Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Pilbara Bioregion EPBC Act Policy Statement
Pilbara Bioregion EPBC Act Policy Statement
Pilbara Bioregion EPBC Act Policy Statement
Unless otherwise noted, copyright (and any other intellectual property rights) in this publication is owned by the
Commonwealth of Australia (referred to as the Commonwealth).
This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any
process without written permission from the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water. For more
information about this Draft Policy Statement, contact:
Email: pilbara@dcceew.gov.au.
Disclaimer
The Australian Government acting through the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water has
exercised due care and skill in preparing and compiling the information and data in this publication. Notwithstanding, the
Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, its employees and advisers disclaim all liability,
including liability for negligence and for any loss, damage, injury, expense or cost incurred by any person as a result of
accessing, using or relying on any of the information or data in this publication to the maximum extent permitted by law.
Acknowledgement of Country
Our department recognises the First Peoples of this nation and their ongoing connection to culture and country. We
acknowledge First Nations Peoples as the Traditional Owners, Custodians and Lore Keepers of the world's oldest living
culture and pay respects to their Elders past, present and emerging.
Contents
1 Policy Statement ................................................................................................................... 5
1.1 Policy Objectives.................................................................................................................. 5
1.2 Pilbara Bioregion ................................................................................................................. 6
1.3 Policy Scope ......................................................................................................................... 8
1.4 Regulatory Pathways ........................................................................................................... 8
2 Regulatory Expectations .......................................................................................................11
2.1 Conservation Objectives .................................................................................................... 11
2.2 Mitigation Hierarchy.......................................................................................................... 11
2.3 Information Standards ...................................................................................................... 13
3 Pilbara EPBC Act Listed Threatened Species ..........................................................................16
3.1 Habitat Definitions ............................................................................................................ 16
3.2 Northern Quoll (Dasyurus hallucatus) ............................................................................... 17
3.3 Greater Bilby (Macrotis lagotis) ........................................................................................ 23
3.4 Pilbara Olive Python (Liasis olivaceus barroni) .................................................................. 29
3.5 Pilbara Leaf-nosed Bat (Rhinonicteris aurantia) (Pilbara form) ........................................ 34
3.6 Ghost Bat (Macroderma gigas) ......................................................................................... 43
3.7 Night Parrot (Pezoporus occidentalis) ............................................................................... 52
3.8 Grey Falcon (Falco hypoleucos) ......................................................................................... 59
3.9 Princess Parrot (Polytelis alexandrae) ............................................................................... 65
3.10 Great Desert Skink (Liopholis kintorei) .............................................................................. 70
4 Environmental Offsets ..........................................................................................................76
4.1 Residual Significant Impacts .............................................................................................. 76
4.2 Commencement of Offsets ............................................................................................... 78
4.3 Offset Design ..................................................................................................................... 78
4.4 Offset Information Requirements ..................................................................................... 79
4.5 Pilbara Environmental Offsets Fund.................................................................................. 84
4.6 Advanced offsets ............................................................................................................... 86
4.7 Offset Pathways................................................................................................................. 87
5 Review and Evaluation .........................................................................................................91
5.1 Review of scientific literature............................................................................................ 91
5.2 Evaluating the Policy ......................................................................................................... 91
6 Attachments ........................................................................................................................93
7 References ...........................................................................................................................94
8 End Notes .......................................................................................................................... 103
Tables
Table 3-1 Listed threatened species included in the policy. ................................................................. 16
Table 3-2 Northern Quoll habitat definitions ........................................................................................ 18
Table 3-3 Northern Quoll: mitigation of impacts .................................................................................. 19
Table 3-4 Greater Bilby habitat definitions ........................................................................................... 24
Table 3-5 Greater Bilby: mitigation of impacts ..................................................................................... 25
Table 3-6 Pilbara Olive Python habitat definitions................................................................................ 29
Table 3-7 Pilbara Olive Python: mitigation of impacts .......................................................................... 31
Table 3-8 Pilbara Leaf-nosed Bat habitat definitions ............................................................................ 36
Table 3-9 Pilbara Leaf-nosed Bat mitigation of impacts ....................................................................... 39
Table 3-10 Ghost Bat habitat definitions .............................................................................................. 45
Table 3-11 Ghost Bat: mitigation of impacts......................................................................................... 47
Table 3-12 Night Parrot habitat definitions .......................................................................................... 53
Table 3-13 Night Parrot: mitigation of impacts ..................................................................................... 55
Table 3-14 Grey Falcon habitat definitions ........................................................................................... 60
Table 3-15 Grey Falcon: mitigation of impacts ..................................................................................... 61
Table 3-16 Princess Parrot habitat definitions ...................................................................................... 65
Table 3-17 Princess Parrot: mitigation of impacts ................................................................................ 67
Table 3-18 Great Desert Skink habitat definitions ................................................................................ 70
Table 3-19 Great Desert Skink mitigation of impacts............................................................................ 72
Table 4-1 Maximum research offset contribution for the nine listed threatened species ................... 81
Table 4-2 Priority threat matrix and offset pathways of impact pathways .......................................... 87
Figures
Figure 1-1 Pilbara IBRA region and subregions ....................................................................................... 8
Figure 3-1 Northern Quoll survey and avoidance areas (640 m radius/129 ha area) ........................... 19
Figure 3-2 Greater Bilby survey and avoidance areas (1.5 km radius) .................................................. 25
Figure 3-3 Pilbara Olive Python survey and avoidance areas (365 ha area) ......................................... 31
Figure 3-4 Pilbara Leaf-nosed Bat survey and avoidance areas (500 m area) ...................................... 38
Figure 3-5 Ghost Bat survey and avoidance areas (500 m area) ........................................................... 47
Figure 3-6 Night Parrot survey and avoidance areas ............................................................................ 54
Figure 3-7 Grey Falcon survey and avoidance areas ............................................................................. 61
Figure 3-8 Princess Parrot survey and avoidance areas ........................................................................ 66
Figure 3-9 Great Desert Skink survey and avoidance areas .................................................................. 72
1 Policy Statement
This policy identifies minimum avoidance requirements and recommended mitigation and offsetting
measures for proposed development in the Pilbara bioregion likely to significantly impact one or
more of the following listed threatened species protected under Part 3 of the Environment Protection
and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act):
• Northern Quoll
• Greater Bilby
• Pilbara Olive Python
• Pilbara Leaf-nosed bat
• Ghost Bat
• Night Parrot
• Grey Falcon
• Princess Parrot
• Great Desert Skink
The policy also sets species-specific minimum information requirements for developers and their
consultants when surveying for species habitat at proposed impact sites, preparing EPBC Act
referrals, environmental impact assessment documentation, and proposed offset strategies or
management plans.
This policy has been developed to inform persons proposing new or expanded developments in the
Pilbara bioregion to:
1. design and locate projects that avoid and minimise impacts to these listed threatened
species to an acceptable level, and
2. prepare good quality referral and assessment information that is relevant, reliable and
complete.
It is expected that all proposed developments in the Pilbara bioregion likely to have a significant
impact on one or more of these listed threatened species will be designed to include the avoidance
standards and recommended mitigation and offsetting measures set out in this policy.
environmental significance are kept to an acceptable level for the matters’ ongoing persistence in the
region.
The key objectives of this policy are to:
1. achieve more efficient assessment of developments proposed in the Pilbara bioregion, and
2. promote ecologically sustainable development in the Pilbara bioregion, by requiring effective
application of the mitigation hierarchy.
Application of this policy is also expected to achieve the following outcomes.
1. Listed threatened species identified in this policy do not become more threatened, at the
regional level, as result of cumulative impacts of development in the Pilbara bioregion.
2. Promote effective engagement between the department and proponents prior to referral of
proposed developments in the Pilbara bioregion.
3. Avoidance measures in respect of impacts to critical breeding habitat and other ecologically
sustainable design measures are incorporated in early proposal design for projects in the
Pilbara bioregion.
4. Environmental assessment information submitted for projects proposed in the Pilbara
bioregion is relevant, reliable and complete.
5. Time taken by the department to assess proposed developments in the Pilbara bioregion is
reduced (and includes fewer requests for additional information).
6. More consistent, evidence-based decision-making and conditions of approvals for projects in
the Pilbara bioregion.
The department expects proponents to actively engage with, and support opportunities for working
with, First Nations peoples as early as possible. Appropriate stakeholder engagement is
fundamentally important to designing and delivering suitable avoidance, mitigation and offsetting
measures for any protected matters to be impacted.
Figure 1-1 Pilbara IBRA region and subregions the geographic extent of the Pilbara Interim Biogeographic
Regionalisation for Australia (IBRA) region outlined in black polygon and subregions outlined in yellow
polygons located within Western Australia of Australia.
The Pilbara bioregion has a rich and extensive First Nations cultural history, with some estimates that
the area was occupied 30–40,000 years before European colonisation (Wangka Maya 2021) and
others up to 50,000 or more (Dortch et al. 2019). The Pilbara bioregion has 31 Aboriginal cultural
groups that are mostly referred to as language groups. These cultural groups are considered highly
spiritual Peoples that are connected through and maintained by certain land features and areas
within the Pilbara. Custodianship is embedded into this connection to the Pilbara ‘country’ and
evidence of continuous ecosystem management (Dortch et al. 2019).
The Pilbara is hot and dry - evaporation exceeds rainfall by up to 3,000 mm/year across much of the
region. All surface streams other than parts of Fortescue Marsh are ephemeral, frequently flooding in
wet seasons and drying out over dry seasons. Groundwater is found in both perched and deeper
regional aquifers (DoW 2010; CSIRO 2015). Life in arid regions is frequently limited by water, and
sustained water sources, typically streams, springs and waterholes in the Pilbara, are highly valued by
all surrounding ecosystems. As discussed in Section 3, alterations of surface water and groundwater
systems, such as artificial water sources provided for cattle and dewatering of deeper mine pits, can
present direct and indirect threats (Mouritz et al. 2022) to the listed species considered in this
report.
Considered nationally and globally significant for its natural resources, the Pilbara bioregion is an
important area for conservation efforts for many reasons. The bioregion contains many native
species, some that are endemic to the Pilbara, which have adapted to the highly seasonal rainfall and
the unique geological and hydrological features.
The Pilbara bioregion is one of Australia’s development hotspots due to the volumes of iron ore, gas,
and other resources, and contributes substantial economic benefits both for Western Australia and
broader Australia (McKenzie et al. 2009). As stated in a report by the Western Australia (WA)
Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) (EPA 2014), the cumulative impacts of project
development in the Pilbara bioregion have the potential to undermine the biodiversity of the region.
Proposed developments that will result in an impact that is known to directly or indirectly lead to the
decline of one or more of the species identified in this policy, is likely to have a significant impact on
a matter of national environmental significance and should be referred for a decision on whether
assessment and approval is required under the EPBC Act.
To better understand the potential impact of your project and check whether your proposed
development needs to be referred for assessment, a self-assessment should be undertaken. The
self-assessment requires a developed understanding of the EPBC Act assessment process, the
ecology of relevant species, as well as broader ecological concepts. You may need to seek assistance
from suitably qualified or experienced people when undertaking a self-assessment.
Keep a record of your self-assessment to demonstrate your thinking on why you did or did not refer
your proposal. Note that the department may need to investigate, and it may be a serious offence, if
you start a proposed development without approval.
Early Engagement
Where you self-assess your proposed development as likely to have a significant impact on any of the
listed threatened species identified in this policy, you are strongly encouraged to discuss your
proposal with the department. Engage with us as early in the planning phase of your project as
possible. In some cases, this could be several years prior to referral of the proposed development for
assessment. Earlier engagement increases the chance of avoiding delays and information requests
during assessment.
Early engagement with the department can also assist you to understand, properly apply, and
incorporate the mitigation hierarchy into the design of the proposed development at the conceptual
and planning stages, potentially saving time and project redesign costs at later stages.
You should be aware that there may be obligations to consult with First Nations peoples and
communities in relation to, for example, Native Title and Indigenous Protected Areas. Relevant First
Nations peoples and communities should also be engaged appropriately and as early in the project
planning phase as possible to ensure that First Nations interests and cultural heritage can be
protected as projects are designed. You should keep a record of this engagement as the department
will require this information to be provided as part of the referral and assessment process. The
Interim Engaging with First Nations People and Communities on Assessments and Approvals under
the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (interim guidance) sets out the
department’s expectations of proponents engaging with First Nations people and communities under
the EPBC Act.
2 Regulatory Expectations
The Australian Government is committed to decision making that protects and prevents extinctions
of listed threatened species appropriately under Australian legislation. This includes halting
biodiversity loss, promoting environment-friendly development and using nature-based solutions to
protect, restore and manage our most precious habitats, places and species.1 The application of the
expectations outlined in this policy will result in better regulatory certainty for project development.
This will likely lead to faster assessments as proponents will have clear guidelines to follow that can
be incorporated into project plans, years ahead of referral submission if necessary.
This policy provides a strategic approach to managing project-by-project and cumulative impacts on
the listed threatened species within the Pilbara bioregion. Our analysis has confirmed that
cumulative impacts on, and survival requirements of, each of these listed threatened species are not
yet well quantified in the Pilbara. This policy aims to manage cumulative impacts by assessing all
impacts to listed threatened species and applying the mitigation hierarchy consistently.
Implementation of this policy, supported by monitoring of important species metrics will improve
our understanding of cumulative impacts on the listed threatened species.
is aimed at avoiding or, where this is not feasible, minimising the impacts that a proposed
development will or is likely to have, and to balance environmental impacts with offsets.
Applying the Mitigation Hierarchy aligns with the principles of ecologically sustainable development.
The hierarchy establishes avoidance of impacts as the priority, then to reduce remaining impacts
through mitigation measures. Only once these options are exhausted, any residual significant
impacts must be offset. The generic requirements for each of the Mitigation Hierarchy tiers are
explained in the following subsections. Section 3 of the policy sets out further detail of how the
Mitigation Hierarchy will generally be applied to activities affecting the nine targeted species in the
Pilbara bioregion.
2.2.1 Avoid
Avoiding direct and indirect impacts is one of the best ways to protect listed threatened species. It is
often the easiest, most cost effective and efficient approach to minimising negative impacts when
considered in project planning.
In Section 3 of this policy, avoidance standards are set out for each of the listed threatened species in
the Pilbara bioregion. These standards have been developed based on statutory documentation and
best available scientific information. The avoidance standards are species-specific because each
species requires particular habitat to support their survival, breeding success, and persistence in the
landscape.
The avoidance standards concern areas encompassing environmental features that are critical to the
survival of each species, for example, critical habitat features for breeding (e.g., dens, burrows,
roosts and nests), landscape features (e.g., foraging areas, waterholes, dispersal features) and areas
of species occurrence.
All development proposals must consider and maximise opportunities to avoid direct and indirect
impacts to these areas in the design of a proposed development to support the species’ survival.
Protection of avoidance areas from direct and indirect impacts are likely to be specified in conditions
of approval for approved developments in the Pilbara bioregion. Approval conditions are also likely
to require monitoring of these avoidance areas to demonstrate the ongoing effectiveness of the
required avoidance measures.
