environmental

management

Lots 3 on S311896, 200 on SP133189 and 1 on RP97710 in the Greater Flagstone Priority Development Area

EPBC Act Referral

Pacific International Development Corporation Pty Ltd Wyatt Road, Undullah August 2016 8020

001 Referral of proposed action v May 2014 Page 1 of 48

Referral of proposed action

Proposed action title: Lots 3 on S311896, 200 on SP133189 and 1 on RP97710 in the Greater Flagstone Priority Development Area

1 Summary of proposed action

1.1 Short description

Response 1.1 The proposed action relates to the construction and operation of a master planned multi-use residential development located within the Greater Flagstone Priority Development Area (refer Figure 1 ). The site is accessed via Wyatt Road and is located approximately 6.5km south-west of Undullah in South East Queensland. The proposed development covers 1,028 ha and involves the establishment of a mix of residential properties in addition to sporting facilities, park areas, roads, infrastructure and a lake. Approximately 434 ha of the project site will be dedicated as Environmental Protection. The proponent for the action is Pacific International Development Corporation Pty Ltd as Trustee for the PIDC Trust (hereafter ‘ PIDC ’).

001 Referral of proposed action v August 2016 Page 1 of 70 1.2 Latitude and longitude ID Longitude Latitude ID Longitude Latitude

1 152°53'26.519"E 27°48'11.873"S 33 152°52'49.111"E 27°50'34.955"S 34 152°52'45.696"E 27°50'32.697"S 2 152°54'33.195"E 27°50'3.165"S 35 152°52'46.378"E 27°50'30.225"S 3 152°53'41.316"E 27°50'28.112"S 36 152°52'49.113"E 27°50'26.113"S 4 152°54'6.55"E 27°51'9.36"S 37 152°52'47.655"E 27°50'22.26"S 5 152°53'55.302"E 27°51'17.693"S 38 152°52'33.065"E 27°50'14.168"S 6 152°53'54.128"E 27°51'21.364"S 39 152°52'32.603"E 27°50'12.499"S

7 152°53'53.387"E 27°51'23.262"S 40 152°52'39.592"E 27°50'11.109"S

8 152°53'50.557"E 27°51'27.014"S 41 152°53'5.471"E 27°49'56.745"S

9 152°53'48.45"E 27°51'26.947"S 42 152°53'1.528"E 27°49'52.548"S

10 152°53'44.002"E 27°51'24.172"S 43 152°52'58.549"E 27°49'38.17"S

11 152°53'41.341"E 27°51'18.574"S 44 152°52'48.127"E 27°49'24.97"S 45 152°52'41.186"E 27°49'11.37"S 12 152°53'41.818"E 27°51'14.013"S 46 152°52'35.756"E 27°48'59.804"S 13 152°53'37.311"E 27°51'12.776"S 47 152°52'37.19"E 27°48'49.052"S 14 152°53'31.433"E 27°51'15.677"S 48 152°52'39.451"E 27°48'44.637"S 15 152°53'30.222"E 27°51'15.273"S 49 152°52'44.253"E 27°48'40.627"S 16 152°53'29.732"E 27°51'14.547"S 50 152°52'40.102"E 27°48'33.817"S

17 152°53'29.652"E 27°51'13.175"S

18 152°53'30.068"E 27°51'12.245"S

19 152°53'35.131"E 27°51'6.049"S

20 152°53'35.14"E 27°51'2.242"S

21 152°53'24.982"E 27°51'0.49"S

22 152°53'18.465"E 27°51'0.679"S

23 152°53'1.749"E 27°50'56.768"S

24 152°52'58.192"E 27°50'55.511"S

25 152°52'56.353"E 27°50'53.543"S

26 152°52'49.52"E 27°50'53.357"S

27 152°52'47.323"E 27°50'52.017"S

28 152°52'44.776"E 27°50'46.365"S

29 152°52'44.73"E 27°50'45.287"S

30 152°52'45.02"E 27°50'44.717"S

31 152°52'48.441"E 27°50'38.859"S

32 152°52'51.047"E 27°50'37.017"S

001 Referral of proposed action v August 2016 Page 2 of 70

1.3 Locality and property description

Response 1.3 The referral site is located within South East Queensland, approximately 50 kilometres south of Brisbane and 30 kilometres north of Beaudesert. It makes up 1,028 hectares of the 7,188 hectare Greater Flagstone Priority Development Area (PDA) as identified by the Queensland Department of Infrastructure, Local Government, and Planning (DILGP). The referral site is comprised of three allotments, described as Lot 3 on S311896, Lot 200 on SP133189 and Lot 1 on RP97710. The properties are subject to historical land use disturbances including logging and ongoing cattle grazing and currently supports a borrow for external works.

The surrounding landscape contains a mixture of cleared agricultural land and vacant bushland. The site forms the south-western edge of the Greater Flagstone PDA and adjoins the Undullah development to the east. The referral area is flanked by Woollaman Creek to the south and Flinders-Karawatha Bioregional Corridor to the west.

Queensland Regulated Vegetation Management mapping identifies the majority of the site contains Category X (non –remnant) vegetation which is reflective of historical land uses, clearing and disturbances. The northern extent of the site is mapped as containing Of Concern and Least Concern Regional Ecosystems, which extend over properties to the north, east and west and the associated undulating landscape. A number of low order watercourses traverse the property and flow into Woollaman Creek.

Refer to Figure 2 for site context and Figure 3 for site aerial.

1.4 Size of the development footprint or work area (hectares) Response 1.4 1,028 hectares

1.5 Street address of the site Response 1.5 Wyatt Road, Undullah

1.6 Lot description

Response 1.6 Lot 3 on S311896, Lot 200 on RPSP133189 and Lot 1 on RP97710

001 Referral of proposed action v August 2016 Page 3 of 70 1.7 Local Government Area and Council contact (if known)

Response 1.7 The site is located within Logan City Council , but lies within a Priority Development Area (refer Figure 2) and thus is governed by Economic Development Queensland (EDQ). EDQ has a strategic planning function within the Queensland of Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning (DILGP) and is a key regulator of development within Priority Development Areas . As such, EDQ have jurisdiction for the implementation and enforcement of development applications in relation to the referral site.

EDQ Contact: Owen Haslam Manager, Development Assessment – PDA Development Assessment Development Assessment Division Planning and Property Group Department of Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning Queensland Government Ph: +61 7 3452 7880 Post: GPO Box 2202 Brisbane QLD 4000

1.8 Time frame

Response 1.8 The project is in the process of completing the State and Local Government approvals and will commence post confirmation of EPBC Act requirements. Construction will continue in line with market demand with the project having a forecasted currency of 15 years.

1.9 Alternatives to proposed action X No The site has been strategically designated by Economic Development Queensland (EDQ) as part of the Greater Flagstone Priority Development Area . The site is accessed via Wyatt Road and adjoins the Undullah master planned residential development project to the east. An alternative to the proposed action ignores strategic planning intent under the State declared development designation.

The site retains a development permit for a Material Change of Use for multiple uses, issued by EDQ (refer Attachment 1). The approval is consistent with State and Local government planning intent for the PDA.

Yes, you must also complete section 2.2

001 Referral of proposed action v August 2016 Page 4 of 70 1.10 Alternative time frames, locations or X No activities Alternative timeframes are not proposed. Project

timeframes are partly driven by EDQ who manage the infrastructure that forms the critical catalyst for construction of the entire PDA. The declaration of the PDA recognised that a unified approach to planning, assessment and approvals was required to ensure the area delivered land use outcomes in support of South East Queensland Regional Plan growth targets.

Undertaking the action in a different location or at a different intensity or scale was not considered as it would extend beyond the boundaries of the Greater Flagstone PDA. In addition, the size, composition and integration of the action is supportive of the broader intent of the Greater Flagstone PDA. The same action could not be completed elsewhere unless identical zoning declaration, infrastructure planning and resource investment had occurred. No such alternative location exists.

Not taking the action would most likely undermine the overall objectives of the PDA as established by EDQ . Construction works are proposed to commence shortly after the relevant approvals are obtained.

Yes, you must also complete Section 2.3. For each alternative, location, time frame, or activity identified, you must also complete details in Sections 1.2-1.9, 2.4-2.7 and 3.3 (where relevant). 1.11 Commonwealth, State or Territory X No Assessment The project is not subject to another Commonwealth,

State or Territory environmental impact assessment. The PDA and all applications made within are assessed and approved by the Queensland State Government. This application and approval system is mutually exclusive to EPBC Act assessment.

Yes, you must also complete Section 2.5

1.12 Component of larger action X No The project is not being developed as part of a component of a larger action. While the action occurs within the Greater Flagstone PDA, the proponent has no control or influence over surrounding parcels of land within the balance of the PDA area. This action is confined to the parcels being developed by PIDC .

Yes, you must also complete Section 2.7 1.13 Related actions/proposals X No This referral is not related to other proposals in the region including proposals to be undertaken within the larger area declared as the Greater Flagstone PDA. Although likely to be lodged in accordance with the Development

001 Referral of proposed action v August 2016 Page 5 of 70 Scheme for the Greater Flagstone Development Area, the proposed design and lodgement of any other development applications by external land owners is not within the control of PIDC .

Yes, provide details: 1.14 Australian Government funding X No The proponent has not received funding from the Australian Government to undertake the project.

Yes, provide details: 1.15 Great Barrier Reef Marine Park X No The proposed action is not located inside the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.

Yes, you must also complete Section 3.1 (h), 3.2 (e)

001 Referral of proposed action v August 2016 Page 6 of 70 2 Detailed description of proposed action

2.1 Description of proposed action

Response 2.1 The proposed action represents an important opportunity to establish a new multi-use residential development within the Queensland’s fastest growing region. The proposal seeks to develop a master planned community and the designation of conservation/environmental protection in accordance with the Greater Flagstone Priority Development Area Development Scheme (refer Attachment 2 – Greater Flagstone Priority Development Area Development Scheme ) as implemented by Economic Development Queensland .

The proposal site is located in the south-western growth corridor of South East Queensland, approximately 25 km southeast of Ipswich CBD and 27 km southwest of Logan City. In 2009, Greater Flagstone was identified under the South East Queensland Regional Plan 2009 -2031 (SEQRP) by the State Government as a key urban development growth area because of its potential to absorb a vast proportion of the regional area’s population over the two-decade timeframe. The SEQRP suggests a serious population influx to the region with projections of 120,000 residents needing to be accommodated in more than 50,000 dwellings.

The proposed master planned residential development covers 441 ha of the 1,028 ha site and will provide approximately 7,250 residences for approximately 18,000 people in the southern Flagstone area (refer Figure 1 ). The strategic intent for all of Flagstone is to establish an integrated urban community of about 100,000 people living in attractive, compact neighbourhoods, provided with a wide range of facilities and services located in a network of accessible activity centres and low impact business and industry areas. Flagstone will be characterised by an extensive network of environmental and open space corridors that frame neighbourhoods and provide active transport links.

Under the provisions of the Greater Flagstone Priority Development Area Development Scheme , guidelines are set out for proposed developments to deliver suitably designed neighbourhoods, centres, housing diversity and affordability, employment opportunities, movement networks, community greenspace networks, community facilities, natural and cultural values, community safety and development constraints, service infrastructure and other general requirements.

The development Land Use Plan (refer Attachment 3) is the foundation on which the master planned community incorporating these required deliverables is to be based. The Proposed Development Land encompasses 441 ha or 43% of the site. The layout designates 434 ha or 42% of the site as Environmental Protection that retains primary waterway corridors, remnant vegetation and most importantly connectivity to the Finders-Karawatha Bioregional Corridor to the west.

For the purposes of this referral the action is described as clearing and earthworks on 441 ha for the following uses and activities (refer Attachment 3):

Residences in a variety of forms and densities and product types (average site density of 15 dwellings/hectare)
Ancillary uses including local shopping and major convenience stores as part of the delivery of the Neighbourhood Activity Centre, Town Centre, community centres, childcare facilities and a State Primary School
Construction of a central residential lake and district, neighbourhood and local recreation parks
All necessary major infrastructure including: - New roads ranging from collectors to local access streets - Potable water services - Sewerage linking to external treatment plants - Electricity

As outlined, approximately 434 ha of the site is will be retained as Environmental Protection. This land area caters for a range of open space and conservation outcomes including:

001 Referral of proposed action v August 2016 Page 7 of 70
Buffering to urban development and expansion of the Flinders-Karawatha Bioregional Corridor to the west
Protection, buffering and enhancement of the primary waterway corridors that connect to Woollaman Creek

The key statistics for the proposal are:

Referral Area: 1, 028 ha Development Footprint: 440.7 ha Environmental Protection (Retained): 433.8 ha Linear Open Space (Retained): 91.3 ha Open Space (Parks): 62.2 ha

Potential impacts on MNES for this action are summarised as:

Clearing of approximately 190.5 ha of remnant and non-remnant vegetation retaining known Koala food trees and potential foraging habitat for the Grey-headed Flying-fox.
New trunk infrastructure through fragmented and disturbed bushland
Increase in domestic animals (although controls will be implemented – refer Section 5 of this Referral Form)
Construction of an artificial lake and increase in hardstand and stormwater run-off in close proximity to existing waterways

2.2 Feasible alternatives to taking the proposed action

Response 2.2 There are no alternatives proposed (refer Response 1.9 ).

2.3 Alternative locations, time frames or activities that form part of the referred action

Response 2.3 There are no alternatives proposed (refer Response 1.10 ).

2.4 Context, including and relevant planning framework and state/local government requirements

Response 2.4 Context The Greater Flagstone Priority Development Area (refer Figures 1 & 2 ) was declared by the Department of Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning on 8 October 2010 and covers a total area of 7,188 hectares west of Jimboomba in South East Queensland. It is intended to provide 50,000 dwellings for 120,000 people in one of the fastest growing regions of South East Queensland (refer Attachment 2 ). This development proposal is part of the Greater Flagstone Priority Development Area. The subject site is located within the Logan City Council Local Government area

Planning Framework The Greater Flagstone Priority Development Area Development Scheme (PDA Development Scheme) is the primary planning instrument for development of the site. Future applications will be assessed against the provisions contained within the PDA Development Scheme. EDQ is the applicable authority for all subsequent development applications in a PDA.

The site is predominately zoned Urban Living with the northern, north-eastern and north-western boundaries buffered by Environmental Protection zoning under the PDA Development Scheme (refer Figure 1 ). The Land Use Plans within

001 Referral of proposed action v August 2016 Page 8 of 70 the PDA Development Scheme require provision of a District Centre and Neighbourhood Centre, a District Sports Park and town District Recreation Parks and a State Primary School.

The Land Use Plan (refer Attachment 3) has been prepared in accordance with planning scheme intent and on-ground constraints, including environmental considerations, to provide detailed planning provisions for the site. The site retains a Material Change of use Development Permit issued by EDQ which includes an approved Land Use Plan (refer Attachment 1 p. 35). The Land Use Plan is generally in accordance with existing approvals.

