PO Box 5385 Ref: 14024c_Ltr02c Brendale Q 4500 P: 0466 428 625 20 January 2015 F: 07 3264 7131 E: [email protected] Victoria Musgrove Senior Environmental Planner Cockatoo Coal Limited Level 4, 10 Eagle Street, AMP Bldg, Brisbane QLD 4000 Dear Victoria, RE: EPBC ACT OFFSET CALCULATIONS FOR BARALABA NORTH CONTINUED OPERATIONS PROJECT Cockatoo Coal Limited engaged Ecological Survey & Management (EcoSM) to prepare the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) offset calculations and supporting documentation for the Baralaba North Continued Operations Project (BNCOP). Specifically, the purpose of this letter report is to provide the habitat quality assessments for Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES) that will be impacted by the Haul Route Project. This letter report has been prepared based on our existing knowledge of the Commonwealth threatened fauna and vegetation communities that occur in the BNCOP and information contained within the BNCOP terrestrial ecology assessment, undertaken by RPS Australia East. Background A referral outlining the potential and known impacts to matters of national environmental significance (MNES) has been submitted to the Department of the Environment (DotE) for BNCOP and has received approval to proceed (EPBC 2013/7036). Cockatoo Coal Limited as the approval holder received 18 conditions as part of the approval. Condition 6 states the following: The approval holder must provide environmental offsets for authorised unavoidable impacts to Brigalow (Acacia harpophylla dominant and co- dominant), Ornamental Snake (Denisonia maculata), Squatter Pigeon (Southern) (Geophaps scripta scripta) and South-eastern Long-eared Bat (Nyctophilus corbeni). The approval holder must ensure that environmental offsets comply with the principles of the EPBC Act Environmental Offsets Policy. Scope of Works This letter report provides a brief rationale for calculating the habitat quality for the impacted MNES, EPBC Act offset calculations and supporting documentation for the BNCOP using the EPBC Act Environmental Offsets Policy and calculator (DotE 2012). The offsets calculations have been based on impact area data prepared by RPS Australia East (2014) for the BNCOP. Methodology The EPBC Offsets Calculator requires an assessment for each MNES that must be offset (in this case one community and three fauna species). A key component of this offset calculation for each MNES is the assessment of habitat quality or condition of both the impact area and proposed offset area with a score from 1 to 10. An assessment of the potential improvement of the offset area is also required assuming that management measures are implemented to manage any potential current threats. For the proposed offset area an assessment of risk of loss with and without the proposed offset area being used as an offset is also required. These calculations will be prepared by others and are not contained in this letter report. The Draft Guide to determining terrestrial habitat quality: A toolkit for assessing land based offsets under the Queensland Environmental Offsets Policy – Version 1.0 (EHP 2014) in combination with the results of detailed field surveys undertaken by RPS Australia East in April and October 2013. As the title suggests, the draft guide has been developed to assist proponents measuring the habitat quality of land based offsets under the Queensland Environmental Offsets Policy. Habitat quality is based on three key indicators, which include site condition, site context and species habitat index. This approach aligns with the Commonwealth Government’s EPBC Act Environmental Offsets Policy (DotE 2013) measure of ‘habitat quality’ however, the indicators were weighted so that a score out of 10 could be generated for each specific MNES. A habitat quality score was calculated through the addition of numerical scores for site condition, site context and, where relevant, a species habitat index. Habitat quality scores range from 1 to 10. Attachment A provides details of the habitat quality scores calculated for the BNCOP. For site condition, individual scores for 13 bio-condition parameters were determined through comparison of site data against applicable benchmarks or best-on-offer reference sites and summed to produce a measured score that was divided into the maximum score possible (in this case 80). The resulting percentage was then multiplied against the assigned weighting to produce a score for site condition. For site context with reference to threatened communities, individual scores for five site context