2.2.2 Mitigate
Mitigation measures are management actions that have been designed to minimise and reduce
direct and indirect impacts to protected matters.
Section 3 of this policy under ‘Mitigation measures’ sets out key impact pathways and suggested
mitigation measures for each of the nine listed threatened species identified in this policy. The
referred development proposal should fully characterise the extent of these impact pathways for
each of the species and provide suitable evidence of how the proposed mitigation measure will be
effective in reducing direct and indirect impacts to the listed threatened species for the duration of
the proposed development. Mitigation measures will likely need to be applied for the life of the
impact, across the development envelope and undertaken within any areas subject to avoidance
standards.
2.2.3 Offset
Environmental offsets can be considered for a proposed development only once higher tiers of the
Mitigation Hierarchy have been applied to the fullest extent possible. If there is a remaining residual
significant impact, offsets are required that ensure a conservation gain for the species and the
environment. In this policy, a range of priority offset activities are provided for each of the listed
threatened species in Section 4. These offset options may be delivered either through the Western
Australian government Department of Water and Environmental Regulation’s (DWER) Pilbara
Environmental Offsets Fund (the Fund) or delivered by the approval holder or a service supplier on
their behalf. These assessment expectations align with the key aims and principles of the EPBC
Environmental Offsets Policy (2012).
The department expects referral documentation will address all surveying and mitigation hierarchy
information requirements outlined in Section 3 of this policy. This includes supporting spatial data in
Shapefile format. The referral documentation should clearly demonstrate application of this policy,
including how the avoidance standards and mitigation measures have been applied, and if
appropriate, an environmental offsets plan or strategy.
The department strongly encourages outlining your proposed avoidance, mitigation and offsetting
measures at the referral stage, in accordance with this policy, as this will reduce the likelihood that
the department will need to request additional information and achieve a faster assessment.2
To avoid additional information requests and enable faster assessments, you must collect and submit
relevant environmental data that is robust, complete, accurate, clear, up to date and addresses the
requirements described in Subsections 2.3.1 – 2.3.3.
To ensure transparency and accountability, the department may conduct random audits to confirm
environmental information provided within environmental impact assessments is accurate.
Habitat and species-specific surveys will need to be undertaken at appropriate scale and in
appropriate timeframes to fully characterise how the listed threatened species are using the local
landscape. The size of the survey areas, and the amount of survey effort (e.g., methods for
identifying species detections and frequency of surveys) necessary for this purpose will vary for each
species.
As well as informing appropriate application of the Mitigation Hierarchy, the survey effort must be
designed to provide suitable baseline conditions for each of the species and habitat characteristics
that will be used to support on-going monitoring of avoidance areas.
The surveys should be used to inform how the avoidance standards have been applied for each
species likely to be present (see Section 3). All survey results should be provided as part of the
referred development information if an expedited approval is sought. Landscape characterisation
maps showing habitat and spatial data should be provided indicating how the avoidance standards
have been applied. All supporting information including species survey and habitat characterisation
data, should be provided in a clear manner, and should include Shapefiles defining specific avoidance
or activity-controlled zones. Guides to providing maps and boundary details and biological survey and
mapped data are available on the department’s website:
• Guide to providing maps and boundary data for EPBC Act projects - DCCEEW
• Guidelines for biological survey and mapped data - DCCEEW
• Detailed analysis and discussion on how proposed mitigations will effectively reduce threats
or improve specific functional habitat characteristics impacting listed threatened species,
including proposed implementation as well as monitoring and evaluation indicators that will
be used to determine the effectiveness of the mitigations if enacted.
All offset proposals should provide the following minimum information with the referred
development proposal:
• The proposed scope, timeframe and milestones (e.g., commencement and completion) for
the offsets, and party or parties responsible for offset delivery.
• A discussion on how the offset will result in a conservation gain for the impacted species
within the Pilbara bioregion, relative to the impacts to species which are predicted to occur if
the proposed development is approved.
• Details of the proposed monitoring and evaluation approach for the offset measures, and
how success will be measured (see Section 4). These should include clear and measurable
triggers which can be used to monitor the effectiveness of each offset measure.
• Demonstrate how the offset actions leverage regional conservation efforts and support First
Nations objectives within the Pilbara bioregion.
Species Common Name Species Scientific Name EPBC Act Listing Status
Northern Quoll Dasyurus hallucatus Endangered
Greater Bilby Macrotis lagotis Vulnerable
Pilbara Olive Python Liasis olivaceus barroni Vulnerable
Pilbara Leaf-nosed Bat Rhinonicteris aurantia (Pilbara form) Vulnerable
Ghost Bat Macroderma gigas Vulnerable
Night Parrot Pezoporus occidentalis Endangered
Grey Falcon Falco hypoleucos Vulnerable
Princess Parrot Polytelis alexandrae Vulnerable
Great Desert Skink Liopholis kintorei Vulnerable
• Home range is the area used by a species that comprises known or potential breeding
habitat (e.g., nesting, burrowing, roosting, denning) required to support its ongoing
persistence, and foraging and water sources surrounding the breeding site required to
support breeding success.
• Critical habitat is habitat that is critical to the survival of a species and to maintaining their
persistence in the environment, and the protection of these habitats will aid in the recovery
of the species. Note: the definition of critical habitat in this policy is not limited to critical
habitat listed under section 207A of the EPBC Act.
• Key habitat is habitat outside of critical habitat types that is necessary to ensure a species
persistence and enable its recovery. Key habitat is important for supporting foraging,
dispersal and connectivity, or likely to provide breeding habitat in the future or allow for
species population expansion.
A minimum of seven consecutive nights of camera traps using non-replenishing food lures (e.g., bait
sprinkled in front of the trap once) or inaccessible scent lures (e.g., a perforated sardine tin, or a
perforated capsule containing bait or cotton soaked in tuna oil) is required. However, if during the
survey, there are early indications which establish a high-density presence of the Northern Quoll
(multiple unique individuals captured on the traps in the first few days), the survey can be ended
after four nights. The surveys should be appropriately scaled (Moore et al. 2023). For example, to
cover a 75 ha area a minimum of five vertically oriented cameras (1.5 m from the ground with baited
lure beneath) should be spaced a minimum of 200 m apart (Moore et al. 2020).
Critical Habitat Denning Habitat6 (Hill and Ward 2010; Moore et al. 2022; Cowan et al. 2023)
• Rocky hills, mesas, escarpments, ranges, breakaways, and rocky crevices in large boulder
fields including artificial habitats.
• Gorges and gullies with rocky creek lines and riverbeds.
• Major drainage lines with overstory and suitable vegetation cover.
• Offshore Islands.
Key Habitat Foraging habitat (Hill and Ward 2010; Hernandez
-Santin et al. 2018; Cowan et al. 2023; DCCEEW 2023a)
• Water sources in close proximity to denning habitat.
• Major drainage lines and tree lined creeks.
• Structurally diverse woodland or forest areas.
• Basalt hills, mesas (and buttes of limonites), high and low plateaus and lower slopes.
• Tor fields and stony plains supporting either hard or soft spinifex grasslands.
• Sandstone and dolomite hills and ridges, shrublands, sandy plains, clay plans and tussock
grasslands and coastal fringes including dunes islands and beaches.
Habitat Loss Minimise indirect loss of critical and key habitat as much as
Direct impacts to habitat will lead to the loss of practicable.
breeding and foraging habitat and will likely cause the Ensure clearing is undertaken progressively to minimise
degradation of surrounding habitat, increase fatalities of the species.
fragmentation risks, and possibly lead to an increase of Consider retaining suitably sized boulders during construction
predation by feral animals (Hill & Ward 2010; Cramer phases to be used in creating Northern Quoll rock piles in
et al. 2016b). adequate locations within the disturbance footprint during
progressive site rehabilitation.
Fragmentation and isolation Avoid direct and indirect impacts to dispersal corridors that
Due to its short breeding cycle and high adult link known Northern Quoll detections to areas outside the
mortality, Northern Quoll populations are particularly development envelope. These corridors should have suitable
vulnerable to local extinctions when isolated from habitat to facilitate dispersal and prioritise water courses and
other populations in the landscape as re-establishment riparian areas with high vegetation.
from other populations is unlikely (Hill and Ward 2010; Mitigation measures of feral predators and negative fire
Braithwaite and Griffiths 1994; Rankmore and Price effects are required within the dispersal corridors to minimise
2004; Oakwood 2000) these threats during the juvenile male dispersal periods and
Many Northern Quoll populations in the Pilbara are mating seasons (Autumn to Winter).
now smaller and more isolated, leading to inbreeding Ensure that suitably designed culverts (Creese 2012) are
and loss of genetic diversity, increasing their extinction implemented in dispersal corridors that intersect with linear
risk (Moore et al. 2022). infrastructure, especially in preferred drainage dispersal
Maintaining the genetic connectivity and supporting habitats.
high levels of gene flow is important to maintain the
Pilbara Northern Quoll metapopulation (Shaw et al.
2022).
Linear infrastructure such a roads and rail have the
potential to fragment and create barriers to the
movement of the Northern Quoll (Creese 2012).
Feral Predators Implement a feral cat or fox control program which aims to
Feral cats and foxes (potentially) impact Northern minimise feral predator numbers within and around the
Quolls by competing for the same food (prey) and development envelope, including known denning habitat
Any direct or indirect disturbance of critical habitat or key habitat outside of avoidance areas and
within the development envelope will be considered a residual significant impact where a Northern
Quoll occurrence has been recorded within the study area.
Refer to Section 4 for information on offsetting residual significant impacts.
Determining the presence of the Greater Bilby within the study area requires a range of survey
approaches depending on the size of the Greater Bilby preferred habitats. It can include running
systemically designed transects, either on foot or aerially, to identify digging and burrowing activity.
Remote cameras, scat genetic analysis, or burrow system mapping can then be used to further refine
the habitats used by the Greater Bilby within the study area. For large areas see Appendix 2 of
Northover et al. (2023) and for small areas see Appendix 3 of Northover et al. (2023).
already exist.16 Dispersal corridors should consist of critical and key habitat types.
Linear infrastructure will need to ensure suitably built and placed culverts are constructed to
facilitate Greater Bilby dispersal. 17
Figure 3-2 illustrates a conceptual example of application of the Greater Bilby avoidance standards.
Habitat Loss Minimise indirect loss of critical and key habitat as much as
Direct impacts to habitat will lead to the loss of practicable.
breeding and foraging habitat and will likely cause the
degradation of surrounding habitat, increase
fragmentation risks, and possibly lead to an increase of
predation by feral animals (DCCEEW 2023b).
Fragmentation and genetic isolation Locate infrastructure in ways that allow for dispersal of the
Development of roads, fences, dams, large-scale Greater Bilby within and beyond the development envelope.
agriculture irrigation, pipelines, industrial structures Ensure that suitably designed culverts (Creese 2012) are
and proposed activities with large footprints (e.g., implemented in dispersal corridors that intersect with linear
mines, solar salt, renewables) will create barriers to infrastructure, especially in preferred drainage dispersal
dispersal of the species and restrict their ability to habitats.
establish new populations and inhibit the roving of
males (DCCEEW 2023b).
Isolated populations are more susceptible to
extinction and less resilient to natural fluctuation,
there are reduced opportunities for evolutionary
adaptation to changes in the environment with
restricted genetic exchange across the populations
(DCCEEW 2023b).
Feral Predators Implement a feral cat and fox control program which aims to
Fox and feral cat predation are major factors minimise feral predator numbers within and around the
associated with the decline of Greater Bilbies
Figure 3-3 Conceptual example of Pilbara Olive Python survey and avoidance areas (365 Ha area)
Habitat Loss Minimise indirect loss of critical and key habitat as much as
Habitat loss for the Pilbara Olive Python from habitat practicable.
disturbance and destruction occurs in two main ways. Ensure clearing is undertaken progressively to minimise
Firstly, from the clearing of rocky outcrops and gorges fatalities of the species.
to make way for mining and infrastructure
developments, directly reducing the availability of
suitable habitat for the species (TSSC 2008; Morris et
al. 2016). Secondly, livestock such as cattle and
increased levels of tourism may degrade the habitat
for the Pilbara Olive Python, especially around
waterbodies (Morris et al. 2016).
Fragmentation and isolation Locate infrastructure in ways that allows for dispersal of the
The risk of loss of genetic diversity due to Pilbara Olive Python within and beyond the development
fragmentation and prolonged isolation of populations envelope.
due to threatening processes such as habitat loss is a Ensure that suitably designed structures and culverts are
potential long-term threat to the persistence and implemented in dispersal corridors that intersect with linear
viability of the Pilbara Olive Python (Pearson et al. infrastructure, especially in preferred drainage habitats.
2013).
Feral Predators Implement a feral cat and fox control program which aims to
The predation of Pilbara Olive Pythons by foxes and minimise feral predator numbers within and around the
feral cats has the potential to impact the species, with development envelope, including known denning habitat for
juveniles being especially vulnerable (Carwardine et al. the Pilbara Olive Python, over the life of the approval.
2014). Foxes and cats also have the added impact of Feral control programs should be designed in accordance with
altering the prey availability to the species, as the relevant EPBC Act threat abatement plans and be informed by
introduced predators directly prey on the same food contemporary findings on best practice feral predator
sources as the Pilbara Olive Python (Tutt et al. 2004; management. Any baits used should be proven safe for Pilbara
Carwardine et al. 2014; Morris et al. 2016). However, Olive Python.
the full extent of the threat to the species is Monitor and report feral predator numbers around the impact
unquantified. site compared to a pre-disturbance baseline. Baseline and
ongoing surveys should follow Pest animal monitoring
techniques (Pest Smart 2021b).
Feral Herbivores Fence off avoidance areas, including denning habitats and
Livestock such as cattle and feral camels will degrade nearby watercourses, from feral herbivores. Fencing should
riparian vegetation and the water quality of the water follow best practice exclusion fencing guidelines and allow
ongoing dispersal of the species. Manage potential increase in
within the development envelope. Suitably sized core foraging areas that support high Pilbara
Leaf-nosed Bat foraging detections, with a preference for Priority 1 to 3 habitats, should be
avoided.
Maintaining the viability of roosts within avoidance areas
The sustained viability of Category 1, 2, 3 and 4 roosts must be achieved by meeting the following
two objectives:
1. Roost structural integrity is maintained for use by Pilbara Leaf-nosed Bats, and changes that
prevent or reduce the quality of the habitat are avoided. These changes may include, but
are not limited to, collapse and blockages, flooding, changes to the internal microclimates,
increased exposure to intrusive disturbances from people and animals, and increased
likelihood of exposure to chemical agents or pathogens.
2. Roost usage by the Pilbara Leaf-nosed Bat is sustained in the same way, the roost will
continue to be the focus of any breeding activity, and the colony will not diminish in terms
of overall size (numbers) throughout the year, change colony sex ratio, or change rates of
membership turnover. Closing a roost during construction, operation or rehabilitation to
prevent access by the Pilbara Leaf-nosed Bat is not considered to be an appropriate
avoidance measure.