In accordance with the PDA Development Scheme, a whole of site Context Plan will accompany planning applications and will incorporate a number of Overarching Site Strategies (OSS) including an OSS for Natural Environment. The Context Plan is in the process of being prepared and, once approved, will act as the principal planning document by which environmental outcomes are achieved over the site.

Importantly, the PDA designation and associated guidelines have established a level of environmental regulation by the Queensland Government, particularly for the provision of environmental obligations and commitments in relation to species impacts and habitat removal (refer Section 4 and 5 of this Referral Form).

Current Approvals Material Change of Use Development Permit – DEV2012/248 ( Attachment 1).

2.5 Environmental impact assessments under Commonwealth, state or territory legislation

Response 2.5 The project is not subject to an environmental impact assessments required under Commonwealth or State legislation (refer Response 1.11 ).

2.6 Public consultation (including with Indigenous stakeholders)

Response 2.6 The proposed action is generally consistent with the PDA Development scheme.

As part of the development assessment process for the MCU Approval (refer Attachment 1), the proponent was required to engage in public consultation which involved the notification of the project to seek public comment. The proponent was found to satisfy all public notification requirements under the PDA Development Scheme which guides public notification requirements in the development area.

Further, EDQ consulted with Logan City Council , the State Government and the community during the preparation of the Greater Flagstone Priority Development Area Development Scheme . The development scheme was publicly notified from the 1 st of April to the 20 th of May 2011 in accordance with the requirements of the Urban Land Development Authority Act 2007 (Qld). In addition, the EDQ hosted a number of community information sessions to provide opportunities for the public to view details of the proposed development scheme and speak with EDQ staff. Submissions were received during the public notification period in regards to the proposed development scheme, which were taken into consideration before the scheme was submitted to the Minister for approval.

The Greater Flagstone Submissions Report includes a summary of key issues raised in the submissions received during public notification of the development scheme. Feedback was provided by 125 submitters during consultation, with these comments incorporated into the final amendment of the development scheme. EDQ operate under an established policy for community consultation titled Community Engagement Framework – Development Scheme Preparation. The core principles of this framework are:

001 Referral of proposed action v August 2016 Page 9 of 70 • Integrity – EDQ undertake genuine community engagement to achieve the best planning outcomes possible • Tailored – There is no one-size-fits all community engagement plan. EDQ develop programs relevant to individual communities • Timely – EDQ engage when it counts, to directly feed into planning milestones and development • Responsive – EDQ will be flexible and responsive to community feedback • Two-way Communication – EDQ will tell the community how their input was used • Clarity – EDQ will be clear about what can be influenced • Inclusion – EDQ plan for all members of the community

The development scheme outlines the requirements for notification of an EDQ development application which provides an opportunity for people to make further submissions on a site by site basis. In deciding a PDA development application, EDQ must consider any submissions made to it about the application during the submission period.

2.7 A staged development or component of a larger project

Response 2.7 No, the project is a stand-alone project and not a staged development or a component of a larger project. The project area is subject to an MCU approval. Refer to Responses 1.12 & 1.13 .

2.8. Related Actions

Response 2.8 No, the project is a stand-alone project and not a staged development or a component of a larger project. The project area is subject to an MCU approval. Refer to Responses 1.12 & 1.13 .

001 Referral of proposed action v August 2016 Page 10 of 70 3 Description of environment & likely impacts

3.1 Matters of national environmental significance

3.1 (a) World Heritage Properties

Description

Not applicable

The site is not located within close proximity of a World Heritage Property.

Nature and extent of likely impact

Not applicable

3.1 (b) National Heritage Places

Description

Not applicable

The site is noted located within close proximity of a National Heritage Place.

Nature and extent of likely impact

Not applicable

001 Referral of proposed action v August 2016 Page 11 of 70 3.1 (c) Wetlands of International Importance (declared Ramsar wetlands) Description

The site is within 48 kilometres of Moreton Bay, which is a Ramsar wetland.

Nature and extent of likely impact Moreton Bay, a declared Ramsar wetland is located 48 km east of the site. Waterways that traverse the site flow into Woollaman Creek and the Logan River, which ultimately connects to Moreton Bay.

The proposed action is highly unlikely to have a significant impact on Moreton Bay given that:
Erosion and Sediment Control Plans and Stormwater Management Plans will be developed in accordance with State Government (and Local Government where relevant) water quality / quantity objectives, controls and management requirements.
Detailed water quality and management plans will be prepared for the central recreation lake, which will be required to meet State Government (and Local Government where relevant) water quality / quantity objectives, controls and management requirements.
The relevant river system flows through a heavily degraded and urbanised catchment of Logan City before reaching Moreton Bay.
The nature of impacts on water quality associated with the development is expected to be negligible given the existing matrix of residential, industrial and rural land uses within the Logan River catchment.

3.1 (d) Listed threatened species and ecological communities Description

MNES Desktop Assessment The Protected Matters Search Tool using a 5 kilometre radius around the site identified the following matters protected under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (EPBC Act) as having potential to occur on- site:
Two (2) Threatened Ecological Communities (TECs): o Lowland Rainforest of Subtropical Australia (critically endangered)- community may occur o White Box-Yellow Box-Blakely’s Red Gum Grassy Woodland and Derived Native Grassland (critically endangered) - community likely to occur
Six (6) listed threatened flora species
One (1) listed threatened other species
Twenty (20) listed threatened fauna species

Table 1 provides a summary of these search results, with the full search results provided in Attachment 4.

MNES Assessments A number of detailed flora and fauna surveys intended to address State approvals were undertaken over the subject site by James Warren and Associates (JWA) between September 2010 and October 2013. These reports identified the known presence of Koala and potential presence of Spot-tailed Quoll within the project extent. The results of these assessments were used to inform the methodology adopted by SHG as part of contemporary MNES survey for this referral.

001 Referral of proposed action v August 2016 Page 12 of 70 The referral site was assessed by SHG on a number of occasions between November 2015 and July 2016 to assess ecological values including the potential presence and impacts to MNES. A summary of these assessment findings and methodologies are detailed in the Ecological Assessment Report EPBC Act Referral prepared by SHG (August 2016) (refer Attachment 5 ).

Specifically, MNES survey by SHG included:
Review of Commonwealth, State and Local Government environmental overlays and databases including: o Australian Soils Resources Information System Mapping o Atlas of Living Australian Searches o Australian Koala Foundation Map o Koala Tracker Mapping o Australian Government PMST Mapping o Queensland Government Wildlife Online Database for the study area and surrounds o Queensland Government Environmental Overlay Mapping including Regulated Vegetation Management and Essential Habitat, South East Queensland Koala Habitat Values, Protected Plants, Wetland Protection Areas, Fish Habitat Areas, Coastal Protection and Matters of State Significance. o Development Scheme Documents and Maps
General Searches and Species Identification
Quadrat and Sampling Units for vegetation communities
Ground-truthing vegetation to inform a certified Property Map of Assessable Vegetation
Specific surveys for Threatened plants in accordance with EPBC Act Guidelines
Observational surveys for migratory birds and diurnal and crepuscular systematic surveys for bird activity
Waterway assessments and ground-truthing of mapping
Opportunistic fauna species using generic methods in accordance with the Queensland Government’s Department of Science Technology, Innovation and the Arts Terrestrial Vertebrate Fauna Specific Guidelines of Queensland
Nocturnal surveys including spotlighting and ultrasonic bat detection surveys.
Species specific surveys for Grey Headed Flying Fox, Swift Parrot, Spot-tailed Quoll, Large-eared Pied Bat and Collared Delma
Spot Assessment Technique Habitat Assessments for Koala
Identification of habitat values for potential terrestrial fauna species present
Deployment of infrared motion-detecting camera traps

The results of these assessment have been used to inform the Likelihood of Occurrence Schedule (refer Attachment 5 – Appendix F ) and the site comments in this referral.

Table 1: EPBC Act Protected Matters Search Tool Results

Wetlands of International Importance (RAMSAR)

Moreton Bay

Listed Threatened Ecological Communities

Lowland Rainforest of Subtropical Critically Endangered Community may occur within area Australia

White Box-Yellow Box-Blakely's Red Gum Grassy Woodland and Derived Critically Endangered Community likely to occur within area Native Grassland

001 Referral of proposed action v August 2016 Page 13 of 70 Listed Threatened Species

Scientific Name Common Name Status

Birds

Anthochaera phrygia Regent Honeyeater [82338] Endangered

Botaurus poiciloptilus Australasian Bittern [1001] Endangered

Dasyornis brachypterus Eastern Bristlebird [533] Endangered

Erythrotriorchis radiatus Red Goshawk [942] Vulnerable

Geophaps scripta scripta Squatter Pigeon (southern) [64440] Vulnerable

Grantiella picta Painted Honeyeater [470] Vulnerable

Lathamus discolor Swift Parrot [744] Endangered

Poephila cincta cincta Black-throated Finch (southern) [64447] Endangered

Rostratula australis Australian Painted Snipe [77037] Endangered

Turnix melanogaster Black-breasted Button-quail [923] Vulnerable

Fish

Maccullochella mariensis Mary River Cod [83806] Endangered

Mammals

Large-eared Pied Bat, Large Pied Bat Chalinolobus dwyeri Vulnerable [183]

Spot-tailed Quoll, Spotted-tail Quoll, Dasyurus maculatus maculatus (SE Tiger Quoll (southeastern mainland Endangered mainland population) population)

Petrogale penicillata Brush-tailed Rock-wallaby [225] Vulnerable

Koala (combined populations of Phascolarctos cinereus Queensland, New South Wales and the Vulnerable Australian Capital Territory) [85104]

Pteropus poliocephalus Grey-headed Flying-fox [186] Vulnerable

Other

Cycas ophiolitica [55797] Endangered

Plants

Bosistoa transversa Three-leaved Bosistoa [16091] Vulnerable

Notelaea ipsviciensis Cooneana Olive [81858] Critically Endangered

Notelaea lloydii Lloyd's Olive [15002] Vulnerable

Phaius australis Lesser Swamp-orchid [5872] Endangered

001 Referral of proposed action v August 2016 Page 14 of 70 Phebalium distans Mt Berryman Phebalium [81869] Critically Endangered

Thesium australe Austral Toadflax, Toadflax [15202] Vulnerable

Reptiles

Delma torquata Collared Delma [1656] Vulnerable

Furina dunmalli Dunmall's Snake [59254] Vulnerable

Saiphos reticulatus Three-toed Snake-tooth Skink [88328] Vulnerable

MNES Threatened Species and TECs Assessment A review of specific habitat niches and distribution of these listed flora and fauna species and TECs using the assessment methods described above and presented in the Likelihood of Occurrence Schedule contained in Attachment 5 - Appendix F , ruled out the potential for most of these listed matters to occur. This was primarily due to the combined impacts from:

Ongoing cattle grazing, pastoral works and borrow pit extraction across the site,
Lack of suitable niche habitat across the site, such as large waterbodies and rocky outcrops and coastal habitats;
Influences from surrounding agricultural enterprises and expanding residential development within the local area;
Evidence of dogs and exotic weeds throughout the site;
Historical broad scale clearing and regular maintenance for pastoral practices; and
Regular maintenance of access tracks and fire management.

An assessment of likelihood of occurrence was conducted for threatened and migratory species listed in the PMST search results (refer Attachment 5). This assessment was based on database interrogations, presence or absence of suitable habitat, site features, results of the field surveys and professional judgement. Overall, the assessment identified the potential for four (4) threatened species to occur on site due to the availability of potential habitat and records for species in the local area:

Dasyurus maculatus maculatus (Spot-tailed Quoll) – Endangered,
Delma torquata (Collared Delma) - Vulnerable,
Phascolarctos cinereus (Koala) –Vulnerable, and
Pteropus poliocephalus (Grey-headed Flying-fox) – Vulnerable.

An additional four (4) species were considered in this referral documentation based on previous referrals in the surrounding area and recent experience within the referrals process:

Chalinolobus dwyeri (Large-eared Pied-bat) – Vulnerable,
Lathamus discolour (Swift Parrot) – Endangered,
Petauriodes volans (Greater Glider) – Vulnerable,
Petrogale penicillata (Brush-tailed Rock-wallaby) – Vulnerable,

It is noted that the site is mapped as containing Essential Habitat for Phascolarctos cinereus (Koala) (based on mapped Queensland’s Regional Ecosystems) under Queensland’s Regulated Vegetation Management Mapping (refer Section 3.3 for further detail).

001 Referral of proposed action v August 2016 Page 15 of 70 Of migratory species, Merops ornatus (Rainbow Bee-eater) is considered a possible visitor to the site. No other listed species or TECs are considered likely to occur on-site (refer to the Likelihood of Occurrence Schedule contained in Attachment 5 – Appendix F ).

It is noted that Maccullochella mariensis (Mary River Cod) – Endangered, was included as a controlling provision for Controlled Action determination on the Undullah project (EPBC 2015/7530). While no impacts to this species are anticipated as a result of the proposed action, potential impacts as a result of the development have been considered for this species.

It is also noted that Queensland Nature Conservation Act 1992 listed threatened flora species, Melaleuca irbyana (Swamp Tea Tree) is known to occur in the area and is a key indicator species for threatened ecological community (TEC) Swamp Tea-tree (Melaleuca irbyana) Forest of South-east Queensland. While not identified within the PMST search, specific searches for this TEC were undertaken as part of the MNES survey.

Assessment of Occurrence and Field Survey Results The site has been subject to numerous ecological assessments over preceding years by JWA and more recently by SHG (refer to Attachment 5 – Ecological Assessment Report EPBC Act Referral for further detail).

