section 6 terrestrial and freshwater ecology - metro mining · 2018-08-09 · freshwater bodies but...
TRANSCRIPT
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.
Bauxite Hills Project Supplementary Report to the Environmental Impact Statement
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.
Bauxite Hills Project Supplementary Report to the Environmental Impact Statement
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
Bauxite Hills Project Supplementary Report to the Environmental Impact Statement
6-5
Site coordinates
Description Photographs
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
Early dry season – June 2016 image 2
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)
Bauxite Hills Project Supplementary Report to the Environmental Impact Statement
6-6
Site coordinates
Description Photographs
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.
Early dry season – June 2016 image 1
Early dry season – June 2016 image 2
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)
Skardon RiverBauxite Project
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
Bauxite Hills Project Supplementary Report to the Environmental Impact Statement
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
Bauxite Hills Project Supplementary Report to the Environmental Impact Statement
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
Bauxite Hills Project Supplementary Report to the Environmental Impact Statement
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
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
Historical surface water sampling locations(including June 2016)
©COPYRIGHT CDM SMITHThis drawing is confidential and shall only be used
for the purpose of this project.
APPROVED
DRAWN
15/12/16
CHECKED
Legend
DNRM Dulhunty River Gauge Station
Surface Water Sampling Location
Major watercourse
Minor watercourse
Bauxite Hills Project Infrastructure
Skardon River Bauxite Project Infrastructure
DATA SOURCEMEC Mining;
QLD Government Open Source Data;Australian Hydrological Geospatial Fabric
(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
Skardon RiverBauxite Project
Airport Strip
Bauxite Hills Project Haul Road Easement
BH6 West MLA boundary
(ML 20689)
Skardon RiverBauxite Project
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 Hills ProjectFixed Tide Gauge
Bauxite Hills ProjectCyclone Moorings
Skardon RiverBauxite Project
Mine Infrastructure Area,Port and Barge
Loading Facility
Bauxite Hills Project Supplementary Report to the Environmental Impact Statement
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
AQ01 AQ02 AQ03 AQ04 AQ05 AQ06
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.
Bauxite Hills Project Supplementary Report to the Environmental Impact Statement
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.
Bauxite Hills Project Supplementary Report to the Environmental Impact Statement
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
AQ01 AQ02 AQ03 AQ04 AQ05 AQ06
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.
Bauxite Hills Project Supplementary Report to the Environmental Impact Statement
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
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
0 500 1,000250
Metres
Haul roads - watercourse and wetlandcrossing 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
Watercourse
Bauxite Hills Project Infrastructure
Skardon River Bauxite Project Infrastructure
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;
QLD Government Open Source Data;Australian Hydrological Geospatial Fabric
(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
Bauxite Hills Project Haul Road Easement
BH6 West MLA boundary
(ML 20689)
Skardon RiverBauxite Project
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 Hills ProjectCyclone Moorings
Skardon RiverBauxite Project
Mine Infrastructure Area,Port and Barge
Loading Facility
Bauxite Hills Project Supplementary Report to the Environmental Impact Statement
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.
Bauxite Hills Project Supplementary Report to the Environmental Impact Statement
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
Bauxite Hills Project Supplementary Report to the Environmental Impact Statement
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.
Bauxite Hills Project Supplementary Report to the Environmental Impact Statement
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
Bauxite Hills Project Supplementary Report to the Environmental Impact Statement
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
Bauxite Hills Project Supplementary Report to the Environmental Impact Statement
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
Bauxite Hills Project Supplementary Report to the Environmental Impact Statement
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.
Bauxite Hills Project Supplementary Report to the Environmental Impact Statement
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
Bauxite Hills Project Supplementary Report to the Environmental Impact Statement
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.
Bauxite Hills Project Supplementary Report to the Environmental Impact Statement
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
Bauxite Hills Project Supplementary Report to the Environmental Impact Statement
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)
Bauxite Hills Project Supplementary Report to the Environmental Impact Statement
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
Supplementary Report.
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.
Least Concern No Concern N/A
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.
Least Concern No Concern N/A
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.
Least Concern No Concern N/A
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.
Least Concern No Concern N/A
Bauxite Hills Project Supplementary Report to the Environmental Impact Statement
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
Supplementary Report.
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
Supplementary Report.
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
Bauxite Hills Project Supplementary Report to the Environmental Impact Statement
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
Bauxite Hills Project Supplementary Report to the Environmental Impact Statement
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
impacts have been confirmed.
Beach stone-curlew V
Assessed as MSES (refer Chapter 5 –
Terrestrial Ecology). No significant residual
impacts have been confirmed.
Estuarine crocodile V
Assessed as MSES (refer Chapter 5 –
Terrestrial Ecology). No significant residual
impacts have been confirmed.
Endangered and Vulnerable flora species
Chocolate tea tree orchid V Assessed as MNES. No significant residual
impacts have been confirmed.
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.
Bauxite Hills Project Supplementary Report to the Environmental Impact Statement
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;
Bauxite Hills Project Supplementary Report to the Environmental Impact Statement
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
Bauxite Hills Project Supplementary Report to the Environmental Impact Statement
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
Bauxite Hills Project Supplementary Report to the Environmental Impact Statement
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
Bauxite Hills Project Supplementary Report to the Environmental Impact Statement
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
Bauxite Hills Project Supplementary Report to the Environmental Impact Statement
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.
Bauxite Hills Project Supplementary Report to the Environmental Impact Statement
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.