An increased avoidance area around a Category 1, 2 or 3 roost (greater than or less than 500 m) may
need to be applied, if geotechnical, ecological and hydrological studies demonstrate that a change in
the avoidance area is required to maintain the structural integrity, viability and use of a roost or
roosts.
Figure 3-4 illustrates a conceptual example of application of the Pilbara Leaf-nosed Bat avoidance
standards.
project design and included in project assessment documentation when referred under Part 7 of the
EPBC Act.
Table 3-9 Pilbara Leaf-nosed Bat mitigation of impacts
Threat and impact pathways Recommended mitigation measures
Habitat Loss (Category 4 – nocturnal refuges) Design and locate proposed development to minimise loss of
key habitat as much as practicable.
Refuges used for night time resting and feeding are
important for the persistence of the Pilbara Leaf-nosed Minimise impacts of blasting, drilling, earthworks, excavation,
Bat in a local area and may be destroyed as a result of clearing, construction, artificial light and haulage adjacent to
excavation and clearing activities (TSSC 2016e; Bat Call avoidance areas and key habitat types.
2021b). In-ground vibrations from nearby earthworks,
blasting, drilling and operation of heavy equipment
can also impact the structural integrity of nocturnal
refuges and lead to collapse (TSSC 2016e; Bat Call
2021b).
Habitat Loss (foraging)
Degradation or loss of vegetation that provides
foraging opportunities within the typical foraging
range (i.e., 20 km) of a category 1, 2 or 3 roost may
lead to localised reduction in prey for Pilbara
Leaf-nosed Bats. Vegetation loss or degradation may
be caused by direct vegetation clearing for
construction of mines, roads, rail, solar photovoltaic,
wind farm or other infrastructure; storage of waste
soil, increased surface water discharge, grazing by
livestock or feral animals, fire, weed encroachment,
increased surface water discharge and other changes
in hydrology (where vegetation is groundwater
dependent).
Fragmentation and genetic isolation. Ensure that the avoidance standards are implemented to
Suitable roosting habitat is patchily distributed in the minimise impacts to known Category 1,2, and 3 roosts.
Pilbara, with only 48 confirmed roosts within the Maintain landscape connectivity through the protection of
Pilbara (Bat Call 2021a). Long-distance dispersal of the Category 4 roosts and water sources to support dispersal
species is anticipated to be infrequent, and gene flow within the Genetic Movement Corridor.
may be limited by the availability of suitable roosts
across the landscape (Umbrello et al. 2022). There is a
natural barrier of the Fortescue subregion that
impedes the easy mixing of Pilbara Leaf-nosed Bat
between the Hamersley and East Pilbara (Chichester)
subregions, with a narrow 75 km wide north to south
corridor used by Pilbara Leaf-nosed Bat males crossing
the Fortescue subregion.
Feral predation Implement a feral cat control program which aims to minimise
Predation by feral cats has recently been identified as feral cat numbers within and around the development
a threat to Pilbara Leaf-nosed Bats, particularly at envelope, particularly targeting Pilbara Leaf-nosed Bat roost
entrances to roosts (Curtin University 2022a, 2022b). entrances, over the life of the approval. The feral cat controls
in the avoidance areas should be implemented year-round
using a range of methods, with Felixers deployed at the roost
entrance being the preferred control method.
Feral cat control programs should be designed in accordance
with relevant EPBC Act threat abatement plans and be
informed by contemporary findings on best practice feral
predator management.
Monitor and report feral cat numbers around the impact site
compared to a pre-disturbance baseline using camera traps
monthly. Baseline and ongoing surveys should follow Pest
animal monitoring techniques (Pest Smart 2021b).
Wind Turbine collisions Wind turbines should avoid and minimise the risk of collisions
The impact to Pilbara Leaf-nosed Bat from collision and related effects (e.g., barotrauma) on the Pilbara Leaf-
with wind turbines is not fully known but is predicted nosed Bat. This will be informed by the surveys of flight height
to be a risk to the species (Curtin University 2022a, and movement patterns within the development envelope
2022b). and in relationship to key movement corridors across the
Pilbara.
Consider any recorded movement patterns of the species and
avoid locating wind turbines between Category 1, 2 and 3
roosts, water sources and foraging habitats.
Use best practice wind turbine deterrents or warning systems.
The use of reflective markers could also be trialled. Adaptive
approaches should be presented in the monitoring and
management plan for wind turbine strike impacts on the
Pilbara Leaf-nosed Bat.
Human disturbance & cumulative effects of biological Limit access to diurnal roosts only to suitably qualified experts
investigations or trained personnel to undertake monitoring. Non-invasive
The Pilbara Leaf-nosed Bat is highly sensitive to methods of monitoring should be prioritised during the
disturbance. People entering roosts (e.g., for surveying breeding and pupping seasons (between mid-March to end of
or monitoring the species) are likely to cause flushing October).
of bats from the roost and this poses a higher risk of Use appropriate signs to restrict vehicle public access to the
mortality if suitable roosts are not immediately roosts. Induct and enforce the prohibited entry of personnel in
available nearby (DCCEEW 2023c). Disturbance and the avoidance areas.
flushing of bats from diurnal roosts between Passive Integrated Transponder tagging, and radio tracking
November and mid-March also presents higher risk of procedures should only be undertaken with a scope of
abandonment, mortality and impact during important regional scale, which can be supported and coordinated by
parts of their reproductive cycle (Bat Call WA industry but should not be implemented for a single project
2021b:38). focus. This level of coordination will work to build a tracking
There has been an increase in Passive Integrated information database and monitoring system of the species
Transponder tagging in recent years for Pilbara Leaf- movements and roost usage at regional scale.
nosed Bat studies. While this has resulted in some
good outcomes for filling knowledge gaps for the
species, there has been no evaluation of the cost
versus the benefit. Therefore, the procedure should
only be undertaken after consideration of the relative
value of the technique from a regional perspective.
Hydrological changes Minimise hydrological changes (e.g., dewatering, increase in
Loss of permanent pools close to permanent diurnal surface water run-off and diversions) where these changes are
roosts (Category 1 and 2 roosts) may result in roost likely to:
abandonment (Bat Call WA 2021b:17, 31). - impact the water table if it intersects with a critical
Microclimate within caves or adits is essential to their diurnal roost (Category 1, 2 or 3),
viability as Pilbara Leaf-nosed Bat roosts. The water - impact permanent water bodies within 6.1 km of a
table rarely intersects with natural roosts and high critical diurnal roost,
humidity levels are believed to be maintained by water - degrade foraging habitats, and/or
seeping down the rocks overhead. Some roosts in
- decrease water quality due to run-off and pollution.
abandoned underground mines do intersect the water
table (Bat Call WA 2021b:17). Changes to the water
table in these cases may therefore impact humidity
and viability of these roosts (TSSC 2016e).
Diseases Ensure that proper hygiene is undertaken when conducting
Currently no known disease impacts the species. There surveys and monitoring at Pilbara Leaf-nosed Bat roosts.
exists the potential for a future disease similar to Use appropriate signs to minimise public and personnel entry
White Nosed Syndrome (Pseudogymnoascus into avoidance areas.
destructans) to be introduced (Bat Call WA 2021b:32).
Climate change Support climate change resilience for Pilbara Leaf-nosed Bat
The 2022 Workshop on the Pilbara Leaf-nosed Bat and populations via an adaptation strategy (Pavey 2014). This
a world-wide review (Festa et al. 2023) have identified includes protecting known Category 1, 2 and 3 roosts of the
that due to the physiological requirements of the species, maintaining landscape connectivity through the
• Diurnal use of the roosts: based on activity patterns, provide evidence that Ghost Bats use
the roosts during the day. This can be determined by a variety of methods, which include:
o non-invasive thermal or infrared video recordings that show first detection of exit at
dusk.
o acoustic observation of first detection within the 30 minutes after sunset time
and/or a time of last detection within the 30 minutes before sunrise time
o investigating the roost during the day by using ultrasonic recordings, video or
pictures to provide evidence of presence within the roost during the day.
• Breeding activity use of the roost: using either capture methods (e.g., to detect bats in
breeding condition), detection of elevated levels of reproductive hormone metabolites in
validated species-specific scat material, observations of non-volant young in the roost,
recordings of young bat calls within the roost, or direct observations of mating.
• Colony size: undertaken using valid counting method to assess the number of Ghost Bats
using the roosts across seasons and years.
Acoustic detection and video recordings will be needed to determine landscape uses outside the
roost(s) to inform core foraging areas and water sources the species rely upon within the
development envelope. However, Ghost Bat detections away from the roost entrance can be
challenging due to the sporadic number of calls the species makes while outside the roost (e.g.,
foraging). Therefore, acoustic lures (Ruykys et al. 2023) provide a good option in determining
landscape uses of the Ghost Bat.
The regional context of the development envelope will also need to be understood for the Ghost Bat,
including all the known Category 1 and 2 roosts within 12 km of the development envelope
boundary. This may be undertaken using a desktop assessment.
Survey Extent and Requirements
Surveys for the Ghost Bat must be undertaken within the development envelope and within 500 m
(identify any critical roosting habitats) outside of the development envelope boundary (the study
area). The surveys within the study area must:
1. Identify and categorise habitat in accordance with Ghost bat habitat definitions at
Table 3-10.
2. Confirm detection or non-detection of Ghost Bat occurrences (e.g., calls, sightings, video
recordings or scats) to categorise the roosts, identify the core foraging habitats, and identify
the water resources used by the Ghost Bats.
Should surveys identify Category 1, 2 or 3 (apartment block) bat roosts, the following critical habitat
surveys and impact assessments must be undertaken:
3. Foraging habitat impact assessment to identify the core foraging habitats.
4. Vibration impact assessment to identify and quantify potential impacts to Category 1, 2 and
3 (apartment block) roosts as a result of inground vibration from development, operation,
closure and rehabilitation of a development area.
5. Noise impact assessment to identify and quantify potential impacts of noise transmission to
the Category 1, 2 or 3 (apartment block) roost during development, operation, closure and
rehabilitation of a development area.
6. Hydrological assessment(s) (e.g., groundwater and surface water impact assessments) to
identify:
o potential impacts to the hydrology, water quality and chemistry of any water sources
within a 5 km radius of a Category 1, 2 or 3 (apartment block) roost as a result of the
development, operation, closure and rehabilitation of a development area, and
o Ghost Bat occurrences (e.g., calls, sightings, video recordings) at the water sources
within 5 km of the roosts.
7. Light pollution impact assessment to identify potential impacts of artificial light on the Ghost
Bats using a Category 1, 2 or 3 (apartment block) roost during development, operation,
closure and rehabilitation of a development area.
2. If surveys for the Ghost Bat identify multiple Category 1 or 2 or Category 3 (apartment block)
roosts in proximity to one another (within 500 m), all Category 1 or 2 or Category 3 (apartment
block) roosts and all habitat within a 500 m radius of the outermost roosts must be avoided in
the development envelope.
3. If surveys for the Ghost Bat identify water sources within a 5 km radius of a Category 1, 2 or 3
roost, at least one permanent water source or multiple ephemeral and semi-permanent water
sources with high levels of Ghost Bat usage that will support the species year-round, in addition
to all habitat within a 200 m radius of the water source, must be avoided within the
development envelope.32
4. Additional avoidance requirements will be required in situations where a development is likely
to result in widespread clearing and degradation of key foraging habitats for the Ghost Bat
outside the avoidance areas but within a 12 km radius of the known Category 1, 2 or 3 roosts in
the development envelope. Suitably sized areas of foraging habitat (as defined under key
habitat definition at Table 3-10) that support high Ghost Bat foraging detections will need to be
avoided.33
Maintaining the viability of roosts within avoidance areas
The sustained viability of Category 1 and 2 and Category 3 (apartment block) roosts must be achieved
by meeting the following two objectives:
1. Roost structural integrity is maintained for use by Ghost Bats and changes that prevent or
reduce the quality of the habitat is avoided. These changes can include, but are not limited
to, collapse and blockages, flooding, changes to the internal microclimates, increased
exposure to intrusive disturbances from people and animals, and increased likelihood of
exposure to chemical agents or pathogens. This also includes maintaining the structural
integrity of abandoned underground mines.
2. Roost usage by the Ghost Bat is sustained in the same way, the roost will continue to be the
focus of any breeding activity, and the colony will not diminish in terms of overall size
(numbers) throughout the year, change colony sex ratio, or change rates of membership
turnover.
Closing a roost during construction, operation or rehabilitation to prevent access by the Ghost Bat
will not be a supported avoidance measure for Category 1 roosts. Closure of Category 2 and 3 roosts
may be considered, if there is evidence to demonstrate other potential roosts in the region are open
to support the Ghost Bat and these roosts will persist in the environment. To meet this requirement,
there will need to be a commitment to a coordinated regional tracking program that will adaptively
track and reopen roosts for the displaced Ghost Bats when appropriate.
A reduced avoidance area around Category 1 or 2 or Category 3 (apartment block) roosts of less than
500 m may be applied with suitable evidence from best practice geotechnical, ecological, and
hydrological studies that a smaller area can be applied to minimise impacts of noise and vibration on
the viability of the roost. However, the avoidance area surrounding a Category 1 or 2 or Category 3
(apartment block) roost cannot be smaller than 250 m for all project developments except for linear
infrastructure that may (in some circumstances) have a minimum of 50 m avoidance area (speed
restrictions will need to be implemented).
Figure 3-5 illustrates a conceptual example of application of the Ghost Bat avoidance standards.
Habitat Loss (Category 3 (isolated) or Category 4 – Design and locate proposed development to minimise loss of
nocturnal refuges) key habitat as much as practicable.
Many of the Ghost Bat Category 3 (isolated) and Minimise impacts of blasting, drilling, earthworks, excavation,
Category 4 – nocturnal refuge roosts in the Pilbara are clearing, construction, artificial light and haulage adjacent to
at risk of disturbance due to open-cut mining and avoidance areas and key habitat.
removal of old mine adits (TSSC 2016b). The loss of
Category 3 (isolated) roosts will impact the Ghost Bat
long-distance movements across the landscape (Bat
Call WA 2021a). The loss of Category 4 roosts will
impact on foraging, feeding, and resting for the Ghost
Bat (Bat Call WA 2021a).
Habitat Loss (foraging)
The Conservation Advice for the Ghost Bat (TSSC
2016b) states that impacts to foraging habitat such as
the loss of riparian habitat and vantage points in trees
will likely impact the species since suitable foraging
habitats outside of roosts are required to support the
persistence of the colony. In contrast, the Ghost Bat
Review (Bat Call WA 2021a) states that broad scale
anthropogenic induced changes to foraging habitat
due to mining or pastoral projects are unlikely to cause
significant declines. However, broad scale clearing of
native vegetation and replacement by development
may result in declines of the species (Cramer et al.
2022).
Fragmentation and genetic isolation Design and locate proposed development to further avoid or
The Pilbara Ghost Bat subpopulation is genetically minimise impacts to remaining Ghost Bat Category 3 and 4
isolated from the other populations of Ghost Bat roosts and surrounding foraging habitat as much as
which persist in northern Australia (Armstrong and practicable.