Specifically, a MNES assessment of occurrence survey was undertaken by Senior Ecologists from SHG over the application site between November 2015 and July 2016 with conditions mostly fine and sunny. Field assessments across the site included survey for MNES flora as well as potential habitat for MNES fauna. A breakdown of specific survey times is provided below:

10 th November 2015 – Site familiarity and habitat checks, place motion sensor cameras.
11 th November 2015 – Koala Survey, including SAT surveys
18 th -19 th November 2015 – SAT survey and Collared Delma checks.
6th January 2016 – Reptile surveys, bird surveys, pick up motion sensor cameras.
12 th January 2016 – EPBC survey (habitat assessment for Rock Wallaby etc)
13 th January 2016 – bird (Dusk Survey), spotlighting, bat detectors, frog surveys
14 th January 2016 – dawn bird survey,
27 th , 28 th , 29 th , 30 th June, 1 st , 4 th and 11 th July 2016 tree plot

The results of these assessment is contained within the Ecological Assessment Report EPBC Act Referral in Attachment 5 and included the following methods:

Searches & Species Identification
Broad assessment of habitat features to identify vegetation communities and potential habitat for threatened species.
Random meander search technique for threatened flora.
Observational Survey (specifically targeting MNES fauna and migratory species)
Opportunistic Searches (specifically targeting Collared Delma ( Delma torquata ))
Spot Assessment Technique (SAT) and Koala habitat assessments
Specific surveys for Swift Parrot ( Lathamus discolor ), Grey-headed Flying-fox ( Pteropus poliocephalus ), Petauriodes volans (Greater Glider), Petrogale penicillata (Brush-tailed Rock-wallaby) and Dasyurus maculatus maculatus (Spot- tailed Quoll)
Diurnal and crepuscular systematic surveys for bird activity
Spotlighting and ultrasonic bat detection surveys
Infrared Camera Traps (Cameras deployed at 4 cameras x 56 days at 24 hours recording - TOTAL = 5,376 hours of camera surveys). N.B. Camera locations were moved mid-point for coverage purposes )

001 Referral of proposed action v August 2016 Page 16 of 70 Overall, the site was found to be disturbed as a result of cattle grazing with approximately 319 hectares reflecting maintained grassed paddocks. Vegetation remaining was concentrated to waterways and remnant within the northern portion of the site dominated by undulating landscape. While vegetated, the area was noted to contain a high proportion of regrowth and be heavily infested with weeds. A number of access tracks / fire trails traverse the site and are regularly maintained as part of ongoing property management. The proposed development area is contained to predominately cleared portions of the site. With consideration of MNES species with the potential to occur on site, the results of desktop and field assessment have been summarised below. Further detail is provided within the Ecological Assessment Report EPBC Act Referral in Attachment 5.

Swamp Tea-tree (Melaleuca irbyana) Forest of South-east Queensland The Swamp Tea-tree Forest, a listed TEC under the EPBC Act, is a type of forest that only occurs in south-eastern Queensland. It can be found in the local government areas of Beaudesert, Boonah, Logan, Ipswich, Laidley and Esk.

A characteristic feature of this ecological community is the presence of Swamp Tea-trees ( Melaleuca irbyana ), usually in thickets about 8–12m high underneath an open canopy of eucalypt trees. Typical eucalypt trees include Narrow-leaved Ironbark ( Eucalyptus crebra ), Silver-leaved Ironbark ( E. melanophloia ), Grey Box ( E. moluccana ) or Forest Red Gum ( E. tereticornis ). The understorey is sparse and comprises grasses, sedges and herbs with few shrubs and vines present.

Swamp Tea-tree ( Melaleuca irbyana ) is known to occur in the broader area and was observed as isolated and scattered individuals in only two locations along the eastern boundary. These scattered isolated small stands did not constitute the critically endangered Threatened Ecological Community, Swamp Tea-tree ( Melaleuca irbyana ) Forest of South-east Queensland, listed under the EPBC Act as a MNES. Therefore, the action will not impact on any listed TECs.

Spot-tailed Quoll ( Dasyurus maculatus maculatus ) Conservation Status The south-east mainland sub-species of Spot-tailed Quolls is listed as Endangered under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (EPBC Act) and Vulnerable under Queensland’s Nature Conservation Act 1992 (NCA). It is also considered of ‘high’ priority under the Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage Protection’s (DEHP) Back-on-Track species prioritisation framework.

Ecology and Habitat Spot-tailed Quolls are solitary animals, except during mating season, and are predominantly nocturnal and partly arboreal. Spot-tailed Quolls occur in a wide variety of habitats including rainforests, wet and dry sclerophyll forests, coastal heath, scrub and sometimes Red Gum forests along inland rivers. They are found from sea-level to sub- alpine and shelter in rock caves, boulder piles and hollow logs or trees, with basking sites usually nearby. Males occupy overlapping and undefended home ranges whereas females appear to defend exclusive territories. Home range size is generally greater for males than females, averaging 783-1202 hectares over five days for males in the Granite Belt of South-east Queensland. The species feeds on a variety of prey including small and medium-sized mammals, birds, large arthropods, carrion and food scraps, however mammals constitute approximately 80% of its diet.

Studies from north-east New South Wales indicate that mating occurs from May to June with young born in July and August. During the mating season, males range widely in search of oestrus females. Quolls defecate at specific points within their home range, called latrines. Peak latrine use occurs during the breeding season, suggesting they are used to communicate presence and reproductive status. Young leave the pouch after 10-12 weeks, and are weaned after 16-18 weeks. Females breed at one year of age but do not usually breed beyond their second year. Life expectancy in the wild is approximately three years although a very few individuals survive into their fourth year.

Distribution The south-east mainland sub-species was formerly distributed throughout coastal and sub-coastal regions of eastern Australia from the Berserker Range in the Rockhampton area in the north and Chinchilla in the west in Queensland and

001 Referral of proposed action v August 2016 Page 17 of 70 extended south to south-east South Australia and Tasmania. However, the species has undergone a range contraction in Queensland and is now rare in most areas throughout its range. Remaining populations are concentrated around the Blackall/Conondale Ranges, southern Darling Downs, Main Range, Lamington Plateau and McPherson/Border Ranges. However, it probably still occurs in very low numbers in the mountain country from Gympie south to the Queensland border.

Threats The primary reason for the decline of Spot-tailed Quolls is habitat loss and fragmentation through clearing for primary production and urbanisation, which has been particularly severe in South East Queensland. Most clearing in Queensland occurred in the early and mid-1990’s, but is still continuing. Other current threats include competition with foxes, dingoes/wild dogs and feral cats, predation by foxes and dogs, persecution at poultry yards and poisoning by Cane Toads, Rhinella marina . Death from vehicle strikes is probably only a significant threat where heavily used roads bisect quoll habitat. Concerns have been raised in the past over the potential for 1080 poisoning (intended for wild dogs/foxes) of Spotted-tail Quolls, however, a number of studies show this not to be the case and that reduction of canid populations through 1080 baiting is much more likely to aid quoll populations.

Regional Population Status It has been suggested the south-east mainland sub-species is probably locally extinct in Brisbane, although historical records indicate that it would have potential to occur if provided with appropriate habitat and safe movement opportunities from adjacent bushland areas.

In 2011, the Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland (WPSQ) received support through the EnviroGrants program for Logan City Council (LCC) to undertake a three (3) year study – ‘Looking out for Quolls in Logan 2011-2014’- to confirm the presence of Spot-tailed Quolls in the LCC region. Despite a number of community sighting records, no Quolls have been recorded during their study despite targeted camera surveys and trapping in the Greenbank Area. (Alina Zwar, WPSQ, pers. comm).

Further, the results of a search of EHP ’s Wildlife Online database indicate that there have been a total of no records for Spot-tailed Quoll are located within 5km of the project area.

Field Survey Results – Spot-tailed Quoll The subject site supports patches of hilly forested habitat potentially suitable for Spot-tailed Quoll. In general, the study area supported some of the preferred habitat requirements for Spot-tailed Quoll, namely eucalypt woodland and forest providing foraging habitat with good availability of frogs, birds and small to medium-sized mammals that Spot-tailed Quoll prey on. However, the study area generally lacked the following important habitat features for Spot-tailed Quoll:

Large hollow logs were extremely sparse;
Large, hollow-bearing trees were sparse; extensive historical timber extraction appears to have removed most old-growth trees; and
Suitable denning habitat in the form of rock caves or boulder piles does not occur; rocky outcrops with small boulders on ridgelines may provide temporary rock crevice refuges but do not provide suitable denning refuges.

Other features that reduce the suitability of the study area for Spot-tailed Quoll include:

Abundant evidence of dogs (domestic and/or wild) in the form of tracks and scats across the study area, which may prey on Spotted-tailed quolls
Dense Lantana weed infestations across most of the site reduce habitat suitability;
An abundance of the invasive pest Cane Toad Rhinella marina in the study area; and
Proximity of the study area to unsuitable cleared areas, regrowth vegetation and urban development.

001 Referral of proposed action v August 2016 Page 18 of 70 Nonetheless, rocky ridgelines within the northern extent of the site do provide connectivity across the study site to much larger areas of more suitable Spot-tailed Quoll habitat to the west which incorporate Spring Mountain Forest Park, White Rock Conservation Park and Flinders Peak Conservation Park.

Trapping Spot-tailed Quoll were not captured during targeted surveys using cage traps by JWA .

Camera-trap Surveys Both infra-red cameras to record cage trap shy fauna and selectively located individually baited cameras, left over the site for an 8 week period between 10 November 2015 and 6 January 2016, did not detect Spot-tailed Quoll on-site (refer Attachment 5). Likewise, extensive targeted camera surveys throughout the broader Logan City area have not detected Quolls (refer Attachment 6).

Table 2: Significant Impact Assessment – Endangered Spot-tailed Quoll

Significant Impact Criteria Description Impact An action is likely to have a significant impact on an endangered species if there is a real chance or possibility that it will: 1. Lead to a long term decrease While the site does contain potential foraging habitat for the Spot-tailed No in the size of a population. Quoll, particularly along creek tributaries and within eucalypt forest / significant woodland, no individuals were observed on site and no known breeding impact areas were seen on or near the site, nor are any known to or recorded in the general area. While unconfirmed sightings have been by the community in the area, no Quolls were detected during the three year study period during the WPQS and LCC study. Due to heavy disturbance of the site and lack of rocky outcrops and hollow logs for denning, combined with lack of evidence recorded during field studies, the site is not considered to support a Quoll population and the proposed action is unlikely to lead to a long term decrease in the size of any local Spot-tailed Quoll population.

2. Reduce the area of occupancy No dens or individuals were observed across the site. The project will not have No of the species. a significant impact on any population of the species. While the proposed significant action will remove available foraging habitat, given the abundant availability impact of eucalypts in the surrounding landscape and the greater SEQ region, the development proposal is unlikely to have a significant impact on the area of occupancy of the species.

3. Fragment an existing Given that targeted survey found no evidence of quolls using the site, and No population into two or more that the site does not contain optimal habitat for the species, the proposed significant populations. action is unlikely to fragment a population into two or more populations. impact

4. Adversely affect habitat critical While the proposed action results in the removal of potential foraging habitat, No to the survival of a species. this habitat is highly disturbed and subject to edge effects from current land significant use and surrounding development. Further, this habitat is not considered to impact be unique or of special value. Further south-west, SEQ landscape provides more suitable habitat for the species (i.e. hills and rock outcrops) within the broader Flagstone –Logan area, which does not occur on site. The habitat on site is not considered to be critical to the survival of the Spot-tailed Quoll.

5. Disrupt the breeding cycle of a The site surveys did not identify any evidence of dens of potential breeding No population. sites for Spot-tailed Quoll. Mating and births normally occur over the winter significant months (June-August) and following a 21day gestation, litters are born impact between late July and mid-August. Young remain within their mother until 21 weeks. As no dens were observed on or near the site, the proposed action is unlikely to disrupt the breeding cycle of an important population.

6. Modify, destroy, remove or The habitat on site did not contain any special or unique values for the Spot- No isolate or decrease the tailed Quoll. Its removal is unlikely to have a significant impact on the significant availability or quality of habitat availability of habitat in the landscape, given the quantity and availability of impact to the extent that the species is suitable habitat in the surrounding area, particularly south-west within the likely to decline. broader Flagstone –Logan area. No evidence of Quoll activity was recorded on-site.

001 Referral of proposed action v August 2016 Page 19 of 70 7. Result in invasive species that The proposed action is unlikely to result in the exacerbation of invasive No are harmful to a critically species. significant endangered or endangered impact species becoming established in the endangered or critically endangered species’ habitat. 8. Introduce disease that may The project is unlikely to introduce disease into the area. No cause the species to decline. significant impact 9. Interfere substantially with the While no formal recovery plan is in place, the SPRAT database lists a number No recovery of the species. of research, survey and conservation methods including the protection of significant known populations and breeding sites. The site has not been identified as impact containing important habitat or breeding sites and the action is unlikely to interfere with the recovery of the species.

Conclusion The above assessment against the EPBC Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1 indicates the proposed action is unlikely to have a significant impact on the Spot-tailed Quoll. This is primarily due to lack of evidence of Spot-tailed Quoll during this and broader regional camera and trapping surveys, and suggests that the Spot-tailed Quoll are at best extremely rare visitors to the site, either as an area of foraging habitat on the margin of a home range, or by dispersing male Spot-tailed Quoll seeking potential mates.

Grey-Headed Flying-Fox ( Pteropus poliocephalus ) The Grey-Headed Flying-Fox is listed as Vulnerable under the EPBC Act. The species was not recorded on the subject site during field surveys, nor were roosting camps observed, however, the availability of eucalypts provides suitable foraging habitat for the species during flowering events.

Distribution and Population The Grey-headed Flying-fox occurs between Rockhampton in Queensland to Melbourne in Victoria. The species will usually selectively forage where food is available and as such, its patterns of occurrence and relative abundance vary between seasons and years. There are no separate or distinct populations due to the constant genetic exchange and movement between camps throughout its geographic range.

Threats The primary threat to the Grey-headed Flying-fox is shooting and culling to protect commercial fruit farms. In addition, habitat loss and fragmentation creates competition for food sources and the loss of roosting camps is also considered to be a threat.

Field Survey Results Given the availability of eucalypts throughout the site, the north-western portion of the site is considered likely to provide suitable foraging habitat infrequently or seasonally to the Grey-headed Flying-fox as part of its greater home range. This foraging habitat has potential to be considered critical habitat for the species. Foraging individuals were observed on- site, however, more importantly, no roosting camps were observed during 2015 field survey.

Significant Impact Assessment The Draft EPBC Act Policy Statement – camp management guidelines for the Grey-headed and Spectacled Flying-fox summarise the decision process in considering the likelihood of a significant impact on the Grey-headed Flying-fox or Spectacled Flying-fox schematically. The Draft Guidelines mentioned above are specifically for the assessment of impacts on Flying-fox camps. Given no roosting sites are located on-site or in the near vicinity, it is highly unlikely that the action will involve impacts on the Grey-headed Flying-fox according to the Draft Guidelines. However, the Draft Guidelines also state that:

001 Referral of proposed action v August 2016 Page 20 of 70
Maintaining a network of flying-fox camps and foraging habitat across both species’ national range is important for their recovery.
Actions that will impact on the foraging habitat of EPBC Act listed flying-foxes may also result in a significant impact. This is beyond the scope of this policy .

To determine whether the proposed action is likely to have a significant impact on the Grey-headed Flying-fox, an assessment against the EPBC Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1 is provided in Table 3.

Table 3: Significant Impact Assessment – Vulnerable Grey-Headed Flying-Fox

Significant Impact Criteria Description Impact An action is likely to have a significant impact on a vulnerable species if there is a real chance or possibility that it will: 1. Lead to a long term decrease A small number of Grey-headed Flying-foxes were observed on site along No in the size of an important the northern waterway and within remnant vegetation in the north and significant population of a species. potential foraging habitat for the species was recorded by field survey. impact Importantly, no roost camps were seen on or near the site nor are any known or recorded in the general area. Subsequently, individuals observed on site are considered infrequent visitors that utilise the site as part of a broader home range. SEQ has a permanent and abundant population of Grey-headed Flying-fox and available habitat is spread throughout the region given the high prevalence of eucalypts. The site is not considered to support an important population of the species and the proposed action is unlikely to lead to a long term decrease in the size of any local Grey-headed Flying-fox populations.

