Malleefowl (Leipoa ocellata) survey for the Snark Project

Version 2. October 2011

Prepared for:
Macarthur Minerals
Level 2,
220 St Georges Terrace
PERTH WA 6000

By:
Terrestrial Ecosystems
10 Houston Place
Mt Claremont WA 6010

RECORD OF DISTRIBUTION
No. of copies
Electronic
Electronic

Report File Name

2010-0028-005-st-V1
2010-0028-005-st-V2

Report Status
Draft
Final

Date
16/9/2011
31/10/2011

Prepared for:
Macarthur Minerals
Macarthur Minerals

Initials
ST
ST

DISCLAIMER
This document is prepared in accordance with and subject to an agreement between Terrestrial Ecosystems and
the client, Macarthur Minerals Limited. It has been prepared and is restricted to those issues that have been
raised by the client in its engagement of Terrestrial Ecosystems and prepared using the standard of skill and care
ordinarily exercised by environmental scientists in the preparation of such reports.
Persons or agencies that rely on or use this document for purposes or reasons other than those agreed by
Terrestrial Ecosystems and its client without first obtaining prior consent, do so at their own risk and Terrestrial
Ecosystems denies all liability in tort, contract or otherwise for any loss, damage or injury of any kind
whatsoever (whether in negligence or otherwise) that may be suffered as a consequence.

Front Cover: Malleefowl (Leipoa ocellata) Mound

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
1
1.1
Background
1.2
Project objectives and scope of works
2
Malleefowl
2.1
Introduction
2.2
Ecology
2.3
Habitat
2.4
Egg incubation and mounds
2.5
Conservation status
2.6
Distribution and abundance
2.7
Threats to Malleefowl
2.8
Potential impacts of mining activity on Malleefowl at Lake Giles
3
Methodology
3.1
Search areas
3.2
Search technique
3.3
Malleefowl Mounds
3.4
Survey staff
3.5
Limitations
4
Results
4.1
Observations
4.2
Malleefowl habitat
5
Discussion
5.1
Adequacy of the survey
5.2
Biodiversity values of the site
5.2.1
Is the proposed development likely to have a significant impact on Malleefowl?
5.2.2
Potential impacts
6
Management strategies
7
Conclusion and recommendations
7.1
Recommendations
8
References

iii

2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
6
6
9
10
11
11
13
13
14
15
15
15
15
15
17
18
18
19

Plates
1 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 27
28
29 30

Representative fauna habitat within the Malleefowl search area

Active Malleefowl mound
A potentially active Malleefowl mound
An inactive Malleefowl mound
Malleefowl mounds recorded during the field investigations
Malleefowl scratching
Malleefowl tracks

Figures
1.
Regional location
2.
Malleefowl search area showing the location of Malleefowl mounds and tracks
Appendices
A.
Location of Malleefowl mounds, tracks and scratchings

iv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Terrestrial Ecosystems was commissioned by Macarthur Minerals Limited (Macarthur Minerals) to undertake a
targeted investigation of the Malleefowl population around the Snark project area and surrounding environs in
the vicinity of its Lake Giles project area and to prepare a report to support an Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA).
Two surveys were undertaken covering the Snark project area and surrounding habitats. One potentially active
mound, 16 inactive mounds and three sets of very recent scratchings were recorded in the Snark project area. An
additional 40 mounds, four of which could become active in the breeding season were found in adjacent areas.
Two birds were sighted during the surveys, however, these were all outside of the Snark project area. In
addition, another 23 areas contained Malleefowl tracks, but all of these were outside the Snark project area. The
data on Malleefowl tracks provides an indication of where birds were foraging and not the number of birds, as
one individual is able to move through a relatively large area.
The proposed developments will have minimal impact on the Malleefowl population in the Lake Giles area,
however, an Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act 1999) referral is
necessary to determine whether the Lake Giles Iron Ore Project is considered to be a Controlled Action. A
Malleefowl Conservation Management Plan should be prepared detailing the management strategies during
construction and mining operations within the Snark project area.

INTRODUCTION

1.1

Background

The Macarthur Minerals Lake Giles project area is located about 450km east-northeast of Perth, Western
Australia. It is a series of contiguous tenements that cover an area of 1,155km. Macarthur Minerals is planning
to develop the Snark project within the Lake Giles area.
The Snark project is in the Shire of Menzies, with the nearest town being Menzies, which is located
approximately 100km east of the project area. Menzies has a population of about 200. The nearest significant
town is Kalgoorlie with a population of approximately 28,400, is 160km to the southeast . The Snark hematite
resource is currently estimated at about 10 million tonnes. Macarthur Minerals is proposing a 2 Mtpa Direct
Shipping Ore (DSO) operation to start as soon as practicable.

1.2

Project objectives and scope of works

Terrestrial Ecosystems was commissioned by Macarthur Minerals to undertake a targeted investigation of the
Malleefowl population in the Snark project area and other areas as nominated by Macarthur Minerals.
Terrestrial Ecosystems was also requested to prepare a report to support an Environmental Impact Assessment
(EIA). This report includes:

a brief overview of Malleefowl ecology;

results of a targeted grid search undertaken in July and August 2011 of the nominated areas;
and
management strategies to mitigate or minimise impacts on Malleefowl.

2
2.1

MALLEEFOWL
Introduction

Malleefowl (Leipoa ocellata) is a member of the family of mound building birds (Megapodiidae) and it is
unique in that it manipulates external heat sources to incubate its eggs (Clark 1964). Adult males (65-67.5cm)
are slightly larger than females (56.5-62cm) but are much heavier (1.7-2.1kg versus 1.5-1.6kg; Johnstone and
Storr 1998).