Wind Turbine collisions Wind turbines should avoid and minimise the risk of collisions
The impact to Ghost Bat from collision with wind and related effects (e.g., barotrauma) on the Ghost Bat, which
turbines is not fully known but is predicted to be a risk is informed by the surveys of flight height and movement
to the species (Cramer et al. 2022). Ghost Bats are patterns within the development envelope and in relationship
considered to be at risk since the species is known to to key movement corridors across the Pilbara.
fly at the approximate blade sweep range. Consider any recorded movement patterns of the species and
avoid locating wind turbines between Category 1, 2 and 3
roosts, water sources and foraging habitats.
Use best practice wind turbine deterrents or warning systems.
The use of reflective markers could also be trialled. Adaptive
approaches should be presented in the monitoring and
management plan for wind turbine strike impacts on the
Ghost Bat.
Collision with barbed wire fences Avoid using barbed wire in the development envelope.
Due to the foraging technique of the Ghost Bat, the Replace all barbed wire fences that are currently in the
species is known to collide and get tangled in barbed development envelope in foraging range from each critical
wire fencing, which causes death through starvation diurnal roost with single-strand wire (TSSC 2016b; Bat Call WA
and dehydration (Armstrong and Anstee 2000; 2021b).
Woinarski et al. 2014; Bat Call WA 2021a; Cramer et al. Where barbed wire is required for safety reasons, replace the
2022). A study found that a single fence near a colony top wire with single strand and/or add adequate reflectors
will kill all the individuals over time (Armstrong and (i.e., metal disc 10 x 10 cm). Refer to barbed wire mitigation
Anstee 2000). measures in the Barbed Wire Action Plan (Booth 2007).
Human disturbance Limit access to diurnal roosts only to suitably qualified experts
The Ghost Bat is highly sensitive to disturbance, or trained personnel to undertake monitoring. Non-invasive
sometimes temporarily abandoning roosts or methods of monitoring should be prioritised during the
accidentally dropping new-born young when fleeing breeding and pupping seasons.
(Claramunt et al. 2019). Minor disturbances through Use appropriate signs to restrict vehicle public access to the
approaching vehicles or people may result in the roosts. Induct and enforce the prohibited entry of personnel in
species moving to alternative roosts (Bat Call WA the avoidance areas (TSSC 2016b).
2021a; Cramer et al. 2022). Larger disturbances, such Passive Integrated Transponder tagging, and radio tracking
as recreational cave usage or ecologists undertaking procedures should only be undertaken with a scope of
monitoring programs, may result in the loss of young regional scale, which can be supported and coordinated by
and/or abandonment of the roost (TSSC 2016b). industry but should not be implemented for a single project
Cave and mine tours in the Pilbara (Tom Price, Marble focus. This level of coordination will work to build a tracking
Bar, Rio Tinto) have allowed tourist groups to access information database and monitoring system of the species
and disturb potential ghost bat habitats. Recreational movements and roost usage at regional scale.
use of old mines and caves has also resulted in cave
entrances being widened for easier access, and the
installation of handrails, fences, concrete paths, stairs,
and lights (Tuttle 2013).
There has been an increase in Passive Integrated
Transponder tagging in recent years for Ghost Bat
studies. While this has resulted in some good
outcomes for filling knowledge gaps for the species,
there has been no evaluation of the cost versus the
benefit. Therefore, the procedure should only be
undertaken after consideration of the relative value of
the technique in a regional perspective.
Hydrological changes Minimise hydrological changes (e.g., dewatering, increase in
The Ghost Bat Review (Bat Call WA 2021a) states the surface water run-off and diversions) where these changes are
use of water sources near roosts is not well likely to:
understood but that foraging near, and around - impact permanent water bodies within 5 km of a
riparian zones is common. critical diurnal roost,
Flooding of the roosts (both natural and artificial - degrade foraging habitats, or
mines) due to excess water disposal is also a possible - decrease water quality due to run off and pollution.
impact to the species.
Other Foraging habitats (TSSC 2016d; Hamilton et al. 2017; Murphy et al. 2017b; Horton et al. 2021)
• Hummock grasslands (unburnt) in stony or sandplain environments. Spinifex shrublands in stony
or sandy areas.
• Paleo-drainage features in a landscape mosaic with Triodia spp., Astrebla spp. and Acacia aneura
(Mulga) woodland.
• Scattered trees and shrubs, mulga (Acacia aneura) woodlands, and in areas dominated by Triodia
longiceps, Scerolaena spp. Maireana spp. Ptilotus spp. with some Acacia cambagei.
• Lateritic rises, limestone deposits, or deep reticulated sands.
• Treeless areas and bare gibber.
Habitat Loss Ensure that direct and indirect impacts to critical habitat and
The Night Parrot are known to prefer specific habitat key habitat outside of the avoidance areas are avoided or
types and are considered to persist in the landscape if minimised.
these habitats remain stable and are not impacted
overtime (Murphy et al. 2018, Burbidge 2020).
Fragmentation and isolation Locate and build infrastructure in ways that do not restrict the
The Night Parrot habitat guidelines (Burbidge 2020) dispersal of Night Parrots, both within and beyond the
identify that flyways are important to support the local development envelope where feasible.
sedentary movements between preferred habitat
types and the migratory movements of the Night
Parrot. Fragmentation of the species is an inferred
limit to its long-term persistence, but further evidence
is sought to understand the full extent of
fragmentation effects on the species.
Feral predators Feral predation control and monitoring measures should be
Night Parrots are very susceptible to feral predator continuously implemented within the development envelope,
impacts due to their ground roosting and foraging and particularly within avoidance areas, for the life of the
behaviours. approval.
The Conservation Advice for the Night Parrot (TSSC Baseline feral animal surveys must be undertaken in
2016d) states that feral cats have caused declines in accordance with the Pest animal monitoring techniques (Pest
Night Parrot populations and may ultimately cause Smart 2021b) and then evaluated over time to ensure that
local extinctions of the species. baseline feral predator populations are substantially reduced
or eliminated within the avoidance areas, and preferably
Foxes are also considered to be a key threat to the
within the landscapes surrounding them.
species in Western Australia that will lead to local
extinctions (National Environmental Science Program Feral cat control measures should be undertaken in
Threatened Species Research Hub 2019). accordance with the Threat abatement plan for predation by
feral cats (DoE 2015) and fox control measures should be
undertaken in accordance with the Threat abatement plan for
predation by the European Red Fox (DEWHA 2008b).
The Resilient Landscapes Hub of the Australian Government’s
National Environmental Science Program is currently
investigating the Best practice management of feral cats and
red foxes (NESP 2023). The first phase of the project has
If a breeding structure has been identified with a suitable nest, but there is no species occurrence,
evidence must be provided to confirm it is not an active breeding location. The surveys should be
from the most recent three years at time of referral.
A reduced avoidance area surrounding the breeding structure of 300 m for linear infrastructure
project developments may be appropriate in some circumstances.
Figure 3-7 illustrates a conceptual example of application of the Grey Falcon avoidance standards.
Feral predators Implement a feral cat control program within and around the
The predation of Grey Falcons by feral cats, and development envelope, particularly targeting known Grey
potentially foxes, are a risk to the species due to the Falcon roosts, over the life of the approval.
Grey Falcon sometimes roosting on the ground at Feral control programs should be designed in accordance with
night (Schoenjahn 2018). When ground roosting relevant EPBC Act threat abatement plans and be informed by
occurs, the habitat is often in open environments contemporary findings on best practice feral predator
where feral cats are successful hunters. management.
Recently hatched chicks may also be vulnerable to cat Monitor and report feral predator numbers around the impact
predation in accessible nests (Schoenjahn 2018). site compared to a pre-disturbance baseline. Baseline and
ongoing surveys should follow Pest animal monitoring
techniques (Pest Smart 2021b).
Feral herbivores Camel management measures must be undertaken in
Feral camels (Camelus dromedarius) are a risk of accordance with the National feral camel action plan (Natural
causing degradation to Grey Falcon nesting trees and Resource Management Ministerial Council 2010), which
preferred prey habitat through destruction of arid outlines suitable control methods in Appendix A3. Further
watering places, and the prevention of regeneration of management techniques for camels are available at Pest
Smart feral camel controls (Sharp & Saunders 2012).
Habitat Loss and Fragmentation Ensure that indirect impacts to critical habitat and key habitat
The Conservation Advice for the Princess Parrot (TSCC outside of the avoidance areas are avoided and minimised to
2018) does not explicitly state that direct clearing of the greatest extent possible.
the breeding trees and foraging habitat is a key threat Ensure clearing is undertaken progressively to minimise
to the species. However, the primary conservation fatalities of the species.
action for the princess parrot under the Conservation
Advice is to maintain breeding habitat by undertaking
active fire management and control of domestic and
invasive species.
Fire effects on habitat suitability and facilitation Ensure that fire management risks to the avoidance areas,
interactions (FHF) critical and key habitat types (especially known breeding
Large-scale fires cause mortality to breeding trees and trees) are mitigated using appropriate fire management
reduced food availability for the Princess Parrot (TSSC techniques that are designed and implemented in accordance
2018; Pavey et al. 2014). with leading regional practices. Some of the leading practices
include Pilbara rangeland pastures and fire – Western
There are higher risk rates for large fires after years of
Australia (DPIRD 2023), Australian rangelands and climate
increased fuel loads due to significant rainfall events
change – fire (Bastin 2014), and Protocols for Indigenous fire
causing an increase in weed densities (TSSC 2018;
management (Robinson et al. 2016).
Pavey et al. 2014).
See Fire regimes that cause declines in biodiversity
(DAWE 2022) for information on types of fire-related
ecological processes.
Weeds Baseline weed extent should be collected and then tracked
Buffel grass has been identified occurring in the over the action to ensure that baseline weed levels are not
distribution range for the Princess Parrot and has the exceeded and weeds are controlled. An Integrated weed
potential to invade preferred foraging habitats by management (Weeds Australia 2021a) approach should be
outcompeting native grasses (TSSC 2018). implemented that is appropriate to the weed species found in
the baseline surveys. Ongoing Weed monitoring (Weeds
Buffel grass may also alter fuel loads and increase the
Australia 2021b) should also be undertaken to ensure that
intensity and frequency of fire events (TSSC 2018).
weed management is being successfully implemented.
In the case managing Buffel and Gamba grass within the
development envelope, the control should be undertaken in
accordance with the Threat abatement plan to reduce the
impacts on northern Australia's biodiversity by the five listed
grasses (DSEWPaC 2012). The most relevant guidelines for
management are can be found for Buffel grass management
for Central Australia (Department of Environment and Natural
Resources 2018) and Gamba Grass (Weeds Australia 2023).
Other weed species management techniques can be found at
Weeds Australia (2021c).
Feral herbivores Baseline feral herbivore distribution surveys should be
Rabbits, camels and livestock cause habitat undertaken in accordance with the Pest animal monitoring
degradation by reducing the quality and availability of techniques (Pest Smart 2021b) and then evaluated over time
suitable breeding and foraging habitat for the Princess to ensure that baseline feral herbivore populations are
Parrot (Garnett et al. 2011; BirdLife International reduced, or at a minimum not increased, within the
2023b). development envelope.
Ensure that domestic stock is fenced out of the known
Princess Parrot avoidance areas within the development
Critical Habitat Active burrowing habitats (Dennison 2015; McAlpin et al. 2011; Indigenous Desert Alliance 2022)
• Sandplain habitat vegetated by spinifex (usually Triodia basedowii, but also Triodia
pungens and Triodia schinzii) with the hummocks scattered shrubs and occasional trees
from the genera Acacia, Eremophila, Grevillea, Hakea, Eucalyptus, and often the sub-shrub
Androcalva loxophylla.
• Swales of dunefields adjacent to sandplains.
• Palaeodrainage areas featuring slightly saline depressions or chains of dry salt lakes, with
soft spinifex (T. pungens), tea tree (Melaleuca spp.) shrubs and the salt tolerant sub-shrub
Pluchea ferdinandi-muelleri (Tanami Desert and parts of the Great Sandy Desert).
• Rira areas of gently undulating gravelly downs (buckshot plain), which have soil surface
characterised by a layer of small laterite pebbles and vegetated with hard spinifex
(T. basedowii) (Gibson Desert).
• Open woodlands of Mulga (Acacia aneura) and Minyura (Acacia minyura) over woollybutt
grass (Eragrostis eriopoda) and spinifex (Northern South Australia).
Foraging habitat termite mounds near active burrowing48
Key Habitat Potential Burrowing Areas (McAlpin et al. 2011; Indigenous Desert Alliance 2022)
• Possible burrowing area in the same habitats listed above to allow for the active burrows
and populations to expand within the area.
Potential Foraging habitat termite mounds within possible burrowing habitats
Any activities associated with a proposed development should not be undertaken within avoidance
areas including corridors maintained for dispersal of the Great Desert Skink. Appropriate action
should be undertaken to ensure any potential direct and indirect impacts (e.g., predation by feral
cats and foxes, feral herbivores, weed infestation, negative fire effects) on avoidance areas, including
corridors, are prevented and mitigated to maintain the viability of these critical habitat areas.
Avoidance Standards:
1. If the surveys for the Great Desert Skink identify an active burrow within the study area, the
active burrow and all habitat within 500 m radius of the active burrow should be avoided in the
development envelope.50
2. If surveys for the Great Desert Skink identify multiple active burrows, all active burrows and all
habitat within a 500 m radius of the outermost active burrows should be avoided in the
development envelope.
3. To ensure the avoidance area or areas do not become isolated and restrict movement of the
Great Desert Skink between key habitat within and outside the development envelope, a
dispersal corridor should be maintained between avoidance areas and other habitat if it does not
already exist.51
Figure 3-9 illustrates a conceptual example of application of the Great Desert Skink avoidance
standard.
Figure 3-9 Conceptual example of Great Desert Skink survey and avoidance areas
Fire effects on habitat suitability and facilitation Design and implement fire management practices around
interactions (FHF) and Fire effects on predator-prey known Great Desert Skink burrow areas that maximise the
interactions (FPI) coverage of spinifex and native groundcovers around burrows.
Fire poses a significant threat to the Great Desert Skink Species-appropriate fire management: prioritise small winter
as it removes groundcover making the species more (or early dry season) burns to provide a mosaic of habitat ages
vulnerable to predation from feral predators. A study and densities and to reduce the intensity and area size of fires
found that the majority of burnt burrows become (Moore et al. 2015; Cadenhead et al. 2016).
inactive over a period of four months or more (Moore Burning activities around burrows and key habitats should not
et al. 2015), and that a major increase in size and be undertaken during the breeding season (September to
frequency of fires can drive subpopulations to October) (Dennison 2015).
extinction (Cadenhead et al. 2016).
Fire management techniques should be implemented in
Fire will also impact Great Desert Skink’s food sources, concert with feral animal control and habitat restoration
like small vertebrates and invertebrate prey that live in measures.
vegetation.
See Fire regimes that cause declines in biodiversity
(DAWE 2022) for information on types of fire-related
ecological processes.