2. Reduce the area of While a small number of foraging individuals were observed, no roost No occupancy of an important camps were recorded across or in the immediate vicinity of the site. The significant population. project will not have a significant impact on a population of the species. impact While the proposed action will remove available foraging habitat, given the abundant availability of eucalypts in the surrounding landscape and the greater SEQ region, the development proposal is unlikely to have a significant impact on the area of occupancy of the species.

3. Fragment an existing The SPRAT species profile outlines that while there are spatially structured No important population into two colonies of Grey-headed Flying-fox, there are no separate or distinct significant or more populations. populations due to the constant genetic exchange and movement between impact camps throughout the species’ geographic range. In addition, given the high mobility of the species, the proposed action is unlikely to fragment a population into two or more populations.

4. Adversely affect habitat While the proposed action results in the removal of potential foraging No critical to the survival of a habitat, this habitat is highly disturbed and subject to edge effects from significant species. surrounding development. Further, this habitat is not considered to be impact unique or of special value. The SEQ landscape provides abundant eucalypt and similar genera which are available for foraging. The habitat on site is not considered to be critical to the survival of the Grey-headed Flying-fox.

5. Disrupt the breeding cycle of The site surveys did not identify any evidence of breeding Grey-headed No an important population. Flying-fox. Mating normally occurs within autumn, and females generally significant give birth in October, where they carry their young to feeding sites for four impact to five weeks after giving birth. As no roosting camps were observed on or near the site, the proposed action is unlikely to disrupt the breeding cycle of an important population.

6. Modify, destroy, remove or The habitat on site did not contain any special or unique values. Its removal No isolate or decrease the is unlikely to have a significant impact on the availability of habitat in the significant availability or quality of habitat landscape, given the vast quantity and availability of eucalypts in the impact to the extent that the species is surrounding area. likely to decline.

001 Referral of proposed action v August 2016 Page 21 of 70 7. Result in invasive species The proposed action is unlikely to result in the exacerbation of invasive No that are harmful to a species. significant vulnerable species becoming impact established in the vulnerable species’ habitat.

8. Introduce disease that may The project is unlikely to introduce disease into the area. No cause the species to decline. significant impact 9. Interfere substantially with Recovery of the species has specifically targeted broad scale culling. In No the recovery of the species. addition, conservation efforts have led to the protection of known roosting significant sites and important habitat. The site has not been identified as an important impact habitat or roost site and the action is unlikely to interfere with the recovery of the species.

Conclusion The above assessment against the EPBC Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1 indicates the proposed action is unlikely to have a significant impact on the Grey-headed Flying-fox. The project area does not currently support a flying-fox roosting camp, and suitable foraging habitat is widespread in the greater Flagstone - Logan region. Therefore, the project area is not likely to support an ‘important population’ of Grey-Headed Flying-Fox. Overall, this is a common, highly mobile animal that is able to utilise foraging resources over a large area. Given the widespread distribution of the species across SEQ and the availability of habitat throughout the greater area, the project is unlikely to have a significant impact on the Grey-Headed Flying-Fox. It is noted that suitable foraging habitat for the Grey-headed Flying-fox will be retained within the proposed Conservation Parkland allowing visitation by the species to continue to occur.

Collared Delma ( Delma torquata ) The Collared Delma is listed as Vulnerable under the EPBC Act and Vulnerable under the NCA. Despite targeted searches, the species was not recorded during field surveys.

Distribution and Population Collard Delma inhabits eucalypt-dominated woodlands and open-forests in Land Zones 3 (Alluvium), 9 (undulating country or fine-grained sedimentary rocks) and 10 (sandstone ranges). Common Regional Ecosystems include RE 11.3.2, RE 11.9.10, RE 11.10.1 and RE 11.10.4. Important populations of the species are associated with important habitats found in the Brigalow Belt (Bioregion 11). Larger population records of the species west of Brisbane include Kenmore, Pinjarra Hills, Anstead, Mt Crosby, Lake Manchester and Karana Downs.

While the species has not been recorded on, or in close proximity to the site, the species has been recorded in the western regions of Brisbane. Typical mid-story for the Brisbane populations consists of Red Ash ( Alphitonia excelsa ), Wattles including Brisbane Wattle ( Acacia fimbriata ), Hickory Wattle ( A. concurrens ), Brush Box ( Lophostemon confertus ), Hovea (Hovea longifolia ), and Lantana ( Lantana camara ) (Peck 2003). The ground cover is predominantly native grasses such as Kangaroo Grass ( Themeda triandra ), Barbed-wire Grass ( Cymbopogon refractus ), Wiregrass ( Aristida sp.) and Lomandra (Lomandra sp.).

Threats The Collared Delma has undergone decline in the past few decades. A number of factors that may contribute to this decline have been identified including habitat loss through clearing for agriculture, habitat degradation by overgrazing of stock, removal of rocks, course woody debris and ground litter, use of agricultural chemicals, predation by feral Cats (Felis catus ) and Foxes ( Vulpes vulpes ) and weed invasion.

Field Survey Results Outside of open areas, the site is covered in relatively disturbed remnant and regrowth vegetation communities dominated by eucalypt and Corymbia species, but no remnant Acacia woodland or semi-evergreen vine thicket or tussock

001 Referral of proposed action v August 2016 Page 22 of 70 understorey occurs. As such, only one of the suite of vegetation components that support the species occurs on-site. The peaks and ridgelines throughout the site do contain some exposed rocky hillsides where the understorey is sparse, but these areas are isolated and fragmented within the predominant vegetation containing a dense weedy understorey on slopes and flow paths.

Stratified log, leaf litter and habitat searches during the fifteen (15) day survey period did not result in evidence of or potential habitat for Delma torquata (Collared Delma) (refer Attachment 5 – Ecological Assessment Report EPBC Act Referral.

These factors suggest that, although components of suitable habitat for the Collared Delma may occur on-site, their disturbed nature and the absence of other features indicative of suitable habitat would indicate the species is extremely low risk and unlikely to occur.

Greater Glider ( Petauriodes volans ) The Greater Gliders is listed as Vulnerable under the EPBC Act. This species is restricted to eastern Australia, occurring from the Windsor Tableland in north Queensland through to central Victoria, with an elevational range from sea level to 1,200m above sea level. The Greater Glider prefers tall eucalypt forests and woodlands. It is found in highest abundance typically in taller, montane, moist eucalypt forests, with relatively old trees and abundant hollows.

Despite targeted searches the species was not recorded. The northern portion of the site particularly within Lot 3 on S311896, retains some of characteristics of suitable habitat for the species, however, due to past clearing regimes, this potential habitat is limited in size and relatively disturbed. In addition, although some older trees have retained some hollows in this portion of the site, larger trees are rare or scattered across the landscape and reduce the likelihood of supporting habitat for this species. Importantly, identified potential habitat will be protected for the Greater Glider within the Environmental Protection area should they occur and therefore the action is not considered to have a significant impact on the species.

Brush-tailed Rock-wallaby ( Petrogale penicillata ) The Brush-tailed Rock-wallaby is listed as Vulnerable under the EPBC Act. The species is found in fragmented populations roughly following the Great Dividing Range from southeast Queensland to Western Victoria’s Grampians. This species prefers rocky habitats, including loose boulder-piles, rocky outcrops, steep rocky slopes, cliffs, gorges and isolated rock stacks. Most populations have been found on north facing slopes but have been recorded on south facing slopes.

This species inhabits vegetation in and adjacent to rocky areas eating grasses and forbs as well as the foliage and fruits of shrubs and trees. Although some exposed rock outcrops were observed along the northern boundary of Lot 3 on S311896, no evidence of their activity, including scats, was observed at the time of the assessment. Importantly, identified low quality potential habitat will be protected for the Brush-tailed Rock-wallaby within the Environmental Protection Zone should they occur and therefore impacts from the action are not considered to have a significant impact on the species.

Swift Parrot ( Lathamus discolor ) The Swift parrot is listed as Critically Endangered under the EPBC Act and Endangered under the NCA Act. Despite targeted searches, this species was not recorded during field survey and no records for the Swift Parrot are known to occur within 5 km of the area.

Regardless, the Swift Parrot is known to utilise dry sclerophyll eucalypt forests and woodlands with widespread distribution along the eastern coastline. As the site contains potential habitat for the species, it was identified as a possible visitor. However, given no records for the species occur in the area and evidence of the species was not recorded despite targeted surveys, coupled with the widespread distribution of the species across Australia and the availability of habitat throughout the greater area, the project is considered unlikely to have a significant impact on the Swift Parrot.

001 Referral of proposed action v August 2016 Page 23 of 70 Large -eared Pied -bat ( Chalinolobus dwyeri ) The Large-eared Pied Bat is listed as Vulnerable under the EPBC Act. The species roosts on sandstone cliffs and fertile woodland valley habitats within close proximity of each other. However, in South-east Queensland habitat includes rainforest and moist eucalypt forest habitats at high elevations. No records were confirmed utilising the sonic bat detector and a habitat assessment also did not identify any ideal habitat characteristics within the project area.

Despite specific searches and untrasonic survey, this species was not recorded on the site. This species is specifically known to roost near the entrances of caves, crevices in cliffs, old mine workings and in the disused, bottle-shaped mud nests of the Petrochelidon ariel (Fairy Martin), none of which were identified throughout the survey period. Some minor characteristics of habitat, being eucalypt forest at high elevations, were identified within the northern portion of Lot 3 on S31198, however, this uncommon species is highly unlikely to occur due to a lack of local records and suitable roosts. It should also be noted that this area will be retained within the Environmental Protection area and so any potential habitat is not affected by the proposed development area.

Mary River Cod ( Maccullochella mariensis ) The Mary River Cod is listed as an Endangered species under the EPC Act. It prefers shaded pool habitats with abundant instream cover, including logs, log jams, rock ledges, boulders and undercut banks. The subject area contains ephemeral watercourses and drainage features that do not provide long lasting or perennial pools that are suitable habitat for the Mary River Cod and the species was not recorded on-site.

Although the recognised current natural species range is restricted to suitable areas of habitat in the Mary River system significantly removed from the subject area, it is acknowledged that the adjoining Albert-Logan River catchment, including Teviot Brook / Woollaman Creek to the south, is considered potential former habitat for freshwater cod, assumed to include Mary River Cod or closely related species, prior to local extinction. The recovery program for the Mary River Cod emphasises impoundment stocking within the Mary River system and acknowledges the potential for similar release programs in inferred former catchments. Documented release impoundments include Maroon Dam in a separate upper catchment of the Logan River approximately 47 km to the south of, and 107 in-stream km from, the subject site. Due to probable local extinction, no suitable habitat on-site, the lack of artificial stocking in the local region and extensive stormwater management conditioned under additional approvals for the project, it is considered extremely unlikely that the action will have a significant impact on the Mary River Cod.

Koala ( Phascolarctos cinereus ) Under the EPBC Act, Koala populations in Queensland, New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory are listed as Vulnerable. The Koala is also listed as Vulnerable under Queensland’s Nature Conservation Act 1992 (NCA). The site is located within the modelled distribution of the Koala, within the ’coastal context’ as per the EPBC Act Referral Guidelines for the Vulnerable Koala (Koala Referral Guidelines).

Habitat As described in the Koala SPRAT species profile, Koalas inhabit a wide range of temperate, sub-tropical and tropical forest, woodland and semi-arid communities dominated by eucalypt species. Under the Koala Referral Guidelines (p.5), Koala habitat is defined as:

“any forest or woodland containing species that are known koala food trees, or shrubland with emergent food trees. This can include remnant and non-remnant vegetation in natural, agricultural, urban and peri-urban environments. Koala habitat is defined by the vegetation community present and the vegetation structure; koalas do not necessarily have to be present”.

Distribution Koalas are endemic to Australia and have a known distribution from north-eastern Queensland to south-eastern South Australia. The species is widespread within coastal and inland areas, however, densities of Koalas are higher within coastal

001 Referral of proposed action v August 2016 Page 24 of 70 areas with higher average annual rainfalls. South East Queensland is known to support Queensland’s highest density of Koalas.

Threats The three (3) main threats to Koala have been identified within the SPRAT profile as:

Habitat loss and fragmentation,
Vehicle strike, and
Predation by domestic and/or feral dogs.

In addition, the prevalence of disease such as the Chlamydia virus in many Koala populations has led to symptoms such as infections of the eyes, urinary tract, repertory tract and reproductive tract, with the later having the potential to head to infertility in females. More recently, Koala Retrovirus (KoRV) has had an increasing impact on most of Queensland’s Koala populations. While most Koalas carry the disease, environmental stresses such as poor nutrition and overcrowding lead to conditions caused by KoRV such as leukaemia and immunodeficiency syndrome.

Field Assessment During the MNES survey between November 2015 and January 2016, three (3) days (11 th and 18 th - 19 th November 2015) were dedicated to undertaking Koala specific surveys. Senior Ecologists from SHG attended the application site with conditions mostly fine and sunny. The purpose of the survey was to determine the level of Koala usage across the site and to assess the availability of suitable Koala habitat. The assessment involved the following methods (refer to Attachment 5 – Ecological Assessment Report EPBC Act Referral for full methodology):

Spot Assessment Technique (SAT) development by Philips and Callaghan (2011)
Opportunistic Searches
Quadrat and Sampling Units

It is noted that previous field surveys by JWA between 2010 and 2013 identified the presence of Koala at one location in the north-west of the subject site. The findings from this survey were used to inform target searches for Koala as part of contemporary survey by SHG .

Assessment Against the EPBC Act Referral Guidelines for the Vulnerable Koala The referral site is located within the Koala Referral Guidelines modelled distribution as ‘known/likely to occur’ and within the ‘coastal context’. As stated above, South East Queensland is known to support Queensland’s highest density of Koalas. Further the species has been recorded within the broader Logan area. As such, the following provides a detailed assessment against the Koala Referral Guidelines to determine whether the proposed action will have a significant impact on the Koala or Koala habitat. The Koala Referral Guidelines provides an assessment approach using the following processes displayed in the flow chart below:

001 Referral of proposed action v August 2016 Page 25 of 70 b) Does the site d) Is there interference contain critical with the recovery of • Defining Koala habitat habitat? • Determine whether the the Koala? • Description of desktop and action will have an adverse field survey data to describe • Assessment against the affect on critical habitat. • Assessment of impacts that vegetation/ habitat Koala Habitat Assessment • Based on site and could interfere with the suitability and Koala Tool to determine habtiat development characteristics. recovery of the Koala and occurrence (RGB-SAT) scores out of 10. description of mitigation • scores >5 are considered measures. critical habitat. a) Have you surveyed c) Will there be an for the Koala and adverse affect on habitat? critical habitat?

