Amrun Project Feral Animal Monitoring Annual Report August 2017

Transcription

1 Amrun Project Feral Animal Monitoring Annual Report August 2017 A report prepared in accordance with requirements of the Amrun Project EPBC Act Approval 2010/5642, Terrestrial Management Plan, Construction Marine and Shipping Management Plan and Feral Pig Management Offset Strategy.

2 DOCUMENT CONTROL Document number: CAL HH-PLN Version Purpose Approval Submission Date 1.0 Publication on Amrun Website Amrun Project Environmental Specialist Not Applicable 09/08/2017 Page 2

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Feral Animal Monitoring Annual Report 1 INTRODUCTION METHODOLOGY AERIAL PIG CONTROL PROGRAM MONITORING FEEDING/BAITING STATION PIG CONTROL PROGRAM MONITORING FERAL CAT AND DOG PROGRAM MONITORING SURVEY RESULTS AERIAL PIG CONTROL PROGRAM MONITORING FEEDING/BAITING STATION PIG CONTROL PROGRAM MONITORING FERAL CAT AND DOG PROGRAM MONITORING REFERENCES APPENDIX A FERAL PIG CONTROL AREAS TABLES TABLE 1 PIG CULL LOCATION TOTALS... 6 TABLE 2 FEED/BAITING STATION CAMERA OBSERVATIONS TABLE 3 FERAL CAT AND DOG SPOTLIGHTING OBSERVATIONS FIGURES: FIGURE 1 OVERALL TRACKS AND ENGAGEMENT LOCATIONS... 7 FIGURE 2 NORMAN CREEK TRACKS AND ENGAGEMENT LOCATIONS... 8 FIGURE 3 SOUTHERN BEACH SECTION TRACKS AND ENGAGEMENT LOCATIONS... 9 FIGURE 4 FEEDING/BAIT STATION AND CAMERA LOCATIONS Page 3

4 1 INTRODUCTION This report provides the survey methodology and monitoring data for the Amrun (formerly South of Embley Project) Project feral animal monitoring programs. The requirements to conduct monitoring for feral pigs, feral cats and feral dogs are described in the following Amrun Project Management Plans: Terrestrial Management Plan o o Section 5.6 Feral Pig Control Program; and Section 5.7 Control of Feral Cats and Dogs; Construction Marine and Shipping Management Plan: o Section 8.6 Feral Pig Management Offset Strategy Feral Pig Management Offset Strategy: o o Section 6.2 Feral Pig Monitoring; and Appendix D Section 3.Monitoring Techniques This report on implementation of the monitoring programs is produced to align with the annual reporting requirements for survey methodology and data in accordance with Condition 57 of the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act 1999 approval EPBC 2010/5642. This report presents monitoring methodologies and observations as implemented between 12 May 2016 (Commencement the Action) and 12 May In accordance with EPBC 2010/5642 Condition 47 the information from this annual report will be used to inform the next revision of the Marine Shipping Management Plan which will be submitted to the Minister prior to the commencement of operations in accordance with EPBC 2010/5642 Condition 8ii. Operations have not yet commenced. 2 METHODOLOGY 2.1. Aerial pig control program monitoring An initial overview flight was conducted the day before the pig control program commenced to assess the level of pig activity and presence of water. During the aerial pig control program the number and location of pigs shot and high pig activity areas were recorded and mapped. The aerial pig control program was conducted from a Bell 206BIII, Jet Ranger conducting a low level (tree top) and low speed strategy. The team utilised GPS tracking software to monitor progress on target areas and plot successful engagement activities. The Program was conducted by professional trained marksmen with a high degree of professionalism in the delivery of humane and ethical program execution which links to its accurate reporting strategies. Page 4

5 2.2. Feeding/baiting station pig control program monitoring At each feeding station a Reconyx Hyperfire Covert Camera Trap was deployed. Cameras were mounted on trees approximately 5m away from the feeding station using the camera straps and positioned with a good view of the feeding station. Animal activity was captured when the motion sensor was triggered using either daylight or infra-red at night. The motion sensor was set to capture 5 pictures in quick succession with a 5 minute break between images sets and a two second delay between triggers. Field cameras recorded the date and time each time the sensor was triggered. At each deployment location, the date, time, feed station #, GPS position of the feed station, distance of camera from feed station. Where possible, the following information was extracted from images. Species identification (feral pigs and other animals); Number of each species; Age class of feral pigs; and Sex of feral pigs Feral cat and dog program monitoring Spotlighting was completed on three nights each quarter at the Mine Infrastructure Area, Hey River Terminal and Amrun Construction Camp. Spot lighting commenced approximately 30 minutes after sunset. The boundary of each site was monitored by either walking or driving at a maximum speed of 10km/h. The observer held the spotlight at eye level searching into the vegetation surrounding the site. When an animal was sighted the team stopped and recorded the species and number of each species. 3 SURVEY RESULTS 3.1. Aerial pig control program monitoring The initial overview flight identified that low numbers of pigs appeared to be present and that the waterholes within 2 km of the beach were predominantly dry, with the exception of those adjacent to the southern beach section. The only other significant water sources were further inland on Norman Creek. Low rainfall had been experienced during 2016 and the dry conditions had been observed throughout the year. The availability of freshwater along the coast and inland appears to have influenced the distribution of feral pigs which in turn influenced the approach taken by the aerial culling team with control efforts focussed on the available freshwater. Feral pig cull locations reported by each of the seven beach sections identified in the Feral Pig Management Offset Strategy (Appendix 1) are presented in Table 1 below. High pig activity areas were only identified at three locations Page 5