Feral predators Design and implement feral predation control and monitoring
Studies have demonstrated that feral predators (e.g., measures for the life of the approval.
cats, foxes) will target Great Desert Skinks, with Feral cat control measures should be undertaken in
predators recorded on camera traps visiting active accordance with the Threat abatement plan for predation by
burrows and findings of Great Desert Skinks in feral cats (DoE 2015) and fox control measures should be
stomach contents (Moore et al. 2017; Ridley 2015). undertaken in accordance with the Threat Abatement Plan for
Cats will prey on the Great Desert Skink by waiting for predation by the European red fox (DEWHA 2008b).
the species to emerge from the burrow entrance to The Resilient Landscapes Hub of the Australian Government’s
pounce and foxes are known to prey upon the Great National Environmental Science Program is currently
Desert Skink when the species is foraging at night investigating the Best practice management of feral cats and
(Indigenous Desert Alliance 2022). red foxes (NESP 2023). The first phase of the project has
The predation events are most impactful at the same produced the Current and emerging feral cat management
time as a fire event due to the loss of vegetation cover practices in Australia (Dorph and Ballard 2022), which has
(Moore et al. 2018; Indigenous Desert Alliance 2022). identified 15 management techniques and assessed them
Development will increase the risk of introducing across four different bioregions in Australia. Desert effective
and/or increasing predator activity in areas with management techniques should be employed, using a
Fragmentation and isolation Locate infrastructure in ways that allows for dispersal of the
Studies have found that repopulations of lost Great Desert Skink within and beyond the development
burrowing systems are slow to recolonise (low envelope.
dispersal capacity), and that genetic ‘erosion’ is
possible with the loss of multiple colonies within an
area (Dennison et al. 2015).
The Great Desert Skink is susceptible to habitat
fragmentation and genetic fragmentation (Dennison et
al. 2015). Habitat fragmentation could be a result of
roads or pipelines intersecting the burrow system or
inhibiting the species to move into other suitable
habitats within the development envelope.
Vehicle strike Outside the avoidance areas, roads and fire breaks should not
Vehicle strike has been identified as a key threat to the fragment the family burrowing systems and foraging habitats,
species in the draft Recovery Plan for the Great Desert which would increase risk for vehicle strikes.
Skink (Indigenous Desert Alliance 2022). Ensure that appropriate night-time speed limits are
implemented in areas within 4–9 km of the Great Desert Skink
burrow habitat. Use road signs in these slow zone areas to
raise awareness of Great Desert Skink strike risks.
Weeds Baseline weed extent will need to be collected and then
Spread of weeds such as fast-growing buffel grass tracked over the study area to ensure that baseline weed
would result in more frequent fires, causing the Great levels are not exceeded and weeds are controlled. An
Desert Skink to be exposed to predators and altering Integrated weed management (Weeds Australia 2021a)
food availability (Indigenous Desert Alliance 2022). approach should be implemented that is appropriate to the
weed species found in the baseline surveys. Ongoing Weed
monitoring (Weeds Australia 2021b) should also be
undertaken to ensure that weed management is being
successfully implemented.
In the case of managing buffel and gamba grass within the
development envelope, the control should be undertaken in
accordance with the Threat abatement plan to reduce the
impacts on northern Australia's biodiversity by the five listed
grasses (DSEWPaC 2012). The most relevant guidelines for
Any direct or indirect disturbance of key habitat outside of avoidance areas and within the
development envelope will be considered a residual significant impact where a Great Desert Skink
occurrence has been detected within the study area.
Refer to Section 4 for information on offsetting residual significant impacts.
4 Environmental Offsets
Environmental offsets are intended to compensate for residual adverse impacts of a proposal on a
matter of national environmental significance following application of adequate avoidance and
mitigation measures. In relation to the protected matters covered by this Policy Statement (Section
1.3), offsets will only be considered following application of all avoidance and mitigation standards
outlined in Section 3.
To effectively deliver conservation gains, environmental offsets should be calculated using species
persistence metrics commensurate with the proposed impacts and implemented effectively and
transparently to deliver measurable species benefit. Predictions of offset outcomes should be
provided with appropriate certainty and adaptability, acknowledging that uncertainties persist about
both ecosystem dynamics and intervention effectiveness and that some environmental functions and
values are not readily replaceable. This policy statement applies the principles set out in the
department’s Environmental Offsets Policy (DCCEEW 2012) to encourage offset designs which will
achieve conservation gains in the Pilbara bioregion.
While there is not yet a comprehensive regional recovery strategy for the nine species identified in
this policy, there are numerous efforts underway (Carwardine et al. 2014; DBCA 2016; Heydenrych
and Parsons 2018). The department will continue to work with the Western Australian government
and regional stakeholders to support and extend these initiatives to foster more strategically
effective conservation in the Pilbara bioregion.
Based on a review of species recovery plans, conservation advices, published and grey literature and
expert elicitation, offset pathways for the listed threatened species have been identified that will
focus offset investment on species-preserving actions and closing important knowledge gaps for each
species. These environmental offsets pathways are presented in Table 4-2 as direct (on-ground)
offset measures and indirect (research) offset measures (see DCCEEW 2012 for details and
terminology).
• Offsets must directly contribute to the ongoing viability of the protected matter
impacted by the proposed action (p. 17); and
• Offsets must be proportionate to the size and scale of the residual impacts arising from
the action so as to deliver a conservation gain that adequately compensates for the
impacted matter (p. 20).
The size and scale of an offset required for each impact is determined by taking account of a range of
factors relevant to the matter of national environmental significance being impacted.
Departmental assessment officers currently use the EPBC Offsets Assessment Guide to assess the
suitability of proposed offsets to adequately compensate for predicted impacts to listed threatened
species or ecological communities. For each proposed development, the following matters are
calculated for each threatened species or ecological community:
proposed species benefitting activities as well as the known distribution and status of key
species, habitats and other relevant features with supporting spatial data in Shapefile
format.
c. How the planned measures will achieve the requirements set out under Section 4.3.
d. How the residual significant impact to be offset is calculated (Section 4.1.1), as well as clearly
articulating how the offset measures will measurably contribute to species conservation
outcomes prioritised in relevant guidance, recovery plans, regional threat abatement
strategies and/or species conservation plans.
e. Empirical evidence and interpretive justification that the predicted conservation benefits will
adequately improve local or regional persistence of the impacted species, e.g., the site
supports a significant colony of the threatened species or has the potential to host them
following restoration or threat abatement.
f. The parties responsible for implementing the proposed offset(s), including the approval
holder, and their capability to perform the proposed offset activities and achieve requisite
outcomes.
g. Detailed objectives, proposed outcomes (see Section 4.4), timeframes and milestones for
achieving proposed benefits which can be accurately tracked through an Offset Evaluation
Plan (Section 4.4.3).
h. Processes to evaluate and adaptively manage the proposed offset(s) to leverage project
learnings, related conservation initiatives, regional strategies and other learning sources.
i. Baseline conditions for all aspects which will assist in determining a net gain outcome,
preferably creating a “state of the environment” report of key conditions at the
commencement of interventions, as well as predictions about what the state of the
environment will be when the predicted offset outcome is achieved.
j. A risk analysis indicating the risks to successful implementation and how these will be
managed and mitigated. This will include a description of the contingency measures that will
be implemented if completion criteria are not met, or if understandings change, e.g.,
ensuring that proposed measures have no detrimental impact on any listed species under
the EPBC Act.
k. Evidence of adequate consultation and collaboration with regional stakeholders, including
consent and/or involvement from First Nations people or other landowners.
l. Discussion on how the proposed offset(s) achieves a strategic outcome and is consistent with
relevant guidance documents and regional priorities.
m. Findings of expert review (if requested by the decision-maker) to confirm the integrity of the
offset calculations and methodologies for establishing baseline, monitoring and reporting.
n. Details of the location and update frequency for offset monitoring data, noting that
evaluation outcomes and any relevant expert commentary will be made publicly available.
Table 4-1 Maximum research offset contribution for the nine listed threatened species
d. The parties responsible for implementing offset measures or evaluating their effectiveness in
meeting the research objectives. The information should include the approval-holder as well
as any other suitably qualified personnel engaged in planning, implementation and
evaluation.
e. Timeframes for delivering research outcomes, with proposed milestones.
f. Details of how the research will be financially supported, with payment expectations,
performance milestones, commencement and completion criteria for evaluating research
benefits for conservation outcomes.
g. Project evaluation, monitoring and reporting expectations consistent with Subsection 4.4.3
‘Offset Evaluation Plans’.
h. A research ethics and risk analysis, identifying any risks to species and stakeholders if
research does or does not confirm the theory of change identified in the Offset Evaluation
Plan.
i. Provide evidence of collaborative engagement with regional stakeholders, including written
acknowledgment and consent from First Nations people where appropriate.
j. Clarification of where and in what timeframe the data and findings of the research will be
made publicly available, along with expert commentary if appropriate.
k. Provide an Offsets Evaluation Plan in accordance with the requirements set out at subsection
4.4.3.
• Provide a clear statement, as a theory of change, of how activities will achieve proposed
conservation gains. E.g., reducing feral predation around the project boundaries will increase
Greater Bilby populations by at least 30% relative to baseline distributions of the species
within the project area.
• Include information on how these offset outcomes will be achieved, and how progress
towards these outcomes will be progressively measured and tracked using quantitative and
qualitative indicators.
• Clearly explain which factors will be periodically monitored and analysed, using an adaptive
framework which treats the intervention as an embedded experiment (Broadhurst et al.
2023).
• Enable intervention effectiveness and progress to be tracked through regular reporting and
publication of funded conservation projects. Effectiveness should be compared against the
conservation gain commitment relative to the predicted impacts on the species, as well as
against any interim milestone outcomes identified in the evaluation plan.
• Explain how progress towards meeting outcome commitments will be tracked, potentially
using proxy measurements (e.g., habitat quality improvements, reductions in feral species
numbers) during the initial (<5 year) period of the offset program where direct species
improvements cannot be reasonably inferred or measured.
• Detail contingency measures to be implemented in the event that the offset is not on track
to achieving the offset outcomes. If the offset is not meeting the required outcomes, a
process of re-evaluation to demonstrate how the quantum of species benefit will be met in
light of the updated cause-effect understandings will be required.
• At each evaluation stage, indicate which parties will be responsible for implementing the
offset. If the service providers change, the capacity of new service providers to meet the
offset commitments should be adequately demonstrated.
Annual reports must clearly explain which milestones have and have not been met relative to the
approved interim metrics and final outcome milestones. Any learnings about intervention
effectiveness and external factors affecting the offset outcomes should be provided to justify
recommendations for changing offset outcome success metrics (without reducing overall net
benefit for the species), or for informing future offset design.
b. A calculation of the maximum residual significant impact on critical habitat and key habitat,
per species and per hectare, within the development envelope that will remain, and the
method used to calculate the maximum residual significant impact (see Section 3 for habitat
definitions and residual significant impact calculations for each species).
c. Total calculated cost of offsetting the residual significant impact on critical habitat and key
habitat using the offset rates provided at section 4.4.2.
d. Calculation of consumer price indexation through the application of the percentage changes
in the ‘All groups’ Consumer Price Index (CPI) for Perth, as published by the Australian
Bureau of Statistics.
e. Calculation of 80% of the total offset contribution (including CPI) that will be paid to the
Fund prior to the commencement of the approved development.
f. Expected timing of final impacts and submission of remaining 20% payment (including an
estimation of CPI).
g. Spatial data indicating clearing footprint and delineation of critical and supporting habitat
per species.
h. Justification for how the use of the Fund will be suitable to offset the residual significant
impact.
i. How using the Fund to offset your residual significant impact aligns with the principles set
out at Section 4.3 ‘Offset Design’.
j. If the proposed offset into the Fund overlaps with offset requirements under the EP Act
(WA) for listed threatened species habitat offset requirements under the EPBC Act, then the
higher EPBC Act protected matter offset rate should be applied. These areas of overlap and
rates per hectare amounts should be clearly outlined.
These offset rates are subject to revision by the department and annual adjustment to apply the
June quarter Consumer Price Index for Perth on or by 31 August each year. ‘Supporting habitat’ in
the context of offset rates would equate to the ‘key habitat’, as described for each of the nine listed
threatened species in this policy.
• evaluation of this policy is transparent and responsive, and implemented in a modern and
collaborative way.
Evaluation will assess the performance of the policy against its stated objectives. Evaluation may also
assess the extent to which the policy, and its implementation by the department over the previous
period has been relevant, effective, efficient, and coherent.
Specific evaluation methods will be set by the department prior to each evaluation. Example
questions that may be applied during evaluation include the following.
Relevance:
Effectiveness:
• To what degree has the policy been implemented? Are developments proposed in the Pilbara
bioregion applying avoidance requirements during the design of their projects and prior to
referral to the department?
Efficiency:
• Were the costs involved in creating and implementing the policy justified, given the changes
and outcomes achieved?
Coherence:
• To what extent is the policy coherent with Commonwealth environmental legislation and
policies and relevant policies of external entities?
The department will seek feedback on implementation of the policy from key stakeholders as part of
each evaluation. Evaluation findings will be considered by the department to inform continuous
improvement and ongoing implementation of the policy.
6 Attachments
Figure 6-1 Pilbara Leaf-nosed Bat genetic movement constraints in the Pilbara bioregion demonstrated in
blue polygons. The gap between the Hamersly and Chichester subregions via the Fortescue subregion is
considered a Genetic Movement Corridor for the Pilbara Leaf-nosed Bat.
7 References
Adams CA, Fernández-Juricic E, Bayne EM and St Clair CC (2021) ‘Effects of artificial light on bird movement and
distribution: a systematic map’, Environmental Evidence, 10:1–28.
Adaptive NRM (2018) Fortescue Metals Night Parrot Project: Final report against the approved research plan Fortescue
Metals.
Armstrong KN and Anstee SD (2000) The ghost bat in the Pilbara: 100 years on, Australian Mammalogy, 22(2):93–101.
Bastin G (2014) Australian rangelands and climate change – fire, Ninti One Limited and CSIRO.
Bat Call WA (2021a) A review of Ghost bat ecology, threats and survey requirements, report prepared for the Department
of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, Canberra.
Bat Call WA (2021b) A review of Pilbara leaf-nosed bat ecology, threats and survey requirements, report prepared for the
Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment.
BirdLife International (2023a) Species factsheet: Falco hypoleucos, BirdLife International website, accessed 17 August 2023.
BirdLife International (2023b), Species factsheet: Polytelis alexandrae, BirdLife International website, accessed 17 August
2023.
Boles W, Longmore NW, Thompson MC (1993), A Recent Specimen of the Night Parrot Geopsittacus occidentalis, Emu -
Austral Ornithology, 94:1, 37-40, DOI: 10.1071/MU9940037
Booth C, V Adams B, Kruse L Douglass (2021) The enduring Pilbara: a conservation vision for a land rich in nature, culture
and resources, Centre for Conservation Geography and University of Tasmania.
Bradley K, Lees C, Lundie-Jenkins G, Copley P, Paltridge R, Dziminski M, Southgate R, Nally S and Kemp L (2015) Greater
Bilby conservation summit and interim conservation plan: an initiative of the Save the Bilby Fund, IUCN SSC Conservation
Breeding Specialist Group.