Flow Chart: EPBC Koala Assessment Process

The SAT method is an assessment of Koala activity involving a search for any Koalas and signs of Koala usage. The SAT involves identifying a non-juvenile tree of any species within the site that is either observed to have a Koala or scats or known to be food trees or otherwise important for Koalas and recording any evidence of Koala usage (including any Koalas, identifiable scratches, or scats). The nearest non-juvenile tree is then identified and the same data recorded. The next closest non-juvenile tree to the first tree is then assessed and so on until 30 trees have been recorded. The number of trees showing evidence of Koalas is expressed as a percentage of the total number of trees sampled to indicate the frequency of Koala usage. Assessment of each tree involves a systematic search for Koala scats beneath the tree within 1 m radius of the trunk. After approximately 2 person minutes of searching for scats, the base of the trunk is observed for scratches.

Despite targeted searches, no Koalas were observed during the survey period or by motion sensor cameras over their 2 month deployment between November 2015 and January 2016. Scats were located in several locations across the site, primarily along gully lines. Extensive habitat assessments conducted at the same time utilised survey techniques adapted from Dique et al. 2003 and concluded that Koala Food Trees were present throughout the site, and that higher value Koala habitat was concentrated along waterways within the study area ( Attachment 5 – Appendix E ).

Overall, evidence of Koala usage in the form of scats ranged from Medium to Low use and, despite intensive searches, no Koalas were observed. Twelve (12) SAT surveys were conducted across the site (refer to Field Survey Effort presented in Attachment 5 – Plan 3). As summarised in Table 5, nine (9) SATS were consistent with Low use for Koala and three (3) SATs were consistent with Medium use (refer Attachment 5 – Appendix G for specific SAT data). These results are informed by the Australian Koala Foundation Koala activity level classification table (ex Phillips & Callaghan 2011) using the East Coast (med-high) Activity Category (refer Table 6). The East Coast (med-high) Activity Category is applicable in habitats dominated by residual, transferral or alluvial type landscapes considered med-high nutrient soils with good water holding capacity (Steve Phillips, personal communication). Chromosols predominate with patches of Dermosols in the south of the application area and these soils along with the vegetative structure suit this landscape description (refer Response 3.3(c) and Attachment 5 – Section 3.6 ).

Importantly SATs that recorded Medium use are concentrated to the southern portion of the site which has been predominately cleared of vegetation (refer Attachment 5 – Plan 1). Remaining trees which have not been cleared in this location are almost exclusively Koala food trees and thus SAT methodology, which requires assessment of the closest 30 trees, does not take into account how results will be artificially weighted towards higher Koala activity when only Koala trees remain. Evidence of Low usage in more densely vegetated and less disturbed areas of the site are therefore considered more likely to reflect Koala usage across the site.

001 Referral of proposed action v August 2016 Page 26 of 70 Further, the Field Survey Effort (presented in Attachment 5 – Plan 1 ) shows that six (6) additional scat meanders were undertaken across the project site in areas of potential Koala habitat with Koala food trees where no evidence of Koala activity was recorded. Subsequently, SATs in this location were abandoned. It is noted that no activity was recorded predominately through the central portion of the site, in both cleared and vegetated areas.

Table 5: SAT Survey Results SAT Survey Scats %of Trees with Scats Usage Level

SAT 1 Yes 6.67 Low

SAT 2 Yes 3.33 Low

SAT 3 Yes 10.00 Low

SAT 4 Yes 23.33 Medium

SAT 5 Yes 20.00 Low

SAT 6 Yes 23.33 Medium

SAT 7 Yes 23.33 Medium

SAT 8 Yes 6.67 Low

SAT 9 Yes 6.67 Low

SAT 10 Yes 3.33 Low

SAT 11 Yes 10.00 Low

SAT 12 Yes 3.33 Low

Table 6: AKF Koala Activity Level Classification Table (ex Phillips & Callaghan 2011)

Overall, the site contains outside cleared areas eucalypt Woodland/Open Forest which is considered suitable habitat for the Koala. Field surveys confirmed the site was found to be relatively disturbed by historical clearing, pastoral practices and regular maintenance resulting in a very high density of Acacia regrowth and an abundance of introduced species, including evidence of feral animals and weeds declared under Queensland’s Biodiversity Act 2014 . Broadly the site can be separated into four (4) distinct vegetation areas (refer Attachment 5 ). Within each of these areas there remain sub-areas and ecotonal changes which alter the balance of features based on factors including topography, drainage, aspect, level of ongoing maintenance, nexus to tracks and other weed access points):

o Area 1 – Remnant Vegetation o Area 2 - Unmaintained Regrowth Areas o Area 3 – Waterbodies and Drainage Features o Area 4 – Open Paddocks

Area 1: Remnant Vegetation Field survey confirmed canopy species within each of the remnant polygons are consistent with the current regional ecosystem mapping with Corymbia citriodora (Spotted Gum), and Eucalyptus siderophloia (Grey Ironbark) dominating the canopy within each of the polygons. Other species recorded depending on the position within the landscape throughout the remnant polygons included Eucalyptus tereticornis (Forest Red Gum), Eucalyptus acmenoides (White Mahogany),

001 Referral of proposed action v August 2016 Page 27 of 70 Angophora leiocarpa (Smooth Bark Apple), Eucalyptus crebra (Narrow Leaf Ironbark), and Eucalyptus moluccana (Gum Topped Box).

The understorey of the mapped remnant areas is dominated by Acacia species including Acacia disparrima (Hickory Wattle), Acacia concurrens (Black Wattle) and Acacia leiocalyx (Early Flowering Black Wattle). Other species recorded in lower densities included Alphitonia excelsa (Soap Tree), Allocasuarina littoralis (Black She Oak), and Lophostemon suaveolens (Swamp Box). Recruitment of Eucalyptus and Corymbia species was also recorded within the sub-canopy layers.

While survey noted infestations of Lantana camara (Lantana), remnant areas are considered to provide the highest Koala habitat values across the site due to availability of food trees and vegetation structure.

Area 2: Unmaintained Regrowth Areas Although the majority of the site and vegetated area is mapped as non-remnant vegetation, a large portion contains regrowth with indicators of the preclear vegetation communities. The regrowth area is dominated by Acacia species including Acacia disparrima (Hickory Wattle), Acacia concurrens (Black Wattle) and Acacia leiocalyx (Early Flowering Black Wattle) and scattered Eucalyptus and Corymbia species including Eucalyptus siderophloia (Grey Ironbark), Eucalyptus crebra (Narrow Leaf Ironbark), Corymbia citriodora (Spotted Gum), Eucalyptus tereticornis (Forest Red Gum) and Eucalyptus moluccana (Gum Topped Box). Allocasuarina littoralis (Black She Oak) is also recorded in areas that area associated with the development footprint and Allocasuarina torulosa (Forest She Oak) recorded within the upper portion of the total referral area on the steeper slopes.

Due to the presence of Koala food trees in regrowth, these areas are also considered to provide potential habitat for Koala.

Area 3: Waterbodies and Drainage Features Watercourses are mapped by the Queensland Government across the application area with the majority more likened to overland flow paths that contain no riparian features or species. These areas would only contain water in periods of high rainfall events and maintain very few opportunities for water to be retained. A large number of these features also contain constructed farm dams as a result of cattle production.

The lower reaches of these mapped watercourses, in areas of the landscape that become less steep, contain riparian type features including fringing vegetation typical of waterways. Species such as Melaleuca viminalis (Weeping Bottlebrush) and Melaleuca quinquenervia (Broad Leaf Paperbark) start to line the embankments of these watercourses and included small clumps of Cyperus polystachyos (Bunchy Sedge), Juncus usitatus (Common Rush). The watercourse edges were dominated by Lomandra longifolia (Mat Rush). These features are considered to contain limited habitat for Koala in their current form.

Woollaman Creek contains patchy vegetation as well as a number of remnant polygons mapped as containing Least Concern Regional Ecosystem 12.3.7. This community is described as Eucalyptus tereticornis (Forest Red Gum), Casuarina cunninghamiana +/- Melaleuca spp., fringing woodland . Species recorded within the canopy are dominated by Eucalyptus tereticornis (Forest Red Gum). These specimens were extremely large with some recorded around forty (40) meters in height with a very large number recording a trunk girth (DBH) of greater than 1,000 mm. However, the sub-canopy and shrub layers contained a mix of Koala food trees and other natives as well as infestations of weeds. Of the drainage features on-site, Woollaman Creek is considered to provide suitable habitat for the Koala.

Area 4: Open Paddocks The majority of the site contains open paddocks and is currently utilised for cattle production. These areas are periodically slashed and largely devoid of shrub and canopy vegetation. Some small patches of established trees are scattered across the open paddocks. The majority of the area is dominated by exotic grasses and introduced pastoral weed species including Cynodon dactylon (Couch Grass), Lantana camara (Lantana), Bidens pilosa (Cobbler’s Pegs), Ageratum

001 Referral of proposed action v August 2016 Page 28 of 70 houstonianum (Blue Billy goat Weed), Melinis repens (Red Natal Grass) and Chloris virgate (Rhodes Grass). No obvious signs of Phascolarctos cinereus (Koala) or areas of suitable habitat were recorded throughout this vegetation area.

Summary of Findings The key findings from the field assessment are:

No Koalas were observed on or surrounding the site during contemporary EPBC Act targeted surveys;
Scats were observed in several locations across the application area, with nine (9) of the twelve (12) SATs recording Low use and three (3) recording Medium use. Areas of Medium use and evidence of scats were generally associated with selectively cleared areas where only Koala food trees remain amongst grazing paddocks. This activity level is considered an anomaly of the SAT methodology due to the absence of non-Koala trees as expected, however, it indicates Koala activity.
No scats were recorded across the central portion of the site despite targeted surveys and the presence of Koala food trees.
Areas of the site are dominated by species considered Koala food trees under the Koala Referral Guidelines including Eucalyptus siderophloia (Grey Ironbark), Eucalyptus crebra (Narrow Leaf Ironbark), Corymbia citriodora (Spotted Gum), Eucalyptus tereticornis (Forest Red Gum) and Eucalyptus moluccana (Gum Topped Box.
The site was significantly disturbed and predominately cleared as a result of historical cattle grazing broad scale vegetation clearing and thinning, invasion of weeds, disturbance from livestock and impacts from surrounding land uses;
Outside of larger creek corridors and remnant and regrowth vegetation within the northern portion of the site, the site is not considered to provide valuable habitat for Koalas.

The following analysis is an assessment against the EPBC Act Referral Guidelines for the Vulnerable Koala.

What is the geographic context of the proposal site?

A search of the EPBC Protected Matters Search Tool within a 5 km buffer lists the Koala as potentially located on-site (refer Attachment 4). As per the EPBC Act Referral Guidelines for the Vulnerable Koala, the site is therefore considered to fall within the modelled distribution of the Koala.

The Koala Referral Guidelines separate the geographical context into two zones, inland and coastal, based on the 800 mm per annum rainfall isohyet. The proposal site is mapped within a “coastal” area as per the distribution map (below). Therefore the coastal habitat attributes contained in the Koala Referral Guidelines are relevant when using the Habitat Assessment Tool.

001 Referral of proposed action v August 2016 Page 29 of 70 Flinders

Does the site contain habitat critical to the survival of the Koala? In accordance with the Koala Referral Guidelines, habitat which receives a score of 5 or more using the Koala Habitat Assessment Tool is considered to be critical habitat. As assessment of the site using the Koala Habitat Assessment Tool has been undertaken in Table 7 which indicates the site has been given a critical habitat score of 8 and therefore is considered to be critical habitat for Koala.

Table 7: Koala Habitat Assessment Tool Zone 1 – Sandy Creek Buffer Area Attribute Score Comment

Koala occurrence +2 (High) Desktop A Protected Matters Search using a 5 km radius of the identified the Koala as having the potential to occur on site. A Wildlife Online search report using a 5 kilometre radius

001 Referral of proposed action v August 2016 Page 30 of 70 found 9 records of the Koala. Koalas are known to occur in the wider Greater Flagstone area.

On-ground No Koalas were sighted within the project area during the contemporary survey period. Additionally, no Koalas were recorded on motion sensor cameras deployed continuously prior to, during, and post the field survey period. Evidence of Koala activity (e.g. scats and scratches) were observed in several locations across the site, however, these were predominately contained to cleared areas (where only Koala food trees remain) and concentrated to gully lines. Overall use of the site for the species is considered to be “low”. Koala has historically been recorded on-site.

As there is evidence of one or more Koalas within the last two years, the ‘Koala Occurrence’ attribute has been given a score of +2 (High).

Vegetation +2 (High) Desktop composition The Queensland Government Regulated Vegetation Supporting Map (Regional Ecosystem V8.0) identifies the study area as predominately conditioning Category X (non-remnant) vegetation with the northern portion of site mapped as containing Category B remnant vegetation that is of Concern RE12.9-10.2/12.9-10.7 and Least Concern RE 12.9-10.17 and RE12.9-10.2 refer to Attachment 5 – Figure 5 ). It is noted that Of Concern RE over the north-eastern portion is associated with essential habitat for Koala.

On-ground Large portions of the site are cleared of vegetation and regularly maintained as a result of pastoral practices. Review of historical aerial imagery was completed back to 1958 where the majority of the referral area has been cleared of the majority of vegetation values. This clearing also extended through to Woollaman Creek with only a few large established trees appearing to remain scattered along the lower embankment of the riparian zone (refer Attachment 5 – Plan 1). Consequently, the majority of the site (approximately 898 ha) is mapped as Category X (non-remnant) vegetation.

Of the 1,028 ha site, approximately 709 ha contains woody vegetation. Habitat transects conducted across the vegetated areas identified the species that achieve the definition of ‘woodland’ and ‘forest’ as referenced in the Koala Referral Guidelines. Ecological survey of the site shows the vegetated referral area is predominately dominated by Eucalyptus and Corymbia species. Specifically, these species included Corymbia citriodora (Spotted Gum), Eucalyptus tereticornis (Forest Red Gum) and Eucalyptus moluccana (Gum Topped Box ). Survey noted non-remnant and some remnant areas contained regrowth vegetation dominated by a number of Acacia species including Acacia concurrens (Black Wattle), Acacia leiocalyx (Early Flowering Black Wattle), and Acacia disparrima (Hickory Wattle) as well as a number of declared weed species.

Two or more Koala food trees were identified in the canopy, resulting in an attribute score of +2 (High).

Habitat connectivity +2 (High) Connectivity toward the east, north and south of the site to surrounding vegetated areas is limited by extensive clearing for agricultural and proposed development associated with the Greater Flagstone PDA, which will continue to increasingly expanded within the surrounding area, further fragmenting the surrounding landscape.

001 Referral of proposed action v August 2016 Page 31 of 70 A controlled action determination has been made over the property to the east known as Undullah.

