine Area B of the UBx, particularly on the eastern side of the vine thicket in mine Area A (Figure 5). Many of the Parinari nonda were in fruit but avian feeding signs were found below only one tree which was within 50 m of vine thicket to the east of Roberts Creek in mine Area A (Plate 5). Some fruits under one tree had been chewed and the seed removed. The dried condition of the fruits suggested the feeding had occurred in previous seasons. Palm Cockatoo may have been responsible but Sulphur-crested Cockatoo was widespread in small numbers onsite, with no more than four birds seen together. Sulphur-crested Cockatoo was recorded in similar numbers in April and in slightly higher numbers in November (Appendix B). Red-tailed Black Cockatoo Calyptorhynchus banksii was recorded on two occasions during this survey (this species was not recorded during the April and December 2015 surveys). Presumably both these species may also eat Parinari nonda, particularly Sulphur-crested Cockatoo which is quite generalist in its diet (Higgins 1999).

In the targeted surveys completed for UBx, Parinari nonda was common in woodland and open forest, with large numbers of the species in fruit. Palm Cockatoo is also known to feed on Canarium australianum, Planchonia careya, E. tetrodonta, Grevillea glauca and Persoonia falcata (Higgins 1999), all of which occur in the open forest onsite. There are no feeding records for Palm Cockatoo on the site and it is unlikely that the site conditions are conducive to supporting the species.

RE 3.5.4 (rainforest) typically has a canopy height of 18-25 m (DEHP 2016b), with the patch located in mine Area B being 15-24 m tall. RE 3.5.4 (rainforest) is known to contain Canarium australianum (DEHP 2016b), however RE 3.5.4 (rainforest) was not present at the investigated impact area of mine Area A (Appendix B). Structurally, RE 3.2.2a (vine thicket) typically has a canopy height of 6-12 m, with emergents occasionally to 25 m (DEHP 2016a). The vine thicket onsite occurs at 8-9 m in height

28

and was found on the dry western edges of the site. The vine thicket may provide the species with an opportunity to ‘loaf’ as per Forshaw and Muller (1978) but does not support rainforest food tree species (Appendix B), in which case the taller RE 3.5.4 (rainforest) would appear to be more appropriate as a refuge and feeding resource than RE 3.2.2a. The publicly available records support this, with 9 of the 14 known occurrences being within 2 km of RE 3.5.4 (rainforest) at Hey Point, approximately 9 km east of the Project (refer Figure 6).

Breeding

Mine Area A and mine Area B did not support any hollow trees that met the characteristics described by Murphy et al. (2003) as preferred breeding sites for the Palm Cockatoo. Fire is a common feature at the site and is known to destroy hollow trees. Hollow trees can act as chimneys during regular fire events, resulting in a complete lack of hollow trees at the site. As a result, the presence of possible breeding trees is a limiting factor to breeding of the species on the site.

Compared to the known preferred breeding conditions – hollow trees in living E. tetrodonta (Murphy et al. 2003) - tree hollows may also provide value for future breeding opportunities. Small (< 20 cm diameter) tree hollows were very common in the open forest onsite, especially in E. tetrodonta. The survey methodology quantified the number of tree hollows less than 20 cm in diameter and greater than 20 cm in diameter as a means of discriminating tree hollows with regard to their possible future suitability as nest sites as described by Murphy et al. (2003). Tree hollows that were investigated by camera did not suggest any recent or historic use by Palm Cockatoo. Further, the inspection method identified that the number of incomplete hollows was more common than might be assumed without inspection.

4.2 Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat The level of effort undertaken at the UBx was equivalent to 16 nights of survey with SM2BAT full-spectrum echolocation bat detectors using ultrasonic recorders. Based on the data collected, method of analysis and species recorded, if Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat was present at the UBx, it should have been identified, but was not.

The Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat was not positively identified from echolocation data recorded onsite. The likelihood of S. saccolaimus being present at UBx remains low as the presence of the species on the western side of Cape York is not recorded and remains uncertain. In addition, hollow inspections and motion camera results did not identify any movement or presence of S. Saccolaimus.

The likelihood of the presence of S. saccolaimus based on a particular call recording dataset was assessed in the context of seven criteria that can be helpful in separating the calls of the three Australian species of Saccolaimus. Selected calls can meet several criteria, however only meeting criterion 6 and/or criterion 7 provides an unambiguous identification of the species. Full-spectrum echolocation recordings did not meet criterion 6 and/or 7 to unambiguously identify S. saccolaimus. (Appendix D).

At least five, and as many as nine bat species were recorded during the survey. Three species were positively identified: Miniopterus orianae oceanensis, Chaerephon jobensis, and Saccolaimus mixtus. Two additional unique call types each potentially represented two species (Chalinolobus nigrogriseus/Scotorepens greyii and Myotis macropus/Nyctophilus bifax), which are difficult to differentiate using call data. A number of other calls probably belonged to the positively-identified species, but could not be reliably identified due to inter-species call similarities. (Appendix D)

29

Reliable differentiation between S. mixtus or S. saccolaimus or Mormopterus lumsdenae was challenging for some call data collected. Most calls confirmed as Saccolaimus due to visible harmonics at multiples of 10-12 kHz in WAV recordings. S. mixtus was confirmed for the majority of those calls due to uniformity of pulses (i.e. no evidence of alternation that is more typical of S. saccolaimus). Some of the Saccolaimus calls had erratic changes in pulse shape and/or frequency (cf. regular alternation), which precluded reliable attribution to either species. However, it is highly probable that these would all be S. mixtus. (Appendix D).

30

4.3 Conclusion During surveys conducted over four events between April 2015 and July 2016, there was no evidence of breeding by Palm Cockatoo onsite at mine Area A or mine Area B. The species has been recorded flying over the UBx, though this could simply be accounted for as individuals flying between preferred sites. The absence of rainforest or preferred hollow trees in proximity to rainforest (Murphy et al. 2003) is likely responsible for the lack of current or historic breeding records at the site. Therefore, it could be concluded that mine Area A is not suitable to support breeding of Palm Cockatoo.

Based on surveys completed for the UBx and at adjacent projects, there is no evidence to suggest the presence of the Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat in either mine Area A or mine Area B. The UBx area contains E. tetrodonta, a hollow bearing tree species that has previously been observed as a roosting site for S. saccolaimus. However, there is a lack of roosting ecology studies to definitively conclude E. tetrodonta as the obligate roosting tree of this species. There are no recent (less than 10 years) records for the species and no records within eastern Cape York. It remains highly improbable that S. saccolaimus is present onsite given a lack of historical records in the region, failure of previous studies to find evidence of the species and a lack of unambiguous call data.

The UBx will not result in a residual impact to known breeding habitat for the Palm Cockatoo and will not result in residual impacts to the presence of Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat. There is limited potential that the Palm Cockatoo could use sections of the UBx in the future, so an offset proposal has been prepared below to address the possible, but unlikely, scenario regarding residual impacts to those areas of the site. However, as the Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat is not present on the site and unlikely to use the site in the future, there can be no residual impact and no offset required.