Braithwaite RW and Griffiths AD (1994) ‘Demographic variation and range contraction in the northern quoll, Dasyurus
hallucatus (Marsupialia: Dasyuridae)’, Wildlife Research, 21(2):203–217.
Broadhurst L, Prober SM, Boggs G, Bush D, Breed MF, Dickson F, Harrison PA, Jellinek S, Lynch AJJ, Rymer PD, Young RE and
Commander LE (2023) Guidelines for embedded experiments in ecological restoration and management in Australia, CSIRO
(Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation).
Bullen RD, Reiffer S, Trainer J (2023) ‘Satellite tracking Ghost Bats (Macroderma gigas) in the Pilbara, Western Australia’,
Records of the Western Australian Museum, 38:1–10.
Burbidge A (2020) Interim night parrot habitat statement, The Night Parrot Recovery Team, accessed 30 June 2023.
Cadenhead NC, Kearney MR, Moore D, McAlpin S and Wintle BA (2016) ‘Climate and fire scenario uncertainty dominate the
evaluation of options for conserving the great desert skink’, Conservation Letters, 9(3):181–190.
Carwardine J, Nicol S, van Leeuwen S, Walters B, Firn J, Reeson A, Martin TG and Chades I (2014) Priority threat
management for Pilbara species of conservation significance, CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences.
Carter, M (1993), ‘Alexandra's or Princess Parrot - Status and normal range’, Wingspan. 12:32-35.
Claramunt AMA, White NE, Bunce M, O’Connell M, Bullen RD and Mawson PR (2019) ‘Determination of the diet of the
ghost bat (Macroderma gigas) in the Pilbara region of Western Australia from dried prey remains and DNA metabarcoding’,
Australian Journal of Zoology, 66(3):195–200.
Cook A (2010) Habitat use and home-range of the northern quoll, Dasyurus hallucatus: effects of fire [master’s thesis],
University of Western Australia.
Cowan MA, Dunlop JA, Turner JM, Moore HA, Nimmo DG (2020b) Artificial refuges to combat habitat loss for an
endangered marsupial predator: How do they measure up? Conservation Science and Practice, 2:6.
Cowan MA, Moore HA, Hradsky BA, Jolly CJ, Dunlop JA, Wysong ML, Hernandez-Santin L, Davis RA, Fisher DO, Michael DR,
Turner JM, Gibson LA, Knuckey CG, Henderson M and Nimmo DG (2023) ‘Non-preferred habitat increases the activity area
of the endangered northern quoll (Dasyurus hallucatus) in a semi-arid landscape’, Australian Mammalogy, 45(2):138–150.
Cramer VA, Armstrong KN, Bullen RD, Cross SL, Gibson L, Hanrahan N, Knuckey CG, Ottewell K, Reiffer S, Ruykys L and Shaw
RE (2022) ‘Research priorities for the ghost bat (Macroderma gigas) in the Pilbara region of Western Australia’, Australian
Mammalogy, 45(1):1–12.
Cramer VA, Armstrong KN, Bullen RD, Ellis R, Gibson LA, McKenzie NL, O'Connell M, Spate A and van Leeuwen S (2016a)
‘Research Priorities for the Pilbara leaf-nosed bat (Rhinonicteris aurantia Pilbara form)’, Australian Mammalogy, 38(2):149–
157.
Cramer VA, Dunlop J, Davis R, Ellis R, Barnett B, Cook A, Morris K and van Leeuwen S (2016b) ‘Research priorities for the
northern quoll Dasyurus hallucatus in the Pilbara region of Western Australia’, Australian Mammalogy, 38(2):135–148.
Cramer VA, Dziminski MA, Southgate R, Carpenter FM, Ellis RJ and van Leeuwen S (2017) ‘A conceptual framework for
habitat use and research priorities for the greater bilby (Macrotis lagotis) in the north of Western Australia’, Australian
Mammalogy, 39(2):137–151.
Creese S (2012) The use of rail culverts to facilitate the movement of fauna [master’s thesis], University of Queensland.
CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation) (2015) Pilbara water resource assessment, report to
the Government of Western Australia and industry partners, CSIRO Land and Water.
Curtin University (2022a) Pilbara Leaf-Nosed Bat workshop TalkBook, outcomes of the 27 April 2022 workshop funded by
FMG Fortescue and Curtin University.
Curtin University (2022b) Pilbara Leaf-Nosed Bat BlueSheet, outcomes of the 27 April 2022 workshop funded by FMG
Fortescue and Curtin University.
Davies KF, Melbourne BA, James CD and Cunningham RB (2010) ‘Using traits of species to understand responses to land use
change: birds and livestock grazing in the Australian arid zone’, Biological Conservation, 143(1):78–85.
DAWE (Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment) (2022) Fire regimes that cause declines in biodiversity as a
key threatening process, DAWE, Australian Government.
DBCA (Department of Biodiversity Conservation and Attractions) (2016) Pilbara conservation strategy, DBCA, Western
Australian Government, accessed 31 October 2023.
DCCEEW (Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water) (2012) EPBC Act environmental offsets
policy, DCCEEW, Australian Government
DCCEEW (Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water) (2023a) Species Profile and Threats
Database: Dasyurus hallucatus — Northern Quoll, Digul [Gogo-Yimidir], Wijingadda [Dambimangari], Wiminji [Martu],
DCCEEW, Australian Government, accessed 10 August 2023.
DCCEEW (Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water) (2023b) Recovery Plan for the Greater Bilby
(Macrotis lagotis), DCCEEW, Australian Government.
DCCEEW (Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water) (2023c) Species Profile and Threats
Database: Rhinonicteris aurantia (Pilbara form) — Pilbara Leaf-nosed Bat, DCCEEW, Australian Government, accessed 10
August 2023.
DCCEEW (Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water) (2023d) Wildlife trade and the law,
DCCEEW, Australian Government, accessed 10 August 2023.
DEE (Department of the Environment and Energy) (2016a) Background document: threat abatement plan for competition
and land degradation by rabbits, DEE, Australian Government.
DEE (Department of the Environment and Energy) (2017a) Background document: threat abatement plan for predation,
habitat degradation, competition and disease transmission by feral pigs (Sus scrofa), DEE, Australian Government.
DEE (Department of the Environment and Energy) (2017b) Threat abatement plan for predation, habitat degradation,
competition and disease transmission by feral pigs, DEE, Australian Government.
DEE (Department of the Environment and Energy) (2020) National Light Pollution guidelines for Wildlife, including marine
turtles, seabirds and migratory shorebirds, DEE, Australian Government.
DEE (Department of the Environment and Energy) (2016b) Threat abatement plan for competition and land degradation by
rabbits, DEE, Australian Government.
DEE (Department of the Environment and Energy) (2017b) Threat abatement plan for predation, habitat degradation,
competition and disease transmission by feral pigs (Sus scrofa), DEE, Australian Government.
DEE (Department of the Environment and Energy) (2018) Advanced offsets criteria, DEE, Australian Government.
Dennison S (2015) Social organisation and population genetics of the threatened great desert skink, Liopholis kintorei, [PhD
thesis], Macquarie University, accessed 17 August 2023.
Dennison S, McAlpin S, Chapple DG and Stow AJ (2015) ‘Genetic divergence among regions containing the vulnerable Great
Desert Skink (Liopholis kintorei) in the Australian arid zone’, PloS One, 10(6):e0128874.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (2018) Buffel grass management for Central Australia, Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Northern Territory Government.
DEWHA (Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts) (2008a) Background document: Threat Abatement
plan for competition and land degradation by unmanaged goats, DEWHA, Australian Government.
DEWHA (Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts) (2008b) Threat abatement plan for predation by
the European red fox, DEWHA, Australian Government.
DEWHA (Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts) (2010a) Survey guidelines for Australia’s
threatened bats: Guidelines for detecting bats listed as threatened under the EPBC Act, DEWHA, Australian Government,
accessed 30 June 2023.
DEWHA (Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts) (2010b) Survey guidelines for Australia’s
threatened birds: Guidelines for detecting birds listed as threatened under the EPBC Act, DEWHA, Australian Government,
accessed 30 June 2023.
DoE (Department of the Environment) (2015) Threat abatement plan for predation by feral cats, DoE, Australian
Government.
DoE (Department of the Environment) (2016) EPBC Act referral guideline for the endangered northern quoll Dasyurus
hallucatus, DoE, Australian Government, accessed 30 June 2023.
Dorph A and Ballard G (2022) Current and emerging feral cat management practices in Australia, report to the Resilient
Landscapes Hub of the Australian Government National Environmental Science Program, University of New England.
Dortch J, Balme J, McDonald J, Morse K, O’Connor S and Veth P (2019) ‘Settling the West: 50 000 years in a changing land’,
Journal of the Royal Society of Western Australia, 102:30–44.
DoW (Department of Water) (2010) Pilbara regional water plan 2010–2030, DoW, Western Australian Government,
accessed 30 October 2023.
DPaW (Department of Parks and Wildlife) (in preparation) Guidelines for considering the presence of night parrot
(Pezoporus occidentalis) in Western Australia, DPaW, Western Australian Government.
DPIRD (Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development) (2023) Pilbara rangeland pastures and fire – Western
Australia, DPIRD, Western Australian Government.
DSEWPaC (Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities) (2011a) Survey guidelines for
Australia's threatened mammals, DSEWPaC, Australian Government, accessed 30 June 2023.
DSEWPaC (Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities) (2011b) Survey guidelines for
Australia’s threatened reptiles, DSEWPaC, Australian Government, accessed 30 June 2023.
DSEWPaC (Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities) (2011c) Threat abatement plan
for the biological effects, including lethal toxic ingestion, caused by cane toads, DSEWPaC, Australian Government.
DSEWPaC (Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities) (2012) Threat abatement plan
to reduce the impacts on northern Australia's biodiversity by the five listed grasses. DSEWPaC, Australian Government.
Dunlop JA, Cook A and Morris K. (2014). Pilbara northern quoll project - Surveying and monitoring Dasyurus hallucatus in
the Pilbara, Western Australia. Department of Parks and Wildlife, Kensington.
Ellis R, Gunawardene N, Knuckey C, Huey J, Dawkins K, Lines R and Herbert S (14–17 February 2023) ‘Detecting cryptic
terrestrial species in targeted eDNA sampling’, [conference abstract] 1st Australian and New Zealand Environmental DNA
(eDNA) Conference, Tasmania.
Environment Australia (2000) Revision of the Interim Biogeographic Regionalisation of Australia (IBRA) and the
Development of Version 5.1. - Summary Report, Department of Environment and Heritage, Australian Government.
EPA (Environmental Protection Authority) (2014) Cumulative environmental impacts of development in the Pilbara region,
EPA, Western Australian Government.
Fancourt BA, Zirbel C, Cremasco P, Elsworth P, Harry G and Gentle MN (2022) ‘Field assessment of the risk of feral cat baits
to nontarget species in eastern Australia’ Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 18(1):224–244.
Festa F, Ancillotto L, Santini L, Pacifici M, Rocha R, Toshkova N, Amorim F, Benítez-López A, Domer A, Hamidović D and
Kramer-Schadt S (2023) ‘Bat responses to climate change: A systematic review’, Biological Reviews, 98(1):19–33.
Garnett ST and Crowley GM (2000) The Action Plan for Australian Birds 2000, Environment Australia, Canberra.
Garnett ST, Franklin DC, Ehmke G, VanDerWal JJ, Hodgson L, Pavey C, Reside AE, Welbergen JA, Butchart SHM, Perkins GC
and Williams SE (2013) Climate change adaptation strategies for Australian birds, National Climate Change Adaptation
Research Facility.
Garnett ST, Szabo JK and Dutson G (2011) The Action Plan for Australian Birds 2010, CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne.
Hamilton NA, Onus M, Withnell B and Withnell K (2017) ‘Recent sightings of the Night Parrot Pezoporus occidentalis from
Matuwa (Lorna Glen) and Millrose Station in Western Australia’, Australian Field Ornithology, 34:71–75.
Hernandez-Santin L, Fisher D, Goldizen A (2018) ‘Ecology and predator associations of the northern quoll in the Pilbara’,
Report of the National Environmental Science Program Threatened Species Recovery Hub.
Heydenrych B and Parsons B (2018) Pilbara bioregion conservation action planning process update: refined strategies and
actions, January 2018, Pilbara Corridors.
Higgins, P. J. (ed.) 1999. The Action Plan for Australian Birds 2000: Taxon Summary - Princess Parrot (planetofbirds.com).
Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic Birds. Vol. 4. Parrots to Dollarbird. Oxford University Press, Melbourne.
Hill BM and Ward SJ (2010) National recovery plan for the Northern Quoll Dasyurus hallucatus, Department of Natural
Resources, Environment, The Arts and Sport, Northern Territory Government.
Horton P, Black A, Reid J and McAllan I (2021) ‘Records of the Night Parrot Pezoporus occidentalis in South Australia,
including its ‘rediscovery’ in the North East in 1979 and a review of its habitat use’, South Australian Ornithologist, 45:85–
117.
IESC (Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development) (2018) Information
guidelines for proponents preparing coal seam gas and large coal mining development proposals, IESC, Australian
Government.
Indigenous Desert Alliance (2022) Looking after Tjakura, Tjalapa, Mulyamiji, Warrarna. a national recovery plan for the
Great Desert Skink (Liopholis kintorei) [draft recovery plan], prepared for the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the
Environment and Water, accessed 11 August 2023.
Iwaniuk AN, Keirnan AR, Janetzki H, Mardon K, Murphy S, Leseberg NP and Weisbecker V (2020) ‘The endocast of the Night
Parrot (Pezoporus occidentalis) reveals insights into its sensory ecology and the evolution of nocturnality in birds’, Scientific
Reports, 10(12948):1–9.
Jackett NA, Greatwich BR, Swann G and Boyle A (2017) ‘A nesting record and vocalisations of the Night Parrot Pezoporus
occidentalis from the East Murchison, Western Australia’. Australian Field Ornithology, 34:144–150.
James CD, Landsberg J and Morton SR (1999) ‘Provision of watering points in the Australian arid zone: a review of effects on
biota’, Journal of Arid Environments 41(1):87–121.
Janse I, Kloecker U, Roshier D and Witte I (2015) ‘Breeding diet and behaviour of a pair of Grey Falcons Falco hypoleucos
and their offspring in north-western New South Wales’, Corella, 39:46–51.
Johnson B and Anderson H (2014) Northern Quoll (Dasyurus hallucatus) baseline remote camera and trapping survey
throughout the central and eastern Chichester Ranges, Department of Parks and Wildlife, Western Australian Government.
Kearney MR, Porter WP and Murphy SA (2016) ‘An estimate of the water budget for the endangered night parrot of
Australia under recent and future climates’, Climate Change Responses, 3(14):1–17.
Leseberg NP, Murphy SA, Jackett NA, Greatwich BR, Brown J, Hamilton N, Joseph L and Watson JE (2019) ‘Descriptions of
known vocalisations of the Night Parrot Pezoporus occidentalis’, Australian Field Ornithology, 36:79–88.