2.2

Ecology

This relatively large, mostly terrestrial species tends to be sedentary, nesting in the same general area year-afteryear (Firth 1962a, Priddel and Wheeler 2003). Males display greater nest-site fidelity than females. With the
loss of a partner, males tend to continue to use mounds previously utilised, whereas females often relocate to a
new mound. Individuals are monogamous, pairing for life, but with the death of a partner, new bonds are
quickly established (Priddel and Wheeler 2003). Outside of the breeding period, birds will range over several
square kilometres (Booth 1987, Benshemesh 2000). Chicks are independent from hatching and disperse widely,
moving up to 2km per day (Benshemesh 2000) and do not appear to respond to habitat boundaries. This is of
particular concern as chicks that hatch in remnant vegetation patches often move into adjacent cleared areas and
are more easily predated on and may find it more difficult to find food and shelter.
Adult birds feed on seeds, flowers and fruit of shrubs and herbs, but they will also eat invertebrates and fungi.
Their diet often reflects foods that are locally available and seasonal variations (Kentish and Westbrooke 1993,
Harlen and Priddel 1996, Reichelt and May 1997, Harold and Dennings 1998). The diet of chicks seems to be
very similar to that of the adults (Benshemesh 2000).
Malleefowl build large mounds of sand, gravel and vegetation, 3-5m wide and over 1m high in which they
incubate their eggs. This is mostly done between autumn and spring as a combined effort of the pair intending to
use the mound. Once completed, the male then spends most of his time tending the mound, whereas the female
spends most of her time foraging. Malleefowl will reuse old mounds.

2.3

Habitat

The habitat requirements of Malleefowl are not particularly well understood in semi-arid Western Australia. A
sandy substrate and abundance of leaf litter are clear requirements for the construction of the birds' incubatornests, but further to the north old abandoned mounds seem to be constructed mostly from pebbles (Firth 1959,
1962a, b). Densities of the birds are generally highest in areas of higher rainfall, more fertile soils (Firth 1962a,
Copley 1994, Benshemesh 2000) and where shrub diversity is greatest (Woinarski 1989b). The Malleefowl is
now primarily found in semi-arid and arid shrublands and low woodlands dominated by mallee (Firth 1962a, b)
in the more temperate areas. Grazed areas generally have much lower densities of Malleefowl (Benshemesh
2000). Ambient temperature in these areas may have been high enough to maintain mound temperature within
the desired range without using heat generated from decomposition.
The vegetation in areas supporting Malleefowl is often broombush (Melaleuca uncinata; Woinarski 1989a, b)
and scrub pine (Callitris verrucosa). They also occur in woodlands dominated by eucalypts such as wandoo (E.
wandoo), marri (E. calophylla) and mallet (E. astringens), and in some shrub lands dominated by Acacia sp. in
WA (Johnstone and Storr 1998).
The best predictor of breeding and clutch size is rainfall between May and December (Priddel and Wheeler
2005). As a consequence clutch size will vary from year-to-year.

2.4

Egg incubation and mounds

Megapodes, or mound builders, incubate their eggs underground where heat is generated from the
decomposition of organic matter, solar radiation or geothermal sources. Frith (1956) showed that for
Malleefowl, egg incubation was largely achieved by heat generated by decomposition of organic matter and
manipulating the covering of soil to keep the temperature within the range suitable for egg development. In most
cases, and certainly during late spring and early summer, mounds are opened to release heat. Toward the end of
the incubation period, i.e. summer, solar radiation becomes important, as the heat generated from microbial
decomposition declines as the litter dries out and mounds are continually reopened. This strategy enables the
Malleefowl to retain a temperature of about 34oC within the mound for about 9 months of the year.

Mound building by the male commences in mid-to-late winter. Between 1-28 eggs are laid with a mean about 14
(Priddel and Wheeler 2005) between mid-August and mid-February (Firth 1959, Priddel and Wheeler 2005).
Incubation takes about 60 days (Benshemesh 2000). Chicks receive no parental assistance once they have
hatched. Mortality of chicks is about 80% in their first 10 days (Priddel and Wheeler 1999). Males have the
primary responsibility for managing the mounds, but females are often involved in opening and closing mounds
once eggs have been laid. Mound opening and closing normally occurs after sun rise and is completed by about
0900hrs.

2.5

Conservation status

Malleefowl are protected under Commonwealth and State legislation. They are listed as Vulnerable under the
Commonwealth EPBC Act 1999 and are a Schedule 1 species under the Western Australian Wildlife
Conservation (Specially Protected Fauna) Notice 2011. Where active Malleefowl mounds are present in a
development area it is likely that the Department of the Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and
Communities (DSEWPaC) will issue the proponent with a Control Action. In most circumstances a
conservation management plan will be required to mitigate and minimise potential impacts on Malleefowl in the
area.

2.6

Distribution and abundance

Malleefowls geographic distribution includes much of the southern half of Australia from the Great Dividing
Range to the west coast (Blakers et al. 1984), and originally as far north as the Tanami Desert (Kimber 1985).
Its geographic range has contracted in recent years, particularly in arid areas and around the periphery of its
distribution (Benshemesh 2000). This is mostly attributed to clearing of habitat (Benshemesh 2000).
In Western Australia, Malleefowl occurred as far north as Carnarvon, most of the south-west corner and much
of the inland semi-arid areas below the 26th latitude and the coastal strip of mallee south of the Nullabor Plain
between Cocklebiddy and Eucla (Benshemesh 2000). Johnstone and Storr (1998) recorded the current
distribution of Malleefowl from Denham south including most of the wheatbelt and extending east past Laverton
and Norseman and along the coastal strip to Eucla.