The site adjoins the relatively extensive Flinders-Karawatha Bioregional Corridor to the west and Woollaman Creek to the south. The proposal intends to retain connectivity to the north and west within Environmental Protection areas and along waterways within Open Space.

Review of aerial imagery shows the site, and adjoining allotments, were subject to broad scale clearing prior to 1958. The majority of the site has been regularly maintained and is predominately cleared of vegetation within the southern extent. As such, connectivity to the south is largely non-existent.

The potential connectivity of remaining vegetation within the northern extent to adjoining bushland associated with the Finders-Karawatha Bioregional Corridor results in a ‘habitat connectivity’ score for this Zone of + 2 (High).

Key existing threats +1 (Medium) Desktop Koala Tracker is a crowd sourced National Koala sighting record. The Koala tracker map (below) shows only two healthy Koala records approximately 8 km southeast of the site.

Site

Koala Tracker Map

On -ground

A number of existing threats pose risk to survival of local Koala populations. These include:

Vehicle Strike: A review of the Australian Koala Foundation Koala map shows a number of verified sightings for Koala within close proximity to the site were made along major roads

001 Referral of proposed action v August 2016 Page 32 of 70 including Greenbank Road (80kph), Teviot Road (80kph) and Mount Lindesay Highway (100kph). The location of these sightings, indicates the risk of vehicular strike is considerably high. While, the Ipswich Koala Protection Society has not released a recent newsletter, review of local records indicates a high percentage of deaths from vehicular strike in the Greenbank and Greater Flagstone areas. Additionally, it is noted that anticipated growth and planned upgrades to Teviot Road and Mount Lindesay Highway will result in increased traffic flows

Dog Attack: The Ipswich Koala Protection Society holds substantial records for both frequent and regular koala mortality from vehicle strike and dog attack within the immediate proximity of the project site. Logan City Council states on their website that on average, approximately 110 Koalas are attacked and killed by dogs each year. Further, between 1997 and 2008, EHP’s Moggill Koala Hospital and the Australian Wildlife Hospital at Beerwah admitted around 1400 Koalas that had been attacked by dogs Dog ownership in rural residential areas is considerably high, with properties > 600m 2 allowed to keep 2 dogs without or up to 4 dogs with Council approval.

As threats from vehicle strikes and dog attacks are present in the area, the ‘Key Existing Threats’ attribute has been given a score of +1 (Medium).

Recovery value +1 (Medium) It is uncertain whether the vegetation on the referral site is important in achieving the Interim Recovery Objectives for the coastal context given its foundation on the ability to protect and conserve large connected areas of Koala habitat. Koala Context Attributes listed under Interim Recovery Objectives in Table 1 of the Guidelines for coastal areas are to:

1) Protect and conserve large, connected areas of Koala habitat, particularly large connected areas that support koalas that are: • of sufficient size to be genetically robust or operate as a viable sub- population, or; • are free of disease or have a low incidence of disease, or; • are breeding.

2) Maintain corridors and connective habitat that allow movement of koalas between large areas of habitat.

The site is located within a Priority Development Area as identified under state planning instruments. It is part of a broader area designated for urban development to cater for future population growth. The fact that it has been strategically designated as an urban development area under state and regional planning supports the position that the subject site does not have an important conservation or recovery value.

The site is relatively disturbed from cattle grazing and as a result suffers from heavy infestations of invasive weeds. Retention of vegetation within the northern extent as Environmental Protection and along waterways will provide connectivity to the Flinders-Karawatha Bioregional Corridor.

No evidence of breeding was recorded on-site and the local Koala population is not considered genetically distinct from other Koala populations in South East Queensland. While the health of local Koalas is unknown, diseases such as Chlamydia and Koala Retrovirus are extremely prevalent amongst South East Queensland Koalas.

It is generally understood that conservation and corridor areas provide most effective habitat value and connectivity when edge effects are minimised (Hill & Curran 2003). The subject site is bordered by the Undullah project to the east and cleared rural

001 Referral of proposed action v August 2016 Page 33 of 70 properties to the south. As such, within the broader landscape the survey area is considered of compromised value for Koala dispersal, recovery and persistence.

In summary, the recovery value of the site is compromised by its urban designation, the expansion of existing and approved development within the local area and existing disturbances from historical logging and agricultural land uses.

The ‘Recovery Value’ attribute has been given a score of +1 (Medium).

Total 8 As the habitat score is more than 5, this zone is considered to provide Critical Habitat for the Koala.

Will the action adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of the Koala?

The above assessment concludes that the site contains areas of critical habitat. The Koala Referral Guidelines also require the adversity of impacts to be assessed. This process follows a “yes/no” flowchart as shown in the Guidelines, with responses provided below:

Does your impact area contain habitat critical to the survival of the koala (habitat score ≥5)? o Yes, the habitat on site has been given a critical habitat score of 8.

Does the area proposed to be cleared contain known Koala food trees? o Yes, the site contains species that achieve the definition of ‘woodland’ and ‘forest’ as referenced in the Koala Referral Guidelines. Ecological survey of the site shows the referral area is predominately dominated by Eucalyptus and Corymbia species. Specifically, these species included Gum), Eucalyptus tereticornis (Forest Red Gum) and Eucalyptus moluccana (Gum Topped Box). Survey noted non-remnant and some remnant areas contained regrowth vegetation dominated by a number of Acacia species including Acacia concurrens (Black Wattle), Acacia leiocalyx (Early Flowering Black Wattle), and Acacia disparrima (Hickory Wattle) as well as a number of declared weed species.

Are you proposing to clear ≤2 hectares of critical habitat? o No, the action requires the clearing of 190.5 hectares of vegetation with a critical habitat score of 8 (refer Attachment 7 ).

Are you proposing to clear ≥20 hectares of habitat containing known Koala food trees in an area with a habitat score of ≥ 8? o Yes, 190.5 ha of site vegetation that achieved a habitat score of 8 is proposed to be cleared. This vegetation is made up of remnant and non-remnant vegetation.

Assessment on Characteristics o There are a number of characteristics of the referral site that reduce the adversity of impacts caused by the clearing of habitat critical to the survival of the Koala. These include:

• Koalas were not observed on-site during contemporary extensive targeted EPBC Act surveys and SAT surveys returned results suggesting predominantly Low Usage by Koalas. This is likely a result of existing disturbance and threats to Koala survival. Continuing and increasing fragmentation reduces the site’s ability to achieve the interim recovery objectives for coastal areas which is based upon protecting large, connected areas of Koala habitat. • The Greater Flagstone Priority Development Area Development Scheme (refer Attachment 2 ) facilitates development within Flagstone in order to meet Queensland’s housing demand, which will see a greater

001 Referral of proposed action v August 2016 Page 34 of 70 expansion of urban development surrounding the site. Already sites directly north and east of the referral area are under development. The site is situated on the periphery of the Flinders-Karawatha Bioregional Corridor habitat area. As such, the site is not expected to retain important connectivity to other patches, nor does it play an important role in facilitating connectivity through the landscape. • In terms of vegetation structure, the site is predominately cleared and was found to be heavily disturbed by pastoral practices, again reducing the quality of available habitat. The majority of habitat on site is non-remnant and despite targeted searches no evidence of Koala activity was recorded within most of the proposed development footprint. • The project proposes considerable retention of approximately 434 ha as Environmental Protection and 91.3 ha as Linear Open Space, which contains critical habitat for the survival of the Kola and maintains connectivity for Koala movement to bushland to the east and north associated with the Flinders- Karawatha Bioregional Corridor and along the Woollaman Creek corridor to the south. • Land assessed as critical habitat on-site received a score of 8. Areas of Environmental Protection are subject to extensive rehabilitation works under the proposal. As outlined in the Greater Flagstone Priority Development Area Development Scheme , the northern Environmental Protection Area has been identified as a PDA scale ecological corridor to be preserved and enhanced through this and surrounding development proposals within the PDA. Rehabilitation will be guided by an approved rehabilitation plan to re-establish the natural ecological function of this vegetation. The Rehabilitation Plan will be comprised of two main components: Weed Management and Revegetation, and will enhance the natural vegetation structure through extensive weed management, selective infill planting, ground stability measures and natural regeneration.

o Overall, while the site is recognised as containing critical habitat for the Koala, considerable retention of this vegetation is proposed within the 434 ha of Environmental Protection and 91.3 ha of Open Space, which maintains connectivity for the species north and west to bushland associated with the Flinders-Karawatha Bioregional Corridor and to the south along Woollaman Creek. Rehabilitation works including weed management and replanting along the waterway corridors and within Environmental Protection is proposed to maintain connectivity and wildlife movement. Vegetation removed as a result of the development is considered to be relatively degraded, subject to edge effects from clearing and noted to be heavily infested with weeds as a result of pastoral practices. Existing barriers to Koala dispersal to and from the site coupled with current Local, State and Commonwealth approvals around the referral area significantly influence the long term ecological function of the site within the broader landscape.

Could the action interfere substantially with the recovery of the Koala?

In addition to considering adverse impacts on critical habitat, the potential for the action to interfere with the recovery of the Koala must also be considered as per the Koala Referral Guidelines. Possible impacts listed in the guidelines that must be considered include:

Introducing or increasing Koala fatalities due to dog attacks;
Introducing or increasing the risk of vehicle strike;
Facilitating the introduction or spread of disease;
Creating a barrier to movement;
Degrading critical habitat due to hydrological changes.

These impacts, as well as mitigation measures to address impacts, are discussed in Table 8. In summary, the project is considered unlikely to interfere substantially with the recovery of the species.

001 Referral of proposed action v August 2016 Page 35 of 70

Table 8: Potential Impacts Impact Likelihood Comments

Dog attack Potential The development of a residential estate is likely to increase the number of dogs entering the area. However, strong evidence of current dog activity was recorded on-site. With appropriate governance and guidance to new home buyers (e.g. the use of signs in public spaces to inform of Koala presence and the need to restrain dogs, lots neighouring reserves to have limits on pet ownership), it is not expected that dog attacks on Koalas will increase as a result of the development.

Currently, there exists no interface barriers or controls for managing dogs from expanding development areas to the north, south and east. This development provides substantial buffers to the significant conservation lands to the west and the opportunity to implement physical infrastructure (fences, level changes), regulations and education measures.

The Queensland Government published Koala-sensitive design Guidelines suggest the following signage applications:

• The use of signs in public spaces to inform of Koala presence and the need to restrain dogs • Install signs to inform residents and the community that Koalas are present in an area and of actions that can be taken to protect Koalas • Use interpretative signage to identify Koala habitat, Koala Food Trees or other Koala-friendly features • Inform home buyers/builders/site managers/tenants about the Koala-friendly features included in the development and make them aware of their obligations to achieve these koala- friendly objectives.

No residual impacts are identified.

Vehicle Strike Potential It is likely that vehicle activity through the residential area will increase as a result of the development. However, road design, signage and the imposition of a low vehicle speed will mitigate any potential risks to Koalas.

The development adjoins the Undullah development to the east and retains tracts of conservation land to the north and west adjoining the Flinders-Karawatha Bioregional Corridor. This minimises the conflict and fragmentation likely through newly proposed road alignments.

At the Plan of Development Scale (Subdivision Design), refining of road locations, setbacks and earthworks will occur to ensure the environmental values outlined in the proposed Context Plan are protected and enhanced. This is particularly the case where roads traverse and adjoin Environmental Protection and Open Space (Waterway Corridors). All new roads will be designed in accordance with the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads Fauna Sensitive Road Design Manual (Volumes 1 and 2) . Some of the aspects and practices outlined in this manual and to be incorporated into the proposal include:

001 Referral of proposed action v August 2016 Page 36 of 70

• Where internal roads within the project are required to cross waterway, bridges and or specific fauna movement culverts will be incorporated into the design. • These structures will be designed and sized to cater for the movement of native fauna anticipated to utilise the linear corridors. • Fauna underpasses will be exclusively designed for fauna and separate to hydrology devices. • The safe crossing movement solutions will be augmented by directional fauna exclusion fencing to ensure animals are funnelled away from vehicle conflicts and into safe passage areas. • Where required, additional large tree plantings will be installed either side of a constructed road crossing to reinstate as quickly as possible a closed canopy over the new road infrastructure. • Where considered necessary, rope tunnels and other canopy linking structures will be provided to cater for the time lag between clearing and the re-establishment of suitable vegetation.

At a smaller scale, the design of roads across waterway corridors and Environmental Protection will adopt traffic calming and reduced speed signage to control vehicles adjoining sensitive areas.

No residual impacts are identified.

Spread of Disease Unlikely Most of South East Queensland’s Koala populations already have a high prevalence of Chlamydia infection and Koala Retrovirus. The symptoms of these diseases are often observed within Koala populations undergoing environmental stresses, such as overcrowding and poor nutrition. The project is unlikely to cause pressure on the local Koala population to the point where these diseases manifest and the project is extremely unlikely to introduce or spread disease or pathogens into Koala habitat areas.

No residual impacts are identified.

Barriers to Dispersal Unlikely While the proposal will restrict Koala movement through the site, it is arguable that the retention and rehabilitation of areas of Environmental Protection and open space linear creek corridors will mitigate impacts to dispersal given the already existing barriers to movement surrounding the site.

In terms of connectivity, the site is constrained by factors associated with encroaching development to the north and east and rural land uses to the south. The Environmental Protection area within the northern portion of the site and rehabilitation of waterway corridors will continue to provide connectivity values to areas of ecological significance within the broader landscape including Flinders-Karawatha Bioregional Corridor and Woollaman Creek.

Further fragmentation will result from development planned within the surrounding area, including the proposed expansion of residential housing in the local area pursuant to the Greater Flagstone Priority

001 Referral of proposed action v August 2016 Page 37 of 70 Development Area Development Scheme . As such, the impacts from potential barriers to dispersal caused by the development are considered to be minimal.

No residual impacts are identified.

Hydrological change Potential While the proposed central lake and the increase in hardstand areas across the site has the potential to affect its hydrology, management plans will be implemented to address the requirements of State and Local government guidelines to ensure that impacts are minimised.

Stormwater and Flooding Master Plan A site Stormwater and Flooding Master Plan Strategy will be prepared to specifically comply with the following approval conditions and standards applied to the project due to its size and diversity of land uses:

Include a flooding report as per Logan Interim Flood Response 2011
Include a stormwater management report detailing measures to be implemented to ensure the integrity and values of waterways is maintained and enhanced
Demonstrate how creek stability is to be achieved and sustained
Include an assessment of the inter-relationship between existing groundwater conditions and proposed development design
Demonstrate how the proposed infrastructure and other actions will contribute towards the achievement of an overarching site strategy for TWCM (condition 20 of the MCU Approval - Attachment 1)

Stormwater Quality Management Plan / Erosion and Sediment Control plans Further to the whole of site Master Plan, a detailed Stormwater Quality Management Plan and Erosion Sediment Control Plan will be prepared covering both the construction and operational phases for each stage of works. The plan will contain details on the exact location of stormwater treatment systems, including structural and surface treatment devices. The plan will include details on:

Objectives, monitoring, reporting, actions for non-compliance
Identification of possible sources of water pollution including nutrients and contaminates
Details on management and quality devices proposed.
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan

As such, the project is unlikely to result in hydrological changes that will impact other areas of critical habitat.