Leseberg NP, Venables WN, Murphy SA, Jackett NA and Watson JE (2022) ‘Accounting for both automated recording unit
detection space and signal recognition performance in acoustic surveys: A protocol applied to the cryptic and critically
endangered Night Parrot (Pezoporus occidentalis)’, Austral Ecology, 47(2):440–455.
Leseberg NP, Kutt A, Evans MC, Nou T, Spillias S, Stone Z, Walsh JC, Murphy SA, Bamford M, Burbidge AH, Crossing K, Davis
RA, Garnett ST, Kavanagh RP, Murphy R, Read J, Reid J, van Leeuwen S, Watson AWT, Watson JEM and Maron M (2023)
‘Establishing effective conservation management strategies for a poorly known endangered species: a case study using
Australia’s Night Parrot (Pezoporus occidentalis)’. Biodiversity and Conservation, 32:2869–2891.
Ley A and Tynan B (2016) ‘Observations on nesting Grey Falcons, Falco hypoleucos’, South Australian Ornithologist, 41:49–
64.
Long K and Robley A (2004) Cost effective feral animal exclusion fencing for areas of high conservation value in Australia,
report prepared for the Department of the Environment and Heritage, Australian Government, Department of
Sustainability and Environment, Victorian Government.
McAlpin S, Duckett P and Stow A (2011) ‘Lizards cooperatively tunnel to construct a long-term home for family members’,
PLoS ONE, 6(5):e19041.
McKenzie NL, van Leeuwen S and Pinder AM (2009) ‘Introduction to the Pilbara Biodiversity Survey, 2002–2007’, Records of
the Western Australian Museum, Supplement 78(1):3–89.
Moore, H.A., Michael, D.R., Ritchie, E.G., Dunlop, J.A., Valentine, L.E., Hobbs, R.J. and Nimmo, D.G., 2021. A rocky heart in a
spinifex sea: occurrence of an endangered marsupial predator is multiscale dependent in naturally fragmented
landscapes. Landscape Ecology, 36, pp.1359-1376.
Moore HA, Dunlop JA, Jolly CJ, Kelly E, Woinarski JCZ, Ritchie EG, Burnett S, van Leeuwen S, Valentine LE, Cowan MA and
Nimmo DG (2022) ‘A brief history of the northern quoll (Dasyurus hallucatus): a systematic review’, Australian Mammalogy,
44(2):185–207.
Moore HA, Dunlop JA, Geyle HM, Greenwood L and Nimmo DG (2023) ‘First you get the money, then you get the power:
Comparing the cost and power of monitoring programs to detect changes in occupancy of a threatened marsupial
predator’, Conservation Science and Practice, 5(2):e12881.
Moore HA, Kearney MR, Paltridge R, McAlpin S and Stow A (2015) ‘Is fire a threatening process for Liopholis kintorei, a
nationally listed threatened skink?’, Wildlife Research, 42(3):207–216.
Moore HA, Kearney MR, Paltridge R, McAlpin S and Stow A (2017) ‘Feeling the pressure at home: Predator activity at the
burrow entrance of an endangered arid-zone skink’, Austral Ecology, 43(1):102–109.
Moore HA, Stow A and Kearney MR (2018) ‘Under the weather?—The direct effects of climate warming on a threatened
desert lizard are mediated by their activity phase and burrow system’, The Journal of Animal Ecology, 87(3):660–671.
Moore HA, Valentine LE, Dunlop JA and Nimmo DG (2020) ‘The effect of camera orientation on the detectability of wildlife:
a case study from north-western Australia’, Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation, 6(4):546–556.
Moore H, Cowan M and Dunlop J (unpublished) Recommended survey techniques for an endangered marsupial predator,
the northern quoll, Dasyurus hallucatus.
Morris KD, Cowan MA, Angus GJ, Anderson H, Garretson SW, Palmer RA, Williams MR and Pearson DJ (2016) Baseline
monitoring for northern quoll and Rothschild’s rock-wallaby at Eradicat® baited and unbaited sites, Pilbara Region WA,
Department of Parks and Wildlife, Western Australian Government.
Moseby KE, Read JL, Paton DC, Copley P, Hill BM and Crisp HA (2011) Predation determines the outcome of 10
reintroduction attempts in arid South Australia, Biological Conservation, 144(12):2863–2872.
Mouritz M, Hightower O, Cabula H, Harris B, Joll C, van Leeuwen S, Heckenberg R, Dockery M, Dowding A (2022) Pilbara
water resources background review for water resources situational analysis, report prepared for BHP, Curtin University.
Mousavi-Derazmahalleh M, Ellis RJ, D’Rozario BL, Berry TE, Peverley G, Dawkins KL, Campbell M, White NE and Allentoft ME
(2023) Rock pools as a source of environmental DNA for the detection of the threatened Pilbara olive python (Liasis
olivaceus barroni), Frontiers in Environmental Science, 11:1187545.
Murphy S (2015) ‘Shining a light: the research unlocking the secrets of the mysterious Night Parrot’, Australian Birdlife,
4(3):30–35.
Murphy SA, Austin JJ, Murphy RK, Silcock J, Joseph L, Garnet ST, Leseberg NP, Watson JEM and Burbidge AH (2017a)
‘Observations on breeding Night Parrots (Pezoporus occidentalis) in western Queensland’, Austral Ornithology, 117(2):107–
113.
Murphy, S.A., Paltridge, R., Silcock, J., Murphy, R., Kutt, A.S. and Read, J., 2018. ‘Understanding and managing the threats to
Night Parrots in south-western Queensland’, Emu-Austral Ornithology, 118(1), pp.135-145.
Murphy SA, Silcock J, Murphy R, Reird J and Austin JJ (2017b) ‘Movements and habitat use of the night parrot Pezoporus
occidentalis in south-western Queensland’, Austral Ecology, 42(7):858–868.
National Environmental Science Program Threatened Species Research Hub (2019) Threatened Species Strategy Year 3
Scorecard – Night Parrot, NESP, Australian Government.
Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council (2010) National feral camel action plan, Department of Sustainability,
Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Australian Government.
NESP (National Environmental Science Program) (2023) Best-practice management for feral cats and red foxes, Resilient
Landscapes website, NESP, Australian Government.
Northover A, Dziminski M, Moore H, Palmer R, Ottewell K, Carpenter F and Gibson L (2023) The Pilbara Bilby (Macrotis
lagotis) research program: a review of progress (2013-2023), DBCA, Western Australian Government.
Oakwood M (2000) ‘Reproduction and demography of the northern quoll, Dasyurus hallucatus, in the lowland savanna of
northern Australia’, Australian Journal of Zoology, 48(5):519–539.
Oakwood M (2002) ‘Spatial and social organization of a carnivorous marsupial Dasyurus hallucatus (Marsupialia:
Dasyuridae)’, Journal of Zoology, 257(2):237–248.
Oedin M, Brescia F, Millon A, Murphy BP, Palmas P, Woinarski JC and Vidal E (2021) ‘Cats Felis catus as a threat to bats
worldwide: a review of the evidence’, Mammal Review, 51(3):323–337.
Pavey CR (2014) Australian rangelands and climate change – native species, Ninti One Limited and CSIRO.
Pavey CR, Nano CEM, Cole JR, McDonald PJ, Nunn P, Silcocks A, and Clarke RH (2014) ‘The breeding and foraging ecology
and abundance of the Princess Parrot (Polytelis alexandrae) during a population irruption’, Emu, 114(2):106–115.
Partridge T (2008) Tjakura Antunymanutjaku: looking after Tjakura in the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Lands, a
recovery plan, Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Land Management.
Pearson D, Spencer P, Hillyer M, How RA (2013) Final report: genetic survey of the Pilbara Olive Python (Liasis olivaceaus
barroni), Department of Parks and Wildlife, Western Australian Government.
Pepper M, Doughty P and Keough JS (2013) ‘Geodiversity and endemism in the iconic Australian Pilbara region: a review of
landscape evolution and biotic response in an ancient refugium’, Journal of Biogeography, 40(7):1225–1239.
Pest Smart (2021a), Cane Toad tool kit, Pest Smart website, Centre for Invasive Species Solutions.
Pest Smart (2021b), Pest animal monitoring techniques, Pest Smart website, Centre for Invasive Species Solutions.
Pillans B (2007) ‘Pre-Quaternary landscape inheritance in Australia’, Journal of Quaternary Science, 22:439–447.
Prober S, Hoffmann B, Pettit M and Boggs G (2020) ‘Background paper for the Strategy Stream to evaluate ecological
outcomes of the Pilbara Environmental Offsets Fund’, report prepared for the Department of Water and Environmental
Regulation, Western Australian Government, CSIRO.
Rankmore BR and Price OF (2004) ‘Effects of habitat fragmentation on the vertebrate fauna of tropical woodlands,
Northern Territory’, in Lunney D (ed) Australian Forest Ecology, 2nd edn, Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales,
Sydney.
Ridley J (2015) Distribution, habitat associations and activity of great desert skinks (tjakuṟa; Liopholis kintorei) in relation to
fire and vegetation cover [honours thesis], Charles Darwin University.
Ridley JCH, Schlesinger CA and Bull CM (2020) ‘Location of long-term communal burrows of a threatened arid-zone lizard in
relation to soil and vegetation’, Austral Ecology, 45(4):444–453.
Robinson CJ, Barber M, Hill R, Gerrard E and James G (2016) Protocols for Indigenous fire management partnerships, CSIRO.
Ruykys L, Hanrahan N and Stokeld D (2023) Novel acoustic lure methodology facilitates detection of the cryptic ghost bat at
a landscape scale’, Wildlife Research.
Schoenjahn J (2011) ‘Morphometric data of recent specimens and live individuals of the Grey Falcon Falco hypoleucos’,
Corella, 35(1):16–22.
Schoenjahn J (2013) ‘A hot environment and one type of prey: investigating why the Grey Falcon (Falco hypoleucos) is
Australia's rarest falcon’, Emu, 113(1):19–25.
Schoenjahn J (2018) ‘Adaptations of the rare endemic Grey Falcon Falco hypoleucos that enable its permanent residence in
the arid zone of Australia’ [PhD thesis], University of Queensland.
Sharp T and Saunders G (2012) Model code of practice for the humane control of feral camels, Pest Smart website, Centre
for Invasive Species Solutions, accessed 9 August 2023.
Shaw RE, Spencer PB, Gibson LA, Dunlop JA, Kinloch JE, Mokany K, Byrne M, Moritz C, Davie H, Travouillon KJ and Ottewell
KM (2022) ‘Linking life history to landscape for threatened species conservation in a multiuse region’, Conservation Biology,
37(1):e13989.
Shute ER, Clement AM and Prideaux GJ (2023) ‘Cranial adaptations of the Night Parrot (Psittaculidae: Pezoporus
occidentalis), a cryptic nocturnal bird’, Emu 123(2):129–139.
Skroblin A, Carboon T, Bidu G, Chapman N, Miller M, Taylor K, Taylor W, Game ET and Wintle BA (2021) ‘Including
indigenous knowledge in species distribution modeling for increased ecological insights’, Conservation Biology, 35(2):587–
597.
Southgate R and Carthew S (2006) ‘Post-fire ephemerals and spinifex-fuelled fires: a decision model for bilby habitat
management in the Tanami Desert, Australia’, International Journal of Wildland Fire, 16(6):741–754.
Southgate R and Carthew S (2007) Post-fire ephemerals and spinifex-fuelled fires: a decision model for bilby habitat
management in the Tanami Desert, Australia. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 16(6):741–754
Southgate R, Paltridge R, Masters P and Carthew S (2007) ‘Bilby distribution and fire: a test of alternative models of habitat
suitability in the Tanami Desert, Australia’, Ecography, 30:759–776.
Southgate R (2006) The suitability of habitat for greater bilby (Macrotis lagotis) in the Tanami Desert and the relationship
with fire [PhD thesis] University of Adelaide.
Thomson VA, Armstrong KN, Medlin G and Cooper A (2012) ‘A ghost of chance? Evolutionary history of the Ghost Bat
(Macroderma gigas) and its chances of surviving future climate change’, in Thomson VA, Ancient DNA in the Australian
context: investigating evolutionary and ecological responses to environmental change [PhD thesis], University of Adelaide.
TSSC (Threatened Species Scientific Committee) (2020) Conservation Advice: Falco hypoleucos Grey Falcon, Department of
the Environment and Energy, Australian Government.
TSSC (Threatened Species Scientific Committee) (2008) Conservation Advice: Liasis olivaceus barroni Olive Python (Pilbara
subspecies), Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Australian Government.
TSSC (Threatened Species Scientific Committee) (2016a) Conservation Advice: Liopholis kintorei Great Desert Skink,
Department of the Environment and Energy, Australian Government.
TSSC (Threatened Species Scientific Committee) (2016b) Conservation Advice: Macroderma gigas Ghost Bat, Department of
the Environment and Energy, Australian Government.
TSSC (Threatened Species Scientific Committee) (2016c) Conservation Advice: Macrotis lagotis Greater Bilby, Department of
the Environment, Australian Government.
TSSC (Threatened Species Scientific Committee) (2016d) Conservation Advice: Pezoporus occidentalis Night Parrot,
Department of the Environment, Australian Government.
TSSC (Threatened Species Scientific Committee) (2016e) ‘Conservation Advice: Rhinonicteris aurantia (Pilbara form) Pilbara
Leaf-nosed Bat’, Department of the Environment, Canberra.
TSSC (Threatened Species Scientific Committee) (2018), Conservation Advice: Polytelis alexandrae Princess Parrot,
Department of the Environment and Energy, Australian Government.
Toledo L, Asmüssen M and Rodríguez J (2012) Track illegal trade in wildlife, Nature, 483:36.
Thompson GG and Thompson SA (2008) ‘Greater Bilby (Macrotis lagotis) burrows, diggings and scats in the Pilbara’, Journal
of the Royal Society of Western Australia, 91:21–25.
Tutt M, Fekete S, Mitchell S, Brace P and Pearson D (2004) Unravelling the mysteries of Pilbara Olive Python ecology, Nickol
Bay Naturalists’ Club, accessed 30 June 2023.
Tuttle MD (2013) ‘Threats to bats and educational challenges’, in Adams RA and Pedersen SC (eds), Bat Evolution, Ecology,
and Conservation, Springer, New York.
Umbrello L, Bullen R, Shaw R, McArthur S, Byrne M, van Leeuwen S and Ottewell K (2022) ‘Extensive gene flow in a
threatened bat (Rhinonicteris aurantia) in an arid landscape’, Global Ecology and Conservation, 37:e02154.
Wangka Maya (2021) Pilbara Aboriginal Cultures, Wangka Maya Pilbara Aboriginal Language Centre, accessed 24 March
2021.
Watson C (2011) ‘A failed breeding attempt by the Grey Falcon Falco hypoleucos near Alice Springs, Northern Territory’,
Australian Field Ornithology, 28(4):167–179.
Weeds Australia (2021a) Integrated weed management, Weeds Australia website, Centre for Invasive Species Solutions,
accessed 17 August 2023.