parameters were determined through spatial analysis and summed to produce a measured score that was divided into the maximum score possible (in this case 26). The resulting percentage was then multiplied against the assigned weighting to produce a score for site context. For site context with reference to threatened species, individual scores for five site context parameters and five species habitat index parameters were determined through spatial analysis and field survey data respectively and then summed to produce a measured score that was divided into the maximum score possible (in this case 66 for Ornamental Snake and South-eastern Long-eared Bat and 76 for Squatter Pigeon). The resulting percentage was then multiplied against the assigned weighting to produce a score for site context. The species stocking rate, with reference to threatened species, was assigned a score of either 0, 1 or 2 and then multiplied against the assigned weighting to produce a score for species stocking rates. These scores represent: 0 = absent; 1 = present in low numbers; and, 2 = present in high numbers based on survey of the site and nearby records. This approach will need to be applied to the assessment of all offset areas that are identified to mitigate the residual offset liability of the project. Summary of Findings Table 1 below identifies the habitat quality score allocated to each MNES impacted by the Project. Refer to Attachment A for a detailed rationale for the assigning of these values. Table 1: Summary of habitat quality scores for each impact MNES Matter Habitat Quality Score Brigalow TEC 4 Ornamental Snake Habitat 2 Squatter Pigeon Habitat 7 South-eastern Long-eared Bat Habitat 5 If you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact me on 0466 428 625 or [email protected]. Kind regards, Chris Hansen Director – Principal Botanist Ecological Survey & Management [Attached: • Attachment A: MNES Quality Scores • Attachment B: EPBC Act Environmental Offset Liability Assessment Attachment A MNES Quality Scores [Note: Raw bio-condition data sourced from RPS (2014)] Table A-1: MNES Quality Scores – Brigalow TEC MNES Brigalow TEC RPS Mapped Vegetation Unit 1a 3a* 3b Bio-condition Site HB04 A03 BEB03 Site Condition 1. Recruitment of woody perennial species 5 3 5 2. Native plant species richness - Trees 5 5 5 - Shrubs 0 5 2.5 - Grasses 2.5 5 5 - Forbs 5 5 5 3. Tree canopy height 5 5 3 4. Tree canopy cover 5 5 2 5. Shrub canopy cover 0 3 0 6. Native perennial grass cover 3 0 1 7. Organic litter 3 3 3 8. Large trees 5 5 5 9. Coarse woody debris 2 2 0 10. Weed cover 0 0 0 Sum of Score 40.5 46.0 36.5 41.0 Site Condition Score (Sumof Score/Maximum Score[80]) x Applied Weighting 3.6 Site Context 11. Size of patch 0 2 2 12. Connectivity 0 1 1 13. Context 0 5 1 14. Distance to Watering Point 2 2 2 15. Ecological Corridors 0 0 0 Sum of Score 2 10 6 6.0 Site Context Score (Sumof Score/Maximum Score[46]) x Applied Weighting 0.4 Applied Weightings: Site Condition 70% Site Context 30% Table A-2: MNES Quality Scores – Ornamental Snake MNES Ornamental Snake Habitat RPS Mapped Vegetation 1a 1b 1c 3a 3b Unit Bio-condition Site HB04 BEB01 BEB02 A03 BEB03 Site Condition 1. Recruitment of woody 5 3 3 3 5 perennial species 2. Native plant species 5 5 2.5 5 5 richness - Trees - Shrubs 0 0 0 5 2.5 - Grasses 2.5 2.5 2.5 5 5 - Forbs 5 2.5 2.5 5 5 3. Tree canopy height 5 3 3 5 3 4. Tree canopy cover 5 2 2 5 2 5. Shrub canopy cover 0 0 0 3 0 6. Native perennial grass 3 1 1 0 1 cover 7. Organic litter 3 3 3 3 3 8. Large trees 0 0 0 5 5 9. Coarse woody debris 2 2 2 2 0 10. Weed cover 0 0 0 0 0 Sum of Score 35.5 24.0 21.5 46.0 36.5 32.7 Site Condition Score (Sumof Score/Maximum Score[80]) x Applied Weighting 1.6 Site Context 11. Size of patch 0 2 0 2 2 12. Connectivity 0 0 1 1 1 13. Context 0 0 0 5 1 14. Distance to Watering 2 2 2 2 2 Point 15. Ecological Corridors 0 0 0 0 0 Sum of Score 2 4 3 10 6 5.0 Site Context Score (Sumof Score/Maximum Score[46]) x Applied Weighting 0.4 Applied Weightings: Site Condition 40% Site Context 40% Table A-3: MNES Quality Scores – South-eastern Long-eared Bat & Squatter Pigeon MNES South-eastern Long-eared Bat & Squatter Pigeon RPS Mapped Vegetation 4a 5* 6a 7 8a Unit Bio-condition Site BEB04 _ LHB1 AB05 HB01 Site Condition 1. Recruitment of woody 0 3 3 5 3 perennial species 2. Native plant species 5 5 5 5 5 richness - Trees - Shrubs 2.5 5 5 5 5 - Grasses 2.5 2.5 5 2.5 5 - Forbs 5 5 5 2.5 5 3. Tree canopy height 5 5 5 5 5 4. Tree canopy cover 5 5 5 5 3 5. Shrub canopy cover 0 5 3 3 5 6. Native perennial grass 5 5 5 3 1 cover 7.