2.7

Threats to Malleefowl

One of the major threats to the Malleefowl comes from predation by foxes and feral dogs, and to a lesser extent
cats and raptors, which mostly predate on chicks. Vegetation clearing, habitat fragmentation, grazing, fires, and
the consequential loss of habitat, have also been recognised as significant contributors to the decline in the
number of Malleefowl across its earlier reported geographic distribution (Benshemesh 2000).
Foxes predate on eggs, chicks and adult birds (Firth 1962a, Booth 1987, Brickhill 1987, Priddel and Wheeler
1994, Harlen and Priddel 1996, Benshemesh and Burton 1997, 1999, Short 2004) and are probably the most
significant threat after large scale vegetation clearing and burning (Short 2004). It is therefore anticipated that an
intensive fox baiting program will increase the survival of Malleefowl in a local area (Copley and Williams
1995, Priddel and Wheeler 1997).
Frith (1962a) showed that breeding densities for Malleefowl were reduced by 85-90% in areas grazed by sheep
compared to similar non-grazed habitats. Other herbivores, such as goats, kangaroos, cattle and rabbits, in large
numbers, will also reduce the suitability of the habitat for Malleefowl and could lead to their declining numbers
(Benshemesh 2000). Grazing is thought to open up habitats and increase predation. Habitat reduction due to
clearing or grazing can also result in starvation due to a reduction in invertebrates, seeds, flowers and fruits
(Benshemesh 2000).
Fires may eliminate Malleefowl from some areas. Recruitment into burnt areas and the subsequent development
of breeding densities similar to those that existed before the fire appears to be very slow and requires 30 to 60
years (Benshemesh 2000).
Malleefowl seem to have little road sense and are often seen walking in open areas and on roads and tracks,
where they are killed by vehicles. Birds can be forced to move to adjacent areas by noise, dust, lights and
vibrations (Benshemesh 2000), all of which will be present on an active mine site.
Little is known of diseases that are likely to impact on Malleefowl populations (Benshemesh 2000).

2.8

Potential impacts of mining activity on Malleefowl at Lake Giles

Clearing of vegetation, noise, vibration, vehicle traffic and an increase in feral fox, wild dogs and cat numbers
may all impact on Malleefowl around the mine site. The direct impacts at a mine site are likely to be:

Vegetation clearing - will result in a loss of foraging habitat and breeding mounds and will increase the
exposure of birds to predators.
Vehicle traffic - likely to result in road deaths.
Noise - may shift individuals out of the area.
Vibrations - could shift individuals out of the area, even though blasting will occur at a regular time
and only during daylight hours.
Lighting - may result in individuals shifting out of the area.
An increase in fox, dog and cat numbers (may increase as a result of poor waste management, new
permanent water and food sources) - could increase predation by these feral animals on Malleefowl.

3
3.1

METHODOLOGY
Search areas

Multiple areas were searched adjacent to and within the Snark project area (Figure 1 and 2). Mattiske
Consulting Pty Ltd (2011) identified fifteen plant communities for the Snark deposit and nearby areas.
Terrestrial Ecosystems search area was slightly larger but incorporated each of these plant communities. The
communities identified by Mattiske Consulting (2011) include:
Shrublands
S1: Open scrub of Acacia ramulosa var. ramulosa and Acacia aneura over Philotheca brucei subsp. brucei,
Dodonaea rigida, Eremophila alternifolia and Eremophila latrobei ?subsp. latrobei over Olearia
humilis on flats to low natural relief with compact light brown clay soils.
S2: Tall scrub of Acacia ayersiana, Banksia arborea (P4) and Melaleuca leiocarpa over Philotheca brucei
subsp. brucei and Prostanthera grylloana over Sida spodochroma and Cheilanthes sieberi subsp.
sieberi on upper slopes and ridges with banded ironstone outcroppings.
S3: Tall scrub of Allocasuarina acutivalvis subsp. acutivalvis, Acacia quadrimarginea, Acacia ramulosa var.
ramulosa, Acacia aneura var. aneura with emergent Brachychiton gregorii over Philotheca brucei
subsp. brucei, Eremophila latrobei subsp. latrobei, Acacia tetragonophylla and Dodonaea rigida over
Sida ectogama, Cheilanthes brownii and Olearia muelleri on mid slopes to ridges with gravelly clays.
S4: Scrub of Allocasuarina campestris, Allocasuarina dielsiana, Acacia burkittii, Acacia ramulosa var.
ramulosa and Acacia aneura with occasional emergent Eucalyptus capillosa subsp. capillosa and
Eucalyptus stricklandii over Acacia tetragonophylla, Dodonaea rigida and Scaevola spinescens over
Ptilotus obovatus var. obovatus and Sida calyxhymenia on flat to mid slopes with ironstone pebbles.
S5: Tall mixed scrub of Acacia ramulosa var. ramulosa, Acacia tetragonophylla, Acacia ?ayersiana, Acacia
burkittii and Acacia aneura with emergent Eucalyptus griffithsii and Eucalyptus stricklandii over
Solanum lasiophyllum, Sida ectogama, Ptilotus obovatus var. obovatus and Sida spodochroma on flat
to lower slopes with red-brown clay soils.
S6: Open scrub of Acacia ayersiana, Acacia cockertoniana, Acacia tetragonophylla and Eremophila
oppositifolia subsp. angustifolia over Eremophila latrobei subsp. latrobei, Eremophila decipiens subsp.
decipiens, Prostanthera althoferi subsp. althoferi and Philotheca brucei subsp. brucei over Olearia
humilis on mid- to upper slopes.
S7: Scrub of Allocasuarina acutivalvis subsp. acutivalvis and Casuarina pauper over Acacia burkittii, Acacia
quadrimarginea and Eremophila oldfieldii subsp. angustifolia over Scaevola spinescens and Dodonaea
lobulata over Santalum spicatum, Ptilotus obovatus var. obovatus and Solanum lasiophyllum on lower
slopes to small ridges with compact ironstone pebbles.
Woodlands
W1: Woodland of Eucalyptus salmonophloia and Eucalyptus griffithsii over Santalum spicatum, Eremophila
oldfieldii subsp. angustifolia and Acacia ramulosa var. ramulosa over Scaevola spinescens and
Dodonaea lobulata over Sida ectogama and Ptilotus obovatus var. obovatus on flat to lower slopes
with red-brown gravelly clay.
W2: Woodland of Eucalyptus stricklandii and Eucalyptus loxophleba subsp. supralaevis with Allocasuarina
acutivalvis subsp. acutivalvis over Eremophila oppositifolia subsp. angustifolia, Acacia aneura var.
aneura, Acacia tetragonophylla and Alyxia buxifolia over Olearia exiguifolia, Ptilotus obovatus var.
obovatus and Sida ectogama on lower slopes to ridges with compact clay and small to medium
ironstone pebbles.