Weeds Australia (2021b) Weed monitoring, Centre for Invasive Species Solutions, Weeds Australia website, accessed 17
August 2023.
Weeds Australia (2021c) Weed profiles, Weeds Australia website, Centre for Invasive Species Solutions, accessed 17 August
2023.
Weeds Australia (2023) Gamba Grass, Weeds Australia website, Centre for Invasive Species Solutions, accessed 17 August
2023.
White AW, Morris I, Madani G and Archer M (2016) ‘Are cane toads Rhinella marina impacting ghost bats Macroderma
gigas in Northern Australia?’, Australian Zoologist, 38(2):183–191.
Woinarski JCZ, Oakwood M, Winter J, Burnett S, Milne D, Foster P, Myles H and Holmes B (2008) Surviving the toads:
patterns of persistence of the northern quoll Dasyurus hallucatus in Queensland, report to the Natural Heritage Trust,
Department of Natural Resources, Environment and the Arts, Northern Territory Government.
Woinarski JCZ, Burbidge AA and Harrison PL (2014) The Action Plan for Australian Mammals 2012, CSIRO Publishing,
Melbourne.
Worthington Wilmer J, Moritz C, Hall L and Toop J (1994) Extreme population structuring in the threatened ghost bat,
Macroderma gigas: evidence from mitochondrial DNA, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences,
257(1349):193–198.
8 End Notes
1DCCEEW 2022, Nature Positive Plan: better for the environment, better for business, Department of Climate Change,
Energy, the Environment and Water, Canberra, December. CC BY 4.0.
2 The Minister or their delegate’s determination of likely significant impact to matters of national environmental
significance (and need for further assessment and approval) at the referral stage cannot include consideration of proposed
avoidance, mitigation and offsetting measures.
3 The area to be surveyed is species-specific and described within Section 3.
4 In the Pilbara there are landscape features that are generally associated with critical female denning habitat which include
topographical ruggedness (e.g., slope), narrow crevices entrances (e.g., 5-20 cm), high cover of embedded rocks (e.g., 25-
100%), range of rock sizes with preference of large boulders (e.g., 0-50 cm, 50-200 cm, >200 cm), presence of ground cover
(e.g., 15-75%) but not dense spinifex, and the presence of Ficus species and other small potential prey species (Cowan et al.
2020b, Moore et al. 2021, Dunlop et al. 2014).
5Spatial movement patterns undertaken across four studies in the Pilbara has identified home range sizes to be up to 129
ha (640 m radius) for Northern Quoll females (Cowan et al. 2023).
6 In the Pilbara there are landscape features that are generally associated with critical female denning habitat which include
topographical ruggedness (e.g., slope), narrow crevices entrances (e.g., 5-20 cm), high cover of embedded rocks (e.g., 25-
100%), range of rock sizes with preference of large boulders (e.g., 0-50 cm, 50-200 cm, >200 cm), presence of ground cover
(e.g., 15-75%) but not dense spinifex, and the presence of Ficus species and other small potential prey species (Cowan et al.
2020b, Moore et al. 2021, Dunlop et al. 2014).
7The species distribution models are available at Species Profiles (SPRAT) (environment.gov.au) and can be viewed spatially
using the Protected Matters Search Tool
8Spatial movement patterns undertaken across four studies in the Pilbara has identified home range sizes to be up to 129
ha (640 m radius) for Northern Quoll females (Cowan et al. 2023). Applying this avoidance standard for the Northern Quoll
will ensure the overall objective of the Recovery Plan for the Northern Quoll (Hill and Ward 2010) to minimise the rate of
decline of the northern quoll in Australia and ensure that viable populations remain in each of the major regions of
distribution into the future is met by protecting the area of occupancy for the species.
9 The Northern Quoll are susceptible to habitat fragmentation and genetic isolation (Hill and Ward 2010), with studies
demonstrating the species is at risk of becoming locally extinct without the ability to disperse and move through the
landscape surrounding home ranges or be able be able to expand in populations (Braithwaite and Griffiths 1994; Oakwood
2000, 2002). At metapopulation level across the Pilbara bioregion, the resilience of the Northern Quoll is dependent on
ensuring the genetic connectivity is maintained through suitable dispersal corridors (Shaw et al. 2022).
10 The Northern Quoll prefer to disperse using drainage lines and watercourses but are resistant to low vegetated habitats
that have high contents of silt and clay (e.g., alluvial, coastal, and hardpan plains) likely due to the increase of predation
risks (Shaw et al. 2022).
11The Northern Quoll will use suitability designed and placed culverts especially in areas that intersect with preferred
drainage line dispersal habitats (Creese 2012).
12The foraging and dispersal of the females is 1.5 km and males 2-3 km (average) through the landscape (Southgate
2006:171).
13Species distribution models are available at Species Profiles (SPRAT) (environment.gov.au) and can be viewed spatially
using the Protected Matters Search Tool.
14 An
active burrow is defined a burrow used by a Greater Bilby individual at any time in the past 2 years as defined by
Thompson and Thompson (2008).
15 The forging and dispersal of the females is 1.5 km and males 2-3 km (average) through the landscape (Southgate
2006:171). Applying this avoidance standard for the Greater Bilby will meet Objective 2 of the Recovery Plan for the Greater
Bilby (DCCEEW 2023b) to ensure the area occupied by the Greater Bilby has been maintained or increased.
16 Applying this avoidance standard to dispersal corridors will limit habitat fragmentation and potential fragmentation risks
for the Greater Bilby to meet Objective 3 of the Recovery Plan for the Greater Bilby (DCCEEW 2023b) to ensure the genetic
diversity of the Greater Bilby has been maintained and retains the potential for evolutionary change through adaption and
selection. Greater Bilbies are likely to prefer dispersal through alluvial plain and drainage lines.
17The Greater Bilby will use suitability designed and placed culverts especially in areas that intersect with preferred
drainage line dispersal habitats (Creese 2012).
18 The home range of the Pilbara Python female was found to be up to 365 ha (radius of 1.1 km) (Tutt et al. 2004:25).
19Species distribution models are available at Species Profiles (SPRAT) (environment.gov.au) and can be viewed spatially
using the Protected Matters Search Tool.
20A study found the home range of the Pilbara Python female was up to 365 ha (Tutt et al. 2004:25). Home range sizes for
the species are poorly known but are currently considered to be a minimum of 365 ha. Implementing a local radio-tracking
and/or long-term mark-recapture program will provide greater clarity about local home range sizes and habitats used by
the species. Applying this avoidance standard for the Pilbara Olive Python will meet the conservation priority action to
ensure development activities in areas where the Olive Python (Pilbara subspecies) occurs do not adversely impact on known
populations.
21The Pilbara Olive Python is likely to be susceptible to habitat fragmentation and genetic isolation (Pearson et al. 2013).
The application of the dispersal corridors will limit the potential fragmentation of the species by maintaining connectivity
within the landscape.
22The Pilbara Olive Pythong will use suitability designed and placed culverts especially in areas that intersect with preferred
habitat types such as drainage lines (Creese 2012).
23As outlined as critical habitat in Table 3-8, the Genetic Movement Corridor area is bounded by Fortescue crossing north
of Munjina and bounded in the west by Wittenoom Gorge in the Hamersley Ranges to the Chichester Ranges north-east of
Mulga Downs homestead and in the east by Gudai-Darri mine site to the Chichester Ranges north of Cloudbreak mine site.
See Figure 6-1 for map of corridor.
24Identified as Priority Roosts in the Pilbara Leaf-nosed Bat Conservation Advice (TSSC 2016e) and Permanent, Semi-
permanent in the Pilbara Leaf-nosed Bat Review (Bat Call WA 2021b).
25Genetic Movement Corridor area bounded by Fortescue crossing north of Munjina and bounded in the west by
Wittenoom Gorge in the Hamersley Ranges to the Chichester Ranges north-east of Mulga Downs homestead and in the east
by Gudai-Darri mine site to the Chichester Ranges north of Cloudbreak mine site. See Figure 6-1 for map of corridor.
26Species distribution models are available at Species Profiles (SPRAT) (environment.gov.au) and can be viewed spatially
using the Protected Matters Search Tool.
27The application of the avoidance area around these roosts will align with the primary objective for preventing decline of
the Pilbara Leaf-nosed Bat (TSSC 2016e:8) to protect known and suspected diurnal roost sites, and avoiding activities within
close proximity that could cause roost abandonment and fatalities of individuals. A 500 m avoidance area would minimise
impacts to the Category 1, 2 and 3 roosts by applying best practices to mitigate impacts from noise (several hundred
metres), vibration (>150 m if all parameters are known), and artificial lighting impacts (>500 metres: Bat Call WA 2021b).
The 500 m avoidance area will also avoid impacts to critical foraging habitat directly outside the roosts for the Pilbara Leaf-
nosed Bat (TSSC 2016e:5; Bat Call WA 2021b:20).
28 Pilbara Leaf-nosed Bats will visit water resources up to 6.1 km after the post-sunset emergence from the Category 1, 2
and 3 roosts and is a known requirement to support the ongoing persistence of permanent and natural roosts within the
Pilbara (Bat Call WA 2021b). The Conservation Advice for the Pilbara Leaf-nosed Bat (TSSC 2016e:8) outline a core
avoidance measure to maintain existing natural water pools to encourage long term persistence in a project area.
29Pilbara Leaf-nosed Bat will visit water sources within 6.1 km after leaving the roosts and water sources are critical in
supporting the viability of the Pilbara Leaf-nosed Bat colony using the roosts (Bat Call WA 2021b).
30Species distribution models are available at Species Profiles (SPRAT) (environment.gov.au) and can be viewed spatially
using the Protected Matters Search Tool.
31A 500 m avoidance area would minimise impacts to the Category/Priority 1, 2 and 3 roosts by applying best practice to
mitigate impacts from noise (several hundred metres), vibration (>150 m if all parameters are known), human disturbance
(200-250m), dust (few hundred meters), and artificial lighting impacts (>500 metres) (Bat Call WA 2021a). The avoidance
buffer is not to avoid impacts to foraging habitats directly outside the roosts since the species will commence foraging 400-
750m from the roost entrance (Bullen et al. 2023). Applying the avoidance buffer to these roosts will align with the primary
conservation action for the Ghost Bat (TSSC 2016b) to protect roosting sites from mining, human disturbance and collapse.
32Semi-permanent and permanent water sources within 5 km of the roosts are also considered to be important in
supporting the viability of the Ghost Bat roosts (Bat Call 2021a). However, Ghost Bats drinking water has not been observed
but the species will access water sources during nightly foraging.
33 The Ghost Bat will travel up to 12 km to forage over areas of maximum areas of 450 ha (Bullen et al. 2023).
34Preferred Night Parrot sites need to be assessed as a combination of habitats on a landscape scale. Night Parrots are
thought to move across the landscape from tens to hundreds of kilometres (Burbidge 2020). Therefore, it may be necessary
to broaden the study area to greater than 2 km outside of the development envelope.
35Interim night parrot habitat statement (Burbidge 2022) may also be used to assist habitat characterisation and
identification of critical landscape features for the Night Parrot.
36Exact locations of the Night Parrot detections must be provided to the department to support the referral and
assessment but may need to be redacted for public review to ensure confidentially and reduce the risk of illegal collection
of the species.
37Species distribution models are available at Species Profiles (SPRAT) (environment.gov.au) and can be viewed spatially
using the Protected Matters Search Tool.
38The home range of the Night Parrot is dependent on landscape composition, quality, and scale of critical habitat types
that will be location specific. Applying this avoidance standard for the Night Parrot for known populations will align with the
conservation strategy (TSSC 2016d) to … identify and secure further populations across its former range. Protecting and
maintaining existing habitat is more beneficial for this species than offsetting or attempting to restore degraded habitat
(Leseberg et al. 2023).
39Species distribution models are available at Species Profiles (SPRAT) (environment.gov.au), and can be viewed spatially
using the Protected Matters Search Tool.
40 Active breeding structure means the detection of a used nest tree or artificial structure by the Grey Falcon.
41The Grey Falcon will use a breeding structure for 1-3 years to raise young (yearlings from previous year alongside new
hatchling in some cases) and will move to a different breeding structure within the home range after 2-3 years, only if
foraging remains viable and breeding structures are present (Schoenjahn 2018).
42 The foraging habitat must align with habitats in Table 3-14 and be able to support avian prey.
43Grey Falcon will remain within a 10-20 km radius circle home range of a breeding/roosting as long as the area continues
to support the persistence of avian prey and contains potential breeding structures for future use by the species.
44Princess Parrots are active, noisy and conspicuous in the morning and evening but difficult to observe in the middle of the
day when they rest quietly amongst foliage to escape the heat (Carter 1993; Higgins 1999). It is usually somewhat wary
(Carter 1993; Higgins 1999), but at times it may tolerate close approach (Forshaw 2002).
45Species distribution models are available at Species Profiles (SPRAT) (environment.gov.au) and can be viewed spatially
using the Protected Matters Search Tool.
46Princess Parrots are known to congregate and breed within the same stand of trees (but in separate nest hollows). These
trees may be used in subsequent years to support breeding by the species (Pavey et al. 2014). Therefore, without further
evidence of patterns of habitat use and migration movements (i.e., return to the same breeding habitat), all nesting trees
within a grove will need to be avoided. Applying the avoidance standard will align with the primary conservation action for
the Princess Parrot (TSSC 2018) to maintain breeding habitat.
47Princess Parrots are known to congregate and breed within the same stand of trees (but in separate nest hollows). These
trees may be used in subsequent years to support breeding by the species (Pavey et al. 2014). Therefore, without further
evidence of patterns of habitat use and migration movements (i.e., return to the same breeding habitat), all nesting trees
within a grove will need to be avoided. Applying the avoidance standard will align with the conservation priority for the
Princess Parrot (TSSC 2018) to maintain breeding habitat.
48A study found a strong association between active burrows of the Great Desert Skink with active termite nests with
preference for higher ground cover (Dennison 2015:109).
49Species distribution models are available at Species Profiles (SPRAT) (environment.gov.au) and can be viewed spatially
using the Protected Matters Search Tool.
50The home range for the Greater Skink is dependent on landscape variables and the number of burrows in the area.
Applying this 500 m buffer to active burrows will ensure that the draft recovery objective (Indigenous Desert Alliance 2022)
to ensure range of the Tjakura remains stable will be met.
51The Greater Skink has been known to disperse to develop new burrows from 0 to 4 km (but up to 9 km) from a family
burrow system (Dennison 2015, McAlpin 2011). By applying this applying this avoidance standard will meet the
conservation objective (TSSC 2016a) to increase the extent of suitable habitat for the species and retain its evolutionary
potential across its range.
lii
Restoration: aims to return an ecosystem to its original state before impact or to the same standard as an ideal reference
site.
liii Recreation: recreates elements of an ecosystem (e.g., artificial habitat structures).
liv
Rehabilitation: aims to restore elements of an ecosystem, acknowledging there has been permanent alteration and
complete restoration to a specific prior condition is not possible.
lv Revegetation: replanting vegetation (may be part of restoration or rehabilitation).