Lake Water Quality Management and Control Plans Specific to the central recreation lake, water quality management and control plans will be prepared and in accordance with best practice guidelines. These will be subject to approval by EDQ .

No residual impacts are identified.

001 Referral of proposed action v August 2016 Page 38 of 70 Nature and extent of likely impact Collard Delma No impact on the Collard Delma is considered likely given the lack of suitable habitat and species records on-site and in the region.

Greater Glider, Brush-tailed Rock-Wallaby, Swift Parrot and Large-eared Pied Bat In the case of the Greater Glider, Brush-tailed Rock-wallaby, Swift Parrot and Large-eared Pied Bat, potential degraded habitat for these species was identified within the Environmental Zone at the northern portion of Lot 3 on S311986. This habitat, although having undergone some clearing regimes as indicated within the latest Regional Ecosystem mapping, highlights the potential for future use of this area by these species either as an occupier of the site or as habitat utilised within individual species home ranges. Further to this, the development area does not remove any potential habitat that would negatively affect any of these species. Although a relatively small amount of eucalypts and Corymbia specimens will be removed, the development is concentrated within areas already disturbed and currently managed for cattle production. No significant impact is considered likely on Greater Glider, Brush-tailed Rock-wallaby and Swift Parrot and Large-eared Pied Bat as result of the proposal.

Grey-Headed Flying-Fox As stated, while Grey-headed Flying-foxes were observed within the northern portion of the site, importantly no roosting sites or habitat suitable to support roosting sites were located during various site surveys. The species is anticipated to intermittently use site Eucalyptus species during varying flowering and fruiting events, however, only as part of a much larger range of available bushland. Adjoining the site is the Flinders – Karawatha Bioregional Corridor which area covers a cadastral extent of 56,350 hectares of land and incorporates the largest remaining remnant Eucalyptus woodland in South East Queensland.

Based on the relative amount of clearing proposed and the volume of land to be retained and enhanced, the intermittent potential use of the site and the abundance of immediately available resources in the area no significant impact is considered likely on the Grey-headed Flying-fox.

Spot-tailed Quoll Baited motion sensor cameras and cage traps were utilised on-site to detect Quoll activity. The following is a summary of results:

1. No quolls were captured by any of the traps or cameras 2. The following important quoll habitat features were generally absent or sparse in the study area:

Large hollow logs
Large hollow-bearing trees or old growth trees
Suitable denning habitat in the form of rock caves, boulder piles with crevices of size to support denning refuge

Other features from the study which are considered to impact on the suitability for Spot-tailed Quoll include:

Abundant evidence of domestic and wild dogs
Dense weed infestations – notably Lantana
An abundance of the invasive pest Cane Toad
Proximity of the study area to unsuitable cleared land and urban development

Based on the following evidence, no significant impact is considered likely on the Spot-tailed Quoll:

001 Referral of proposed action v August 2016 Page 39 of 70 1. No Scats or denning sites located during extensive ecological surveys 2. No Quolls recorded by motion sensor cameras 3. No Quolls previously recorded in any historical fauna studies 4. No Quolls recorded during targeted wildlife surveys in the surrounding area 5. While some habitat factors suitable to the Quoll occur in portions of the site (wooded ridgelines / creek systems) no single location was deemed to retain all habitat factors to support an important population of Quolls or be considered in isolation as “Habitat Critical to the Survival of the species” 6. The prominent creek system through the site is being retained free from development 7. The immediately adjoining abundance of optimal Quoll habitat not available for development and now included in the Flinders-Karawatha Bioregional Corridor. 8. Extensive pre-clearance surveys, management plans and long term sequential clearing arrangements as outlined in Section 4 of this referral form. 9. Financial contribution offsets triggered through Implementation Guideline 17 to be spent broadly in support of the bioregional corridor area with immediate and long term benefits towards regional Quoll populations.

Koala Recent extensive field surveys completed across the site resulted in no Koala observations on or surrounding the referral area. In addition, Habitat Assessments found predominantly Low to non-existent activity levels for the Koala. This suggests that the site has a low usage by Koalas, which corresponds to the relatively disturbed nature of the site. Habitat Assessments found that the site is dominated by tree species that are identified as Koala Food Trees. Critical habitat on the site was given a habitat assessment score of 8 under the Koala Referral Guidelines.

In terms of impacts on Koalas, the project will result in the following:

Removal of 190.5 hectares of critical habitat for the Koala (refer Attachment 7 for retention/removal calculations).
Potential injury or death to Koalas as a result of vegetation clearing
Increased vehicle use during and after construction, which pose potential threats to Koalas

As discussed above, a number of factors diminish the adversity of impacts caused by the proposed clearing of 190.5 hectares of critical habitat vegetation. These factors can be summarised as:

Overall, critical habitat on-site was given a score of 8 using the Habitat Assessment Tool;
Of the 709 ha vegetated on site, 648.4 ha is considered to contain critical habitat for the Koala, of which 457.9 ha (over 70% of critical habitat) will be retained within Environmental Protection Area or Open Space and will be subject to rehabilitation works;
The site is increasingly fragmented from other vegetation patches, and vegetation to the east of the site will be cleared for development in the PDA;
No Koalas were observed on-site during recent extensive surveys and SAT assessments indicated predominantly Low Usage by Koalas when activity was recorded;
Evidence of Koala (i.e. scats and scratches) was predominately recorded along the boundary of the property, while the majority of the proposed development footprint recorded no evidence of Koala activity despite targeted searches; and
Vegetation clearing will be undertaken sequentially, under the guidance of a fauna spotter-catcher. This will ensure that potential injury or death to Koalas as a result of clearing are minimised.

Whether or not the proposal will result in a ‘significant impact’ on the Koala needs to be considered against the following factors:

001 Referral of proposed action v August 2016 Page 40 of 70 1. The entire site is considered to be infrequently visited or used by the Koala. 2. No Koalas were located during targeted contemporary site surveys in support of this referral. 3. Relatively low activity levels in the form of scats were detected. 4. The majority of critical habitat (i.e. 457.9 ha or 70%) will be retained within Environmental Protection or Open Space and will be subject to rehabilitation works. 5. The majority of the development footprint will involve clearing vegetation where no evidence of Koala was recorded during contemporary field survey. 6. The clearing areas are not within any existing or future proposed corridor or linkage area forming part of a landscape corridor essential for dispersal of Koalas between Woodlands and Forests. 7. The majority of critical habitat to be removed is non-remnant. 8. Areas of optimal habitat for Koala (e.g. remnant vegetation in the north and along waterway corridors) will be retained by the development within Environmental Protection Area and Open Space and will continue to provide a role in future Koala use and movement. 9. The use of fauna spotters and long term sequential stage by stage clearing will safeguard future works from direct impacts on Koalas should they be present during construction. 10. A number of operational measures as outlined in Section 4 of this referral will contribute towards the ongoing management of impacts with the incoming dominant land use of residential. 11. For the amount of clearing of critical habitat, the proponent will contribute extensive offsets for protection, enhancement and support of Koalas in the region. This is a legislative requirement of EDQ and conditioned as part of site approvals.

Based on these management and mitigation factors (including conditioned offsets) and detailed consideration against the Significant Impact Guidelines for Vulnerable Species and the specific Referral Guideline, the proposal is considered unlikely to result in a ‘significant impact’ on the Vulnerably listed Koala species.

001 Referral of proposed action v August 2016 Page 41 of 70 3.1 (e) Listed migratory species

Description

An EPBC Act Protected Matters Search Tool with a 5 kilometre radius identifies eight (8) migratory species as having potential to occur on-site (refer Attachment 4). During the field survey, only the highly mobile Merops ornatus (Rainbow Bee-eater) listed migratory species was observed as a fly over species (Attachment 5 – Table 13 ). The only area retaining some aspects of habitat for migratory species is within the northern Environmental Protection area.

Nature and extent of likely impact

The proposed action is not considered to have a significant impact on migratory species given the lack of significant habitat on-site. Extensive areas of habitat are available within the broader landscape, particularly within the Flinders-Karawatha Bioregional Corridor. The high mobility of migratory species means they will have access to other areas of higher quality and abundant habitat in areas adjoining the site. It is noted that large areas of open space will be provided around creek corridors and retained within Environmental Protection. Retention of suitable habitat will ensure that dispersing species will continue to find foraging and shelter habitat within the site boundary.

3.1 (f) Commonwealth marine area (If the action is in the Commonwealth marine area, complete 3.2(c) instead. This section is for actions taken outside the Commonwealth marine area that may have impacts on that area.) Description

Not applicable

Nature and extent of likely impact

Not applicable

3.1 (g) Commonwealth land (If the action is on Commonwealth land, complete 3.2(d) instead. This section is for actions taken outside Commonwealth land that may have impacts on that land.) Description

Not applicable

Nature and extent of likely impact

Not applicable

001 Referral of proposed action v August 2016 Page 42 of 70 3.1 (h) The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park

Description

Not applicable

Nature and extent of likely impact

Not applicable

3.1 (i) A water resource, in relation to coal seam gas development and large coal mining development

Description

Not applicable

Nature and extent of likely impact

Not applicable

3.2 Nuclear actions, actions taken by the Commonwealth (or Commonwealth agency), actions taken in a Commonwealth marine area, actions taken on Commonwealth land, or actions taken in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park

3.2 (a) Is the proposed action a nuclear action? X No

Yes (provide details below) If yes, nature & extent of likely impact on the whole environment

3.2 (b) Is the proposed action to be taken by the X No Commonwealth or a Commonwealth agency? Yes (provide details below) If yes, nature & extent of likely impact on the whole environment

3.2 (c) Is the proposed action to be taken in a X No Commonwealth marine area? Yes (provide details below) If yes, nature & extent of likely impact on the whole environment (in addition to 3.1(f))

001 Referral of proposed action v August 2016 Page 43 of 70 3.2 (d) Is the proposed action to be taken on X No Commonwealth land? Yes (provide details below) If yes, nature & extent of likely impact on the whole environment (in addition to 3.1(g))

3.2 (e) Is the proposed action to be taken in the X No Great Barrier Reef Marine Park? Yes (provide details below) If yes, nature & extent of likely impact on the whole environment (in addition to 3.1(h))

3.3 Description of the project area and affected area for the proposed action

3.3 (a) Flora and fauna

Response 3.3(a) The following provides a brief description of flora and fauna values found on-site during desktop and field surveys (refer Attachment 5 – Ecological Assessment Report EPBC Act Referral for specifics):

Flora Overall, the site was found to be relatively disturbed by historical clearing and rural practices, particularly in the southern portion of the site, reduced maintenance practices resulting in a very high density of Acacia regrowth in the northern portion of the site and an abundance of introduced species.

Queensland’s Regulated Vegetation Management Mapping shows the site as predominately containing Category X (non-remnant) (e.g. 517.5ha) and Category B (remnant vegetation, 128.9 ha) (refer Attachment 5 – Figure 5 ). The four (4) Regional Ecosystem communities mapped throughout the investigation area, including one of the communities that is a composite Regional Ecosystem comprising two Regional Ecosystem communities, include.

Least Concern Regional Ecosystem 12.9-10.2 is described as Corymbia citriodora subsp. Variegate +/- Eucalyptus crebra open forest on sedimentary rocks.
Least Concern Regional Ecosystem 12.9-10.17a is described as Lophostemon confertus or Lophostemon suaveolens dominated open forest usually with emergent Eucalyptus and/or Corymbia species. Occurs in gullies and southern slopes on Cainozoic and Mesozoic sediments.
Of Concern Regional Ecosystem 12.9-10.7 is described as Eucalyptus crebra +/- Eucalyptus tereticornis, Corymbia tessellaris, Angophora spp., Eucalyptus melanophloia woodland on sedimentary rocks.
Least Concern Regional Ecosystem 12.3.7 is described as Eucalyptus tereticornis, Casuarina cunninghamiana subsp. Cunninghamiana +/- Melaleuca spp. fringing woodland

Under Queensland’s State Planning Policy 2014 (SPP), the site has been identified as containing the following Matters of State Environmental Significance (refer Attachment 5 – Figure 11 ):

Wildlife Habitat (Koala) - reflective of EHP’s South-east Queensland Koala Habitat Values Mapping
Regulated Vegetation - reflective of NRM’s Regulated Vegetation Management Mapping.
Regulated Vegetation Intersecting a Watercourse - reflective of NRM’s Regulated Vegetation Management Mapping.

The following general flora observations were recorded throughout field survey across the proposed development site:

001 Referral of proposed action v August 2016 Page 44 of 70
A PMST search for protected flora species under the EPBC Act search identified six (6) threatened plants, one (1) other flora species and two (2) listed Threatened Ecological Community (TEC) described as Lowland Rainforest of Subtropical Australia and Subtropical and Temperate Coastal Saltmarsh were considered to have potential to occur on-site (i.e. within in 5km radius) (refer Attachment 4 ). None of these protected matters were recorded on or in vicinity to the site, likely due to historical broad scale clearing and pastoral land use of the site and broader area.
One (1) listed plant under the Queensland NCA was considered to have potential to occur across the site (i.e. within a 5 km radius). This species, the Swamp Tea-tree ( Melaleuca irbyana ) is listed as Endangered under the NCA and was recorded on-site. Swamp Tea-tree occurred only as individual specimens or isolated small stands and did not constitute the critically endangered Threatened Ecological Community, Swamp Tea-tree ( Melaleuca irbyana ) Forest of South-east Queensland, listed under the EPBC Act as a MNES
Ninety-nine (99) native flora species were identified on-site throughout the field assessment along with forty-seven (47) weeds, of which a number are restricted plants under the Biodiversity Act 2014 and require specific levels of management.
The majority of the mapped non-remnant area contains open paddocks with some scattered mature specimens including Corymbia citriodora (Spotted Gum), Eucalyptus tereticornis (Forest Red Gum) and Eucalyptus moluccana (Gum Topped Box). Survey noted non-remnant and some remnant areas contained regrowth vegetation dominated by a number of Acacia species including Acacia concurrens (Black Wattle), Acacia leiocalyx (Early Flowering Black Wattle), and Acacia disparrima (hickory Wattle).
The site contained a number of pest weeds including Ambrosia artemisiifolia (Annual Ragweed), Baccharis halimifolia (Groundsel Bush), Cinnamomum camphora (Camphor Laurel), Lantana camara (Lantana), Lantana montevidensis (Creeping Lantana), Opuntia tomentose (Velvety Tree Pear), Schinus terebinthifolius (Broad Leaved Pepper Tree) and Tecoma stans (Yellow Bells) which are listed as restricted plants under the Biosecurity Act 2014
Overall the site has been subject to historical disturbances. Vegetation clearing has resulted in habitat fragmentation and loss, which has led to decreased native species abundance, changes to community dynamics and a decline in ecosystem function. The remaining patches of vegetation within this broader context have also undergone a variety of changes.