6 across the pig control area (approximately 60km of coastline) as shown in Figure 1 to Figure 3 below (GBR 2017): Inland waterholes on an unnamed tributary of Norman Creek (Boyd-Pera and Pera-Thud Beach Sections); a series of waterholes on Ina Creek (Southern Beach Section); and a small waterhole on an unnamed drainage line south of Ina Creek (Southern Beach Section). Table 1 Pig cull location totals Beach Section Northern Thud Norman Pig Cull totals Boyd Bay Boyd -Pera (including inland waterholes) Pera -Thud (including inland waterholes) Amban Southern Page 6

7 Figure 1 Overall tracks and engagement locations Page 7

8 Figure 2 Norman Creek tracks and engagement locations Page 8

9 Figure 3 Southern Beach Section tracks and engagement locations Page 9

10 3.2. Feeding/baiting station pig control program monitoring Observations from the cameras at the seven feeding stations established during the feeding and baiting station program are presented in Table 2 below. The location of the station and cameras is shown in Figure 4. A pig visitation rate (pigs/night) is provided in order to provide a monitoring index for long term comparisons each year. The lack of feral pig feeding at the bait stations may be attributed to: Pigs not recognising fermenting grain as food source; Fermenting grain baked due to heat; Inconsistent restocking of bait station (tides, site access difficulties, crew rosters); and/or Significant feral dog activity, particularly during the day. Page 10

11 Figure 4 Feeding/bait station and camera locations Page 11

12 Table 2 Feed/baiting station camera observations Beach Section Bait station camera 1 Bait station camera 2 Bait station camera 3 Bait station camera 4 Bait station camera 5 Bait station camera 6 Bait station camera 7 Period established/ maintained Southern 2/8/ /9/2016 Amban 10/8/ /9/2016 Southern 10/8/ /9/2016 Southern 10/8/ /9/2016 Pera- Thud Thud- Norman Thud- Norman 11/8/2016 3/9/ /8/ /8/ /8/2016 3/9/2016 Number of nights camera was deployed Number of pigs photographed Visitation rate (pigs / night) Age Class Adult: 2 Subadult: 1 Juvenile: 0 Sex Male: 1 Female: 2 Feral Animal Monitoring Annual Report Other animals Dogs, birds, snake N/A N/A Dogs Adult: 3 Subadult: 1 Juvenile: 1 Male: 1 Female: 3 Unknown: 1 Dogs, birds N/A N/A Dogs Comments Pigs seen only on 3 days. Pigs seen only on 2 days N/A N/A Dog, birds Inconsistent access. Finished program early at this location N/A N/A None Inconsistent access. Finished program early at this location Adult: 1 Juvenile: 0 Male: 1 Female: 0 None Inconsistent access. Finished program early at this location. Page 12

13 3.3. Feral cat and dog program monitoring Feral cat and dog observations from the quarterly spotlight monitoring which commenced in November 2016 are reported in Table 3 below. A low level of feral cat and dog activity was recorded and the activity was consistent throughout the reporting period. The Amrun Project activities are not seen to be increasing the number of feral cats and dogs at these infrastructure locations. Table 3 Feral cat and dog spotlighting observations Survey Mine Infrastructure Amrun construction Hey River Terminal Event Area camp November Cat 1 pig, 2 dogs Not required by Terrestrial Management Plan February 3 dogs 1 dog No animals sighted 2017 May 2017 No animals sighted 2 dog No animals sighted 4 REFERENCES GBR (2017). Feral Pig Control Program September A report prepared for RTA Weipa Pty Ltd by GBR Helicopters Pty Ltd. Page 13

14 APPENDIX A FERAL PIG CONTROL AREAS Feral Animal Monitoring Annual Report Page 14