W3: Open woodland of Eucalyptus ?griffithsii over Acacia erinacea and mixed Eremophila over Maireana
tomentosa, Sclerolaena fusiformis, Sclerolaena diacantha and Atriplex vesicaria on compact clay
drainage lines with small ironstone pebbles.
W4: Woodland of Eucalyptus oleosa subsp. oleosa, Eucalyptus salubris, Eucalyptus concinna, Eucalyptus
stricklandii and Eucalyptus longissima over Allocasuarina ?acutivalvis, Acacia erinacea, Exocarpos
aphyllus and Acacia burkittii over Eremophila glabra subsp. albicans, Senna artemisioides subsp.
filifolia, Ptilotus obovatus var. obovatus, Mirbelia depressa and Olearia muelleri on flat to lower
slopes with small to medium ironstone and quartz pebbles.
W5: Open woodland of Eucalyptus salubris with occasional Allocasuarina campestris over Acacia
tetragonophylla, Eremophila oldfieldii subsp. angustifolia, Alyxia buxifolia, Santalum spicatum over
Prostanthera althoferi subsp. althoferi, Enchylaena sp., Maireana ?trichoptera and Ptilotus obovatus
var. obovatus on flat to lower slopes with fine ironstone pebbles.
W6: Open woodland of Eucalyptus ravida and Eucalyptus yilgarnensis over Eremophila alternifolia and
Eremophila oldfieldii subsp. angustifolia over Rhagodia drummondii, Sclerolaena fusiformis and
Maireana sp. on pale clay flats.
W7: Open woodland of Eucalyptus concinna and Eucalyptus longissima with occasional Allocasuarina
campestris over Acacia burkittii, Acacia tetragonophylla and Acacia andrewsii over Maireana
?trichoptera, Senna artemisioides subsp. filifolia, Ptilotus obovatus var. obovatus on flat calcrete
patches.
W8: Woodland of Eucalyptus stricklandii and Eucalyptus ravida with Casuarina pauper over Eremophila
oppositifolia subsp. angustifolia, Eremophila oldfieldii subsp. angustifolia, Alyxia buxifolia, Scaevola
spinescens and Eremophila scoparia over Olearia muelleri and Ptilotus obovatus var. obovatus on
granite slopes and ridges with gravelly clays.
It should be noted that vegetation mapping provides a useful indication of the broad habitat types that might be
in an area, however, this approach cannot be used as a surrogate for determining fauna habitats, as it does not
record important fauna habitat variables (e.g. degree of disturbance, habitat fragmentation, substrate type,
landform, etc). Habitat mapping results are therefore likely to be different to vegetation mapping outcomes.
Plates 1-14 show representative fauna habitats searched as part of the Terrestrial Ecosystems field work.

Plate 1.

Plate 2.

Plate 3.

Plate 4.

Plate 5.

Plate 6.

Plate 7.

Plate 8.

3.2

Plate 9.

Plate 10.

Plate 11.

Plate 12.

Plate 13.

Plate 14.

Search technique

In July and August 2011, eight people walked parallel transects searching for Malleefowl scratchings, tracks and
scats and Malleefowl mounds. The distance between each observer varied depending on vegetation density but
ranged between 10-50m. Between 15 and 28km were covered by the search team each day depending on the
density of vegetation and number of mounds recorded.
Malleefowl mounds in open areas were easily located; however, those in dense vegetation were often more
difficult to see. A GPS location was recorded for each Malleefowl mound and where evidence of Malleefowl
activity was observed. The level of activity (i.e. active, potentially active or inactive) was recorded for each

mound using the criteria detailed in the National Malleefowl Monitoring Handbook (Hopkins nd). When there
were lots of Malleefowl tracks, GPS recordings were only made every few hundred metres, so the location of
tracks is an indicative location rather than actual location of a static bird.

3.3

Malleefowl Mounds

So that management recommendations could be developed, Terrestrial Ecosystems has used the following
definitions for describing each category of Malleefowl mound:
Active mound

a mound that is being regularly tended to by the male and/or female bird(s)
during breeding season. In most cases the mound would change shape on a daily
basis and it may contain eggs and/or hatchlings (Plates 15 and 16).

Potentially active mound

this is a mound that still retains the shape and structure of a typical Malleefowl
mound. Given that Malleefowl often re-use existing mounds, these are mounds
that have potential to become active during the next or a future breeding season
(Plates 17 and 18).

Inactive mound

these mounds are highly unlikely to be used by Malleefowl again. They lack
structure or shape and often have plants growing out of them (Plates 19 and 20).

Plate 15. Active Malleefowl mound

Plate 16. Active Malleefowl mound

Plate 17. Potentially active Malleefowl mound

Plate 18. Potentially active Malleefowl mound

10

Plate 19. Inactive Malleefowl mound

3.4

Plate 20. Inactive Malleefowl mound

Survey staff

A combination of staff were used to conduct the two surveys. Dr Scott Thompson was the team leader and
coordinated the both surveys. The searches were undertaken by Dr Scott Thompson, Dr Tony Pusey, Dene
Edmunds, Edward Swinhoe, Angela Hine, Trevor Pederson, Tim Geldard, Travis Murray, Sarah-Jane Knox,
Vicki White, Clae Hickling and Daniel Whittaker. The report was prepared by Drs Scott and Graham
Thompson.
The lead staff have significant experience in conducting surveys for Malleefowl and other vertebrate fauna in
Western Australia.

3.5

Limitations

Although not specifically detailed in any EPA documents, the methodologies used by Terrestrial Ecosystems are
aligned with the EPAs Guidance Statement No. 56 (EPA 2004), Position Statement No. 3 (EPA 2002) and the
recently released Technical Guide on terrestrial fauna assessments (EPA/DEC 2010) with the exceptions
discussed in the limitations section.
The targeted Malleefowl assessment of the Snark project area and surrounds was conducted over seven days
during July and nine days in August 2011. While other fauna surveys and incidental observations have identified
Malleefowl in the region, to the best of our knowledge no targeted Malleefowl surveys have been undertaken at
Lake Giles or within the Snark project area prior to these surveys. Multiple surveys conducted over several
years are necessary to cater for temporal variations in breeding patterns. It is probable that we did not observe
all birds in the area as they are cryptic and often difficult to see, but it is probable that we recorded all active and
potentially active mounds in the area.
The EPA Guidance for Assessment of Environmental Factors: Terrestrial Fauna Surveys for Environmental
Impact Assessment in Western Australia, No. 56 (2004) suggested that fauna surveys may be limited by many
variables. Limitations associated with each of these variables are assessed in Table 1.

