for dispersal, and reluctance to cross vegetation gaps, it is sensitive to habitat fragmentation (McCarthy and Lindenmayer, 1999). The nearest historical record of a greater glider (from 1881) is located approximately 5 km south of the project area (DETSI, 2025). Given that the project area is connected to a large, continuous tract of potential habitat, with unknown availability of tree hollows, the species has the potential to occur within the project area. In the Brigalow Belt Bioregion, greater gliders typically require between 4 and 20 den trees per individual and are most commonly observed denning in Eucalyptus fibrosa , followed by E. moluccana and Corymbia citriodora (Eyre et al., 2022). Within the project area, C. citriodora is present in RE 11.10.1. Field surveys identified one hollow bearing Eucalypt in RE 11.10.4, featuring an opening approximately 10 cm in diameter and another hollow bearing C citriodora in the non-remnant area, featuring an opening of around 15 cm in diameter. This hollow density falls far short of the threshold required to support greater gliders. However, REs 11.10.1, 11.10.2, 11.10.3 11.10.4 within the project area do support tree species associated with potentially suitable foraging habitat for greater gliders, including Syncarpia glomulifera , C. trachyphloia , and C. citriodora (Eyre et al., 2022). While the area does not contain sufficient hollow-bearing trees to support denning, it may still provide suitable foraging and dispersal habitat. Therefore, the greater glider has the potential to occur within these REs for foraging and dispersal across the project area. In total, 19.95 ha of potential habitat for the greater glider is present within the project area. Habitat within the project area has been described as a mixture of remnant and non-remnant vegetation. During investigation of the Project area’s history, the majority of the potentially suitable habitat that was identified within the project area was found to occur within a historically highly disturbed area. Dumping of mine waste by previous site operators has resulted in land contamination across most of the Mount Morgan Mine. Contaminated runoff and seepage from existing mine infrastructure are actively contributing to land contamination. Prior to mining activities occurring at the Mount Morgan Mine, the headwater of the Mundic Gully flowed north to south before flowing in an easterly direction towards the Dee River. What should be the headwater of the Upper Mundic Creek is now an ephemeral waterbody at the lowest topographical point of the Upper Mundic Gully that drains through a stormwater diversion tunnel into Dam 8 located to the northeast, and as such less water is likely available within the project area compared to prior to disturbance. Due to the degraded nature of the project area, this habitat is likely less preferable than intact habitat in the surrounding region. Therefore, the Project is not anticipated to result in a significant impact on the greater glider.
Table 14. SRI assessment - greater glider ( Petauroides volans ) Significant Residual Impact criteria Assessment Lead to a long-
Unlikely Ecological surveys did not identify a suitable density of potential breeding habitat within the project area. Whilst there is the potential for the project area to be used by greater gliders for foraging and/or dispersal, it is unlikely a population will occur within the project area that could be impacted. Additionally, to mitigate potential impacts to individuals, pre-clearance surveys will be conducted, with all activities supervised by qualified fauna spotter- catchers. As such, the project is considered unlikely to lead to a long-term decrease in the size of a local population of the species.
term decrease in the size of a local population of the species;
Wulguru Technical Services Pty Ltd – Heritage Minerals Upper Mundic Gully TSF – Fauna Survey Assessment Report 50
Powered by FlippingBook