11

Table 1. Fauna survey limitations and constraints

Possible
limitations

Constraint
(yes/no);
significant,
moderate or
negligible

Comment

Competency and
experience of the
consultant carrying
out this assessment

No

The environmental scientists that coordinated the survey and

prepared this report are familiar with the Malleefowl and vertebrate
fauna surveys in Western Australia.

Scope

No

All aspects of the scope of works have been addressed.

Proportion of fauna
identified, recorded
and/or collected

No

Not applicable.

Accuracy of
previous survey
work

No

Not applicable.

Sources of
information

No

The ecology of Malleefowl and survey techniques for surveys are

well documented

Timing/weather/
season/ cycle

No

Disturbances which
affected results of
the survey

No

Intensity of survey
effort

No

Resources
Remoteness and/or
access problems
Availability of
contextual
information on the
region

No

Weather was suitable for both surveys. Surveys were conducted

outside of breeding season, so it was not possible to accurately
determine the status of the Malleefowl mounds.
Some sections of the project area contained exploration tracks and
there was evidence of recent exploration activity in some areas.
This minor level of disturbance was taken into account in this
survey.
The search was thorough, and it is unlikely that any potentially
active Malleefowl mound were not recorded. However, very old and
weathered mounds are sometimes not detected in dense vegetation.
Adequate resources were available.

No

All areas were searched on foot.

No

There is no regional Malleefowl survey information available for the

region, but there are details from surveys undertaken for other
mining operations in the region.

12

4
4.1

RESULTS
Observations

One potentially active mound, 16 inactive mounds and three sets of very recent scratchings were recorded in the
Snark project area. Another 40 Malleefowl mounds were located within the area searched but outside the Snark
project area, of which four of these have potential to become active during the breeding season. Plates 21-30
show the variation in the mounds that were recorded across the entire search area.
Two birds were sighted during the surveys; however, both of these were outside the Snark project area. In
addition, another 23 areas contained Malleefowl tracks that were not recent, and all of these were outside of the
Snark project area. The location of Malleefowl tracks only provide an indication of where the birds were
foraging and not the number of birds, as one individual is able to move through a relatively large area.
Coordinates for each recorded bird, mound or areas where tracks were observed are provided in Appendix A.
Labels in Plates 21-30 correspond to data in Appendix A.

Plate 21. Malleefowl mound (#4)

Plate 22. Malleefowl mound (#6)

Plate 23. Malleefowl mound (#8)

Plate 24. Malleefowl mound (#16)

13

4.2

Plate 25. Malleefowl mound (#18)

Plate 26. Malleefowl mound (#25)

Plate 27. Malleefowl mound (#27)

Plate 28. Malleefowl scratching (#33)

Plate 29. Malleefowl tracks

Plate 30. Malleefowl tracks

Malleefowl habitat

There are extensive areas of habitat suitable for Malleefowl in and adjacent to the Lake Giles project area.
Malleefowl mounds were not common in the open eucalypt woodlands but were mostly found in the vegetation
thickets and on the sand plain. All of the scratchings, inactive mounds and the single potentially active mound
were recorded in Mattiskes vegetation types S1, S3, S4 and S6 (Mattiske Consulting Pty Ltd 2011).

14

DISCUSSION

5.1

Adequacy of the survey

The EPA Terrestrial Biological Surveys as an Element of Biodiversity Protection: Position Statement No. 3
(EPA 2002), Guidance Statement for Assessment of Environmental Factors: Terrestrial Fauna Surveys for
Environmental Impact Assessment in Western Australia No. 56 (EPA 2004) and the Technical Guide
Terrestrial Vertebrate Fauna Surveys for Environmental Impact Assessment (EPA / DEC 2010) are the three
relevant documents to assess the adequacy of the available information and reporting for vertebrate fauna
surveys in Western Australia, but none specifically discuss targeted searches for Malleefowl. Thompson and
Thompson (2010) provide advice on searching and recording for Malleefowl mounds for EIA assessments. The
survey undertaken was in accordance with the advice provided in this manual.
The Snark project area and a substantial additional area were searched in July and August 2011. As these
surveys were conducted outside of the breeding season, further investigation of each of the Malleefowl mounds
identified as potentially active should be undertaken mid-way through the breeding season to determine status
of the mounds.

5.2

Biodiversity values of the site

Malleefowl are present in the Lake Giles area, and it is probable that the area supports a breeding population.
One potentially active mound, 16 inactive mounds and three sets of very recent scratchings were recorded in the
Snark project area, and another 40 mounds, four of which were potentially active were recorded outside the
Snark project area but within the general vicinity. Two live birds were observed outside of the Snark project
area.
Most mounds were found in shrub land on the clay soil and sand plain, where there was a surface layer of
pebbles. Similar habitat is found in the surrounding area and region. From the perspective of Malleefowl, the
general area has relatively high biodiversity value.
5.2.1 Is the proposed development likely to have a significant impact on Malleefowl?
Any clearing of land or disturbance associated with developing a mine site could have an impact on individual
Malleefowl. The proposed disturbance associated with the Snark project may shift a small number of individuals
into adjacent areas but it is not anticipated to have a significant impact on the population.
The Commonwealth Government has issued criteria for assessing whether a potential disturbance is likely to
have a significant impact on matters of national significance (Department of the Environment Water Heritage
and the Arts 2009). A matter of national significance in this case is a species listed as Vulnerable under the
EPBC Act (1999). Those criteria are listed in Table 2 along with an assessed response to each criterion.
Table 2. Criteria to determine whether an action will have a significant impact on a vulnerable species
Criteria
Lead to a long-term decrease in the size of an important population of the species
Reduce the area of occupancy of an important population
Fragment an existing population into two or more populations
Adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species
Disrupt the breeding cycle of an important population
Modify, destroy, remove, isolate or decrease the availability or quality of habitat to the
extent that the species is likely to decline
Result in invasive species that are harmful to a vulnerable species becoming established
in the vulnerable species habitat
Introduce disease that may cause the species to decline
Interfere with the recovery of the species

Malleefowl
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No

5.2.2 Potential impacts

Fox and cat predation, lack of connecting bush corridors, degradation of habitat by stock and rabbits, bushfires
and vehicle collisions with mature birds are the major causes of declining Malleefowl populations.

15

The proposed mining operation is unlikely to have a significant impact on the Malleefowl population; however,
a Commonwealth referral is necessary to determine whether the proposal is considered to be Controlled Action
under the EPBC Act 1999. A Malleefowl Conservation Management Plan should be prepared for the project
area detailing the management strategies for construction and mining operations within the Snark project area. It
is recommended that this Malleefowl Conservation Management Plan is submitted with the referral.

16

MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES

The following principles should guide the preparation of a Malleefowl Conservation Management Plan:

any land clearing that will impact on active or potentially active Malleefowl mounds should only be
undertaken between April and August, as this period is outside the mound building and egg incubation
period or other conditions apply;
appropriate buffer zones should be placed around all active or potentially active mounds; these will be
no go zones;
the number of active Malleefowl mounds in the Snark project area and broader Lake Giles tenements
are monitored annually;
suitable control sites are necessary to interpret annual variations in the number of active Malleefowl
mounds, as rainfall and other environmental conditions are known to have a significant impact on
breeding behaviour;
should monitoring programs indicate a decline in the number of active mounds, then every effort will
be made to determine the cause, and if it is related to exploration or mining activity, remedial action
taken immediately to address the problem(s); and
a predator control program should be implemented to reduce the population of Malleefowl predators
(in particular foxes);

As large scale fires have the potential to kill Malleefowl, destroy mounds and Malleefowl habitat, Terrestrial
Ecosystems recommends that a fire management plan is prepared.

17

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

It is probable that Malleefowl from-time-to-time forage in the Snark project area. The area contains a single
potentially active mound, and there are Malleefowl and potentially active mounds in adjacent areas. The project
area should be referred to the Commonwealth DSEWPaC under the EPBC Act (1999) to determine whether the
proposal is considered to be Controlled Action. A Malleefowl Conservation Plan should be prepared to avoid,
mitigate and minimise impacts on Malleefowl in the general area.

7.1

Recommendations

It is recommended that:

the project is referred to the DSEWPaC under the EPBC Act (1999) to determine whether the proposal
is considered to be Controlled Action; and

a Malleefowl Conservation Plan is prepared.

18

REFERENCES

Benshemesh, J. 2000. National Recovery Plan for Malleefowl. Department of Environment and Heritage,
Canberra.
Benshemesh, J. and P. Burton. 1997. Fox predation on Malleefowl after the spread of RCD in Victoria: The first
Malleefowl breeding season., Unpublished report for Parks Victoria and Department of Natural
Resources and Environment, Mildura.
Benshemesh, J. and P. Burton. 1999. Fox predation on Malleefowl three years after the spread of RCD in
Victoria. Unpublished report for Parks Victoria and Department of Natural Resources and
Environment, Mildura.
Blakers, M., S. J. J. F. Davies, and P. N. Reilly. 1984. The Atlas of Australian Birds. RAOU and Melbourne
University Press.
Booth, D. T. 1987. Home range and hatchling success of Malleefowl, Leipoa ocellata Gould (Megapodiidae), in
Murray Mallee near Renmark, S.A. Australian Wildlife Research 14:95-104.
Brickhill, J. 1987. Breeding sucess of Malleefowl Leipoa ocellata Gould (Megapodiidae) in central New South
Wales. Australian Wildlife Research 12:257-261.
Clark, G. A. J. 1964. Life histories and the evolution of the megapodes. Living Bird 3:149-167.
Copley, P. and S. Williams. 1995. Distribution, relative abundance and conservation of Malleefowl in South
Australia. Adelaide.
Copley, P. B. 1994. Translocations of native vertebrates in South Australia: a review. Pages 35-42 in M. Serena,
editor. Reintroduction biology of Australian and New Zealand fauna. Surrey Beatty, Chipping Norton,
NSW.
Department of the Environment Water Heritage and the Arts. 2009. EPBC Act Policy Statement 1.1, Significant
Impact Guidelines. Department of the Environment Water Heritage and the Arts, Canberra.
Environmental Protection Authority. 2002. Terrestrial Biological Surveys as an Element of Biodiversity
Protection: Position Statement No. 3. Environment Protection Authority, Perth.
Environmental Protection Authority. 2004. Guidance for the Assessment of Environmental Factors. Terrestrial
Fauna Surveys for Environmental Impact Assessment in Western Australia No. 56. Perth.
Environmental Protection Authority and Department of Environment and Conservation (Eds Hyder, B. M., Dell,
J. and Cowan, M.A.),. 2010. Technical Guide - Terrestrial Vertebrate Fauna Surveys for Environmental
Impact Assessment. Environmental Protection Authority, Perth.
Firth, H. J. 1956. Temperature regulation in the nesting mounds of the mallee-fowl, Leipoa ocellata Gould.
Wildlife Research 1:79-95.
Firth, H. J. 1959. Breeding of the mallee fowl, Leipoa ocellata Gould (Megapodiidae). Wildlife Research 4:3160.
Firth, H. J. 1962a. Conservation of the mallee fowl, Leipoa ocellata Gould (Megapodiidae). Wildlife Research
7:33-45.
Firth, H. J. 1962b. The Mallee Fowl. Angus and Robertson, Sydney.
Harlen, R. and D. Priddel. 1996. Potential food resources available to malleefowl Leipoa ocellata in marginal
mallee lands during drought. Australian Journal of Ecology 21:418-428.
Harold, G. and S. Dennings. 1998. The First Five Years. Malleefowl Preservation Group., Ongerup, WA.
Hopkins, L. nd. National Manual for the Malleefowl Monitoring System. National Heritage Trust, Canberra.
Johnstone, R. E. and G. M. Storr. 1998. Handbook of Western Australian Birds. Volume 1 - Non-Passerines
(Emu to Dollarbird). Western Australian Museum, Perth.
Kentish, B. and M. Westbrooke. 1993. Crop and gizzard contents of a road-dead Malleefowl. Emu 93:130-132.
Kimber, R. G. 1985. The history of the Malleefowl in central Australia. RAOU Newsletter 64:6-8.
Mattiske Consulting Pty Ltd. 2011. Flora and Vegetation Mapping of the Snark Deposit and New Campsite,
Lake Giles Survey Area. Perth.
Priddel, D. and I. Wheeler. 1997. Efficacy of fox control in reducing the mortality of released captive-reared
Malleefowl, Leipoa ocellata. Wildlife Research 24:469-482.
Priddel, D. and R. Wheeler. 1994. Mortality of captive-raised Malleefowl, Leipoa ocellata, released into a
mallee remnant within the wheat-belt of New South Wales. Wildlife Research 21:543-552.
Priddel, D. and R. Wheeler. 1999. Mallefowl conservation in New South Wales: a review. Zoologische
Verhandelingen 327:125-141.
Priddel, D. and R. Wheeler. 2003. Nesting activity and demography of an isolated population of malleefowl
(Leipoa ocellata). Wildlife Research 30:451-464.
Priddel, D. and R. Wheeler. 2005. Fecundity, egg size and the influence of rainfall in an isolated population of
malleefowl (Leipoa ocellata). Wildlife Research 32:639-648.
Reichelt, R. C. and T. W. May. 1997. Malleefowl eating fungi and orchid tubers. Victorian Naturalist 114:198.

19

Short, J. 2004. Conservation of Malleefowl: are there lessons from the successful conservation of native
mammals by intensive fox control.in Proceedings of the National Malleefowl Forum, Mildura.
Victorian Malleefowl Recovery Group, Mildura.
Thompson, S. A. and G. G. Thompson. 2010. Terrestrial Vertebrate Fauna Assessments for Ecological Impact
Assessment. Terrestrial Ecosystems, Perth.
Woinarski, J. C. Z. 1989a. Broombush harvesting in southeastern Australia. Pages 362-378 in J. C. Noble,
editor. Mediterranean Landscapes in Australia: Mallee Ecosystems and their Management. CSIRO,
Melbourne.
Woinarski, J. C. Z. 1989b. The vertebrate fauna of Broombush Melaleuca uncinata vegetation in north-western
Victoria, with reference to effects of broombush harvesting. Australian Wildlife Research 16:217-238.

20

Figures
Malleefowl (Leipoa ocellata) survey for the Snark Project

21

Legend
Search Area Boundary

N
0

100

200

Snark Project Boundary

300

400

500km

Wyndham
Kununurra

SCALE 1 : 10 000 000 at A4 (MGA)

Derby

INDIAN

BROOME
Fitzroy Crossing

Halls Creek

OCEAN

Port Hedland
Dampier
KARRATHA
Onslow

Marble Bar

Pannawonica

Nullagine

Exmouth
Tom Price
Paraburdoo

Coral Bay

Newman

Western

Carnarvon

Australia
Denham

Warburton

Meekatharra

Wiluna

Cue

Kalbarri

Leinster

Mt Magnet

SITE
LOCATION

Yalgoo

Mullewa

GERALDTON

Laverton

Leonora

Paynes Find
Menzies

Dalwallinu
Coolgardie

2010-028-f01.dgn

Lancelin
Yanchep

Southern Cross

KALGOORLIE-BOULDER
Kambalda
Eucla

Northam
Norseman

PERTH
KWINANA
MANDURAH

PINPOINT CARTOGRAPHICS (08) 9562 7136

BUNBURY
BUSSELTON

ESPERANCE

ALBANY

Macarthur Minerals Limited

MALLEEFOWL (Leipoa ocellata) SURVEY FOR
THE LAKE GILES PROJECT

Drawn: S. Thompson

Date: 25 Oct 2011

REGIONAL LOCATION

SOUTHERN
OCEAN

Figure 1
Job: 2010-028

PINPOINT CARTOGRAPHICS (08) 9562 7136

2010-028-f02.dgn

M30/243

E30/324
M30/249

N
500

1000 1500 2000 2500m

SCALE 1 : 60 000 at A3 (MGA)

E30/240
6 695 000mN

M30/213

M30/214

M30/215

E30/408

M30/248
M30/246

M30/218

E30/269

6 690 000mN

M30/216

M30/217

E7701299

M30/219

6 685 000mN

P3001083

P3001071

E30/410
M30/251

E30/349

E30/321

Legend

E30/317

Search Area Boundary

6 680 000mN

Snark Project Boundary

Tenement Boundary
Tracks

P3001070

210 000mE

Bird Location
Potentially Active Mound
Inactive Mound

Macarthur Minerals Limited

MALLEEFOWL (Leipoa ocellata) SURVEY FOR
THE LAKE GILES PROJECT

Tracks

205 000mE

Scat
Scratching

215 000mE

Observations

Drawn: S. Thompson

P3001085

Date: 25 Oct 2011

Figure 2

M30/227

MALLEEFOWL SEARCH AREA

M30/229

Job: 2010-028

Appendix A
Location of Malleefowl mounds, tracks
and scratchings
Malleefowl (Leipoa ocellata) survey for the Snark Project

22

Appendix A. Location of Malleefowl mounds, tracks and scratchings.

#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68

Date
of
observation
2/07/2011
3/07/2011
4/07/2011
4/07/2011
4/07/2011
4/07/2011
4/07/2011
5/07/2011
5/07/2011
5/07/2011
5/07/2011
5/07/2011
5/07/2011
5/07/2011
5/07/2011
5/07/2011
5/07/2011
5/07/2011
5/07/2011
5/07/2011
6/07/2011
6/07/2011
6/07/2011
6/07/2011
6/07/2011
18/08/2011
18/08/2011
18/08/2011
18/08/2011
18/08/2011
18/08/2011
18/08/2011
18/08/2011
18/08/2011
18/08/2011
18/08/2011
18/08/2011
18/08/2011
18/08/2011
18/08/2011
19/08/2011
19/08/2011
19/08/2011
19/08/2011
19/08/2011
19/08/2011
20/08/2011
20/08/2011
20/08/2011
21/08/2011
21/08/2011
21/08/2011
21/08/2011
21/08/2011
21/08/2011
21/08/2011
21/08/2011
21/08/2011
21/08/2011
21/08/2011
21/08/2011
21/08/2011
21/08/2011
21/08/2011
21/08/2011
21/08/2011
21/08/2011
22/08/2011

Zone
(MGA)
50J
50J
50J
50J
50J
50J
50J
50J
50J
50J
50J
50J
50J
50J
50J
50J
50J
50J
50J
50J
50J
50J
50J
50J
50J
50J
50J
50J
50J
50J
50J
50J
50J
50J
50J
50J
50J
50J
50J
50J
50J
51J
51J
51J
50J
50J
50J
50J
50J
51J
51J
50J
50J
50J
51J
51J
51J
51J
51J
51J
51J
51J
51J
51J
51J
51J
51J
51J

Easting
781839
784046
786402
786371
786450
787694
787598
787380
787287
787653
787636
787502
787567
787546
787818
787949
787905
787976
787245
788110
788231
788645
788780
788679
787756
787396
787476
786700
786553
786649
788949
788736
788365
788354
788158
789080
789116
789888
789061
788088
789171
210917
210368
211430
789871
789716
788285
789679
789507
211389
211573
788441
789207
789287
212062
212003
211832
211852
211896
211861
211686
211651
211534
211582
211438
211232
210947
211471

Northing
6698291
6697519
6697441
6697677
6698056
6697411
6697705
6683486
6683517
6683139
6683018
6682784
6682709
6682610
6682603
6682408
6682231
6681922
6681366
6681791
6681007
6679622
6679503
6679192
6674605
6697474
6697099
6696960
6696937
6696830
6698198
6697777
6697678
6697830
6697747
6697352
6697293
6696891
6697125
6697163
6697020
6696708
6696937
6696619
6696563
6696103
6696200
6695538
6695831
6695261
6695271
6695741
6695340
6695308
6696709
6696677
6696575
6697077
6697067
6697218
6696585
6696470
6696680
6697028
6696726
6696883
6697163
6687670

Comment

Location

Inactive mound
Inactive mound
Inactive mound
Potentially active mound
Inactive mound
Inactive mound
Inactive mound
Potentially active mound
Inactive mound
Inactive mound
Inactive mound
Inactive mound
Inactive mound
Inactive mound
Inactive mound
Potentially active mound
Inactive mound
Potentially active mound
Inactive mound
Bird
Inactive mound
Inactive mound
Inactive mound
Inactive mound
Inactive mound
Inactive mound
Inactive mound
Inactive mound
Inactive mound
Inactive mound
Inactive mound
Inactive mound
Scratching
Scratching
Scratching
Inactive mound
Scat
Inactive mound
Tracks
Inactive mound
Inactive mound
Inactive mound
Inactive mound
Bird
Inactive mound
Inactive mound
Inactive mound
Inactive mound
Inactive mound
Tracks
Tracks
Inactive mound
Inactive mound
Inactive mound
Tracks
Tracks
Tracks
Inactive mound
Tracks
Tracks
Inactive mound
Tracks
Tracks
Inactive mound
Tracks
Inactive mound
Inactive mound
Inactive mound

Snark project area

Snark project area
Snark project area
Snark project area
Snark project area
Snark project area
Outside Snark project area
Outside Snark project area
Outside Snark project area
Outside Snark project area
Outside Snark project area
Outside Snark project area
Outside Snark project area
Outside Snark project area
Outside Snark project area
Outside Snark project area
Outside Snark project area
Outside Snark project area
Outside Snark project area
Outside Snark project area
Outside Snark project area
Outside Snark project area
Outside Snark project area
Outside Snark project area
Outside Snark project area
Outside Snark project area
Snark project area
Snark project area
Snark project area
Snark project area
Snark project area
Snark project area
Snark project area
Snark project area
Snark project area
Outside Snark project area
Outside Snark project area
Outside Snark project area
Outside Snark project area
Snark project area
Outside Snark project area
Outside Snark project area
Outside Snark project area
Outside Snark project area
Snark project area
Snark project area
Snark project area
Outside Snark project area
Outside Snark project area
Outside Snark project area
Outside Snark project area
Snark project area
Outside Snark project area
Outside Snark project area
Outside Snark project area
Outside Snark project area
Outside Snark project area
Outside Snark project area
Outside Snark project area
Outside Snark project area
Outside Snark project area
Outside Snark project area
Outside Snark project area
Outside Snark project area
Outside Snark project area
Outside Snark project area
Outside Snark project area
Outside Snark project area

23

#
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85

Date
of
observation
23/08/2011
23/08/2011
23/08/2011
23/08/2011
23/08/2011
23/08/2011
23/08/2011
23/08/2011
23/08/2011
23/08/2011
23/08/2011
24/08/2011
24/08/2011
24/08/2011
24/08/2011
24/08/2011
24/08/2011

Zone
(MGA)
51J
51J
51J
51J
51J
51J
51J
51J
51J
50J
51J
51J
51J
51J
51J
51J
51J

Easting
212125
211815
210283
211323
211470
211159
212156
212219
212384
789765
215512
214958
214376
212544
214826
212221
213767

Northing
6696470
6695098
6694907
6694940
6694702
6694560
6695719
6695951
6696813
6697807
6692828
6695681
6695642
6695546
6695472
6695248
6695124

Comment

Location

Tracks
Tracks
Tracks
Inactive mound
Tracks
Tracks
Tracks
Tracks
Tracks
Tracks
Potentially active mound
Inactive mound
Tracks
Tracks
Inactive mound
Inactive mound
Tracks

Outside Snark project area

Outside Snark project area
Outside Snark project area
Outside Snark project area
Outside Snark project area
Outside Snark project area
Outside Snark project area
Outside Snark project area
Outside Snark project area
Outside Snark project area
Outside Snark project area
Outside Snark project area
Outside Snark project area
Outside Snark project area
Outside Snark project area
Outside Snark project area
Outside Snark project area

24