Fauna A MNES fauna assessment was conducted by SHG between November 2015 and July 2016 in conjunction with the vegetation assessment over the application site. The purpose of the survey was to identify habitat opportunities, observations of species presence and activity, and undertake targeted searches for actual usage by threatened and significant fauna species. A summary of fauna observations based on his contemporary fauna survey has been provided below:

Twenty (20) threatened fauna species listed under the EPBC Act are considered to have the potential to occur within the vicinity of the application site (i.e. within a 5km radius) (refer Attachment 4 ). -Of these species the Koala, Spot-tailed Quoll, Grey-headed Flying-fox and Collared Delma were identified as having the potential to occur on-site based on potential habitat and local records. - Despite targeted searches, the only listed threatened species recorded on-site was the Grey-headed Flying-fox. Evidence of Koala activity was also recorded (i.e. scats) although no individuals were sighted. - Koala surveys were carried out during field assessment, specifically SAT surveys. Of the twelve (12) SATs conducted at signs of Koala activity, the majority (i.e. 9 out of 12) recorded results consistent with Low use for Koala. Importantly, evidence of Koala (i.e. scats) were recorded primarily around property boundaries and in predominately cleared areas of the site where only Koala food trees remain. Despite targeted scat searches, no evidence of Koala activity was recorded over the majority of the proposed development footprint. - Field survey confirmed that the suitable habitat for the above listed species is contained within remnant and regrowth vegetation within the northern portion of the site which adjoins the Flinders-Karawatha Bioregional Corridor and is to be retained within Environmental Protection.

001 Referral of proposed action v August 2016 Page 45 of 70
Eight (8) migratory species listed under the EBPC were identified as having the potential to occur on site. Of these, only Merops ornatus (Rainbow Bee-eater) was recorded foraging. Suitable habitat for this species will be retained within Environmental Protection.
Two (2) NCA listed threatened fauna species, the Koala and Ninox strenua (Powerful Owl) were listed as having potential to occur on site. Of these species, only evidence for the Koala was recorded.
Very few significant tree hollows were observed in drainage areas associated with large individual Eucalyptus tereticornis (Forest Red Gum) specimens.
The site’s ability to support listed threatened fauna species, which are generally highly sensitive, specialised and require particular habitat features, is highly unlikely for the majority of the listed EPBC Act or NCA protected species.
Feral mammal species, such as Canis lupus (Dog/Dingo), Mus musculus (House Mouse), Sus scrofa (Wild Pig) and Vulpes vulpes (Red Fox) were also recorded on-site. Dogs, Dingos and Foxes are considered threats to the Koala and other native species. Further, the noxious amphibian Rhinella marina (Cane Toad) was very common on-site, and is considered a significant threat to Spot-tailed Quoll survival as they prey on the poisonous pest.
Cattle was identified on-site as part of current pastoral land use. Trampling of waterway banks and contamination of waterbodies was evident.
Of note, Infrared camera surveys identified only common or feral fauna utilising the site and ultrasonic bat detection and targeted potential roost habitat surveys did not record the calls or evidence of any listed microbat species .

3.3 (b) Hydrology, including water flows

Response 3.3(b) A large number of watercourses are mapped by the Queensland Government across the application area with the majority more likened to overland flow paths that contain no riparian features or species. These areas would only contain water in periods of high rainfall events and contain very few opportunities for water to be retained. A large number of these features also contain constructed farm dams as a result of cattle production.

The lower reaches of these mapped watercourses, in areas of the landscape that become less steep start to contain riparian type features including fringing vegetation typical of waterways. Species such as Melaleuca viminalis (Weeping Bottlebrush) and Melaleuca quinquenervia (Broad Leaf Paperbark) started to line the embankments of these watercourses and included small clumps of Cyperus polystachyos (Bunchy Sedge), Juncus usitatus (Common Rush) and a watercourse edge dominated by Lomandra longifolia (Mat Rush). These areas are generally likened to a defined watercourse.

All the watercourses mapped on-site apart from Woollaman Creek contain non-remnant vegetation and are largely dominated by regrowth species. Some areas are highly eroded due to cattle access with very few ecological values recorded. Some relatively large scattered Eucalyptus tereticornis (Forest Red Gum) specimens were observed along the edge of the floodplains towards the south east property corner and particularly along Woollaman Creek, which forms the southern property boundary of the assessment area.

Woollaman Creek contains patchy vegetation as well as a number of remnant polygons mapped as containing Least Concern Regional Ecosystem 12.3.7. This community is described as Eucalyptus tereticornis (Forest Red Gum), Casuarina cunninghamiana +/- Melaleuca spp., fringing woodland . The species observed throughout the two remnant polygons are consistent with the current Regional Ecosystem mapping.

Any overland flow across the site due to soil saturation during high rainfall events is likely to run into Woollaman Creek. A number of site specific management plans will be prepared to mitigate and manage impacts associated with overland flow and the proposed central lake.

001 Referral of proposed action v August 2016 Page 46 of 70 Stormwater and Flooding Master Plan A site Stormwater and Flooding Master Plan Strategy will be prepared to specifically comply with the following approval conditions and standards applied to the project due to its size and diversity of land uses:

Include a flooding report as per Logan Interim Flood Response 2011
Include a stormwater management report detailing measures to be implemented to ensure the integrity and values of waterways is maintained and enhanced
Demonstrate how creek stability is to be achieve and sustained
Include an assessment of the inter-relationship between existing groundwater conditions and proposed development design
Demonstrate how the proposed infrastructure and other actions will contribute towards the achievement of an overarching site strategy for TWCM (conditions of the MCU approval refer Attachment 1)

Stormwater Quality Management Plan / Erosion and Sediment Control Plans Further to the whole of site Master Plan, a detailed Stormwater Quality Management Plan and Erosion Sediment Control Plan will be prepared covering both the construction and operational phases for each stage of works. The plan will contain details on the exact location of stormwater treatment systems, including structural and surface treatment devices. The plan will include details on:

Objectives, monitoring, reporting, actions for non-compliance
Identification of possible sources of water pollution including nutrients and contaminates
Details on management and quality devices proposed.
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan

Lake Water Quality Management and Control Plans Specific to the central recreation lake, water quality management and control plans will be prepared in accordance with best practice guidelines. These will be subject to approval by EDQ .

3.3 (c) Soil and Vegetation characteristics

Response 3.3(c) Vegetation values across the site are limited by continuing logging enterprises and pastoral uses. Vegetation is mostly regrowth of compromised habitat value. Despite extensive cattle grazing and weed infestation, remnant vegetation in the form of a contiguous canopy was confirmed on-site (refer to Attachment 5 and response 3.3(e)).

The Australian Soil Resource Information System (ASRIS) maps the site as containing mostly Chromosols with portions of Dermosols to the south (refer Attachment 5 – Figure 10 ). In addition, chromosols are considered a component of Land Zone 9-10 and Land Zone 3 is comprised of recent quaternary alluvial systems as per Regional Ecosystem mapping for the site.

001 Referral of proposed action v August 2016 Page 47 of 70

Extract: Land Zone Definitions, Source: Queensland Government

Chromosols have a strong contrasting texture. They are not strongly acidic or sodic in the upper B horizon. The parent material of Chromosols ranges from highly siliceous, siliceous to intermediate in composition. These soils are found in imperfectly drained and well-drained sites. These soils have moderate agricultural potential with moderate chemical fertility and water-holding capacity. They can be susceptible to soil acidification and soil structure decline.

Dermosols do not have strong texture contrast. They have a well-structured B2 horizon containing low levels of free iron. The parent materials of dermosols range from siliceous, intermediate to mafic in composition. The soils are found in imperfectly drained and well-drained sites. Dermosols generally have high agricultural potential with good structure and moderate to high chemical fertility and water-holding capacity.

001 Referral of proposed action v August 2016 Page 48 of 70 3.3 (d) Outstanding natural features

Response 3.3(d) No outstanding natural features have been identified across the site. Moreton Bay lies approximately 48 kilometres to the east of the site and is connected by Woollaman Creek and the Logan River. The site adjoins the Flinders-Karawatha Bioregional Corridor to the west, which provides refuge for a number of protected species. Previous disturbances in the greater local area have significantly reduced the ecological value of the site itself and no outstanding natural features have been identified.

3.3 (e) Remnant native vegetation Response 3.3(e) Although subject to cattle grazing and historical broad scale clearing, the site contains remnant vegetation patches of remnant vegetation within the northern portion of the site (Attachment 5 – Figure 5). The majority of the site contains Category X (non-remnant) vegetation.

The site contains remnant vegetation polygons. Only 26% of these remnant polygons are located within the development area with the remaining located along the northern portion of Lot 3 on S311896 within Environmental Protection.

The following Regional Ecosystem polygons are included within the development area and described below:

Composite Of Concern Regional ecosystem containing 80% Least Concern RE 12.9-10.2 and 20% Of Concern RE 12.9-10.7.
Least Concern RE12.9-10.2
Least Concern RE12.3.7

Two other polygons containing a composite RE12.9-10.2/12.9-10.7/12.9-10.17a as well as a polygon containing Least Concern RE12.9-10.17a are also mapped on-site, however, are included within the Environmental Zone and are not affected by the proposed development area.

The canopy species within each of the remnant polygons are consistent with the current Regional Ecosystem mapping with Corymbia citriodora (Spotted Gum), and Eucalyptus siderophloia (Grey Ironbark) dominating the canopy within each of the polygons. Other species recorded depending on the position within the landscape throughout the remnant polygons included Eucalyptus tereticornis (Forest Red Gum), Eucalyptus acmenoides (White Mahogany), Angophora leiocarpa (Smooth Bark Apple), Eucalyptus crebra (Narrow Leaf Ironbark), and Eucalyptus moluccana (Gum Topped Box).

The understorey of the mapped remnant areas is dominated by Acacia species including Acacia disparrima (Hickory Wattle), Acacia concurrens (Black Wattle) and Acacia leiocalyx (Early Flowering Black Wattle). Other species recorded in lower densities included Alphitonia excelsa (Soap Tree), Allocasuarina littoralis (Black She Oak), and Lophostemon suaveolens (Swamp Box). Recruitment of Eucalyptus and Corymbia species was also recorded within the sub-canopy layers.

The native species recorded within the shrub layer in the majority of remnant polygons are dominated by juvenile Eucalyptus, Corymbia and Acacia species whereas the ground layer is dominated by introduced pastoral grasses suitable for cattle grazing.

Lantana camara (Lantana) is the most dominant introduced species recorded throughout each of the remnant polygons from severe infestations to isolated and scattered clumps. At the time of the assessment it is acknowledged that the land

001 Referral of proposed action v August 2016 Page 49 of 70 management practices more recently included the management of Lantana camara (Lantana) within these clumps to reduce the infestations.

RE 12.9-10.2 – Least Concern Desription .2 – Corymbia citriodora subsp. variegata open forest or woodland usually with Eucalyptus crebra. Other species Least Concern such as Eucalyptus tereticornis and Corymbia intermedia may be present in scattered patches or in low densities. Understorey can be grassy or shrubby. Shrubby understorey of Lophostemon confertus (whipstick form) often present in northern parts of bioregion. Occurs on Cainozoic and Mesozoic sediments. (BVG1M: 10b).

RE 12.3.7 – Least Concern Description Narrow fringing woodland of Eucalyptus tereticornis, Casuarina cunninghamiana subsp. cunninghamiana +/- Melaleuca viminalis, Waterhousea floribunda. Other species associated with this RE include Melaleuca bracteata, M. trichostachya, M. linariifolia and M. fluviatilis in north of bioregion. Lomandra hystrix often present in stream beds. Occurs on fringing levees and banks of rivers and drainage lines of alluvial plains throughout the region. (BVG1M: 16a). Vegetation communities in this regional ecosystem include: 12.3.7a: Riverine wetland or fringing riverine wetland. Melaleuca bracteata open forest. Occurs in drainage depressions on Quaternary alluvial plains. (BVG1M: 22c). 12.3.7b: Riverine wetland or fringing riverine wetland. Naturally occurring waterholes and lagoons, both permanent and intermittent. Includes exposed stream bed and bars. Occurs in the bed of active (may be intermittent) river channels. (BVG1M: 16d). 12.3.7c: Palustrine wetland (e.g. vegetated swamp). Billabongs and ox-bow lakes containing either permanent or periodic water bodies. Old river beds now cut off from regular flow. (BVG1M: 34d). 12.3.7d: Palustrine wetland (e.g. vegetated swamp). Aquatic vegetation usually fringed with Eucalyptus tereticornis. Closed depressions on alluvial plains. (BVG1M: 34d).

RE 12.9-10.7 – Of Concern Description Eucalyptus crebra +/- E. tereticornis, Corymbia tessellaris, Angophora leiocarpa, E. melanophloia woodland. Occurs on Cainozoic and Mesozoic sediments. (BVG1M: 13c). Vegetation communities in this regional ecosystem include: 12.9-10.7a: Eucalyptus siderophloia, Corymbia intermedia +/- E. tereticornis and Lophostemon confertus open forest. Occurs on Cainozoic and Mesozoic sediments in near coastal areas. (BVG1M: 12a).

RE 12.9-10.17a – Least Concern Description Open forest to woodland complex generally with a variety of stringybarks, grey gums, ironbarks and in some areas spotted gum. Canopy trees include Eucalyptus siderophloia, E. propinqua or E. major, E. acmenoides or E. portuensis, E. carnea and/or E. microcorys and/or Corymbia citriodora subsp. variegata. Other species that may be present locally include Corymbia intermedia, C. trachyphloia, Eucalyptus tereticornis, E. biturbinata, E. moluccana, E. longirostrata, E. fibrosa subsp. fibrosa and Angophora leiocarpa. Lophostemon confertus or Whipstick Lophostemon confertus often present in gullies and as a sub canopy or understorey tree. Mixed understorey of grasses, shrubs and ferns. Hills and ranges of Cainozoic and Mesozoic sediments. (BVG1M: 9a). Vegetation communities in this regional ecosystem include: 12.9-10.17a: Lophostemon confertus dominated open forest. Occurs in gullies and southern slopes on Cainozoic and Mesozoic sediments. (BVG1M: 28e).

3.3 (f) Gradient (or depth range if action is to be taken in a marine area)

Response 3.3(f) The site contains ridgelines and peaks which slope moderately to steeply toward drainage areas with contours varying from 300m above sea level in the north-west corner of the site down to 30m above sea level in Woollaman Creek.

001 Referral of proposed action v August 2016 Page 50 of 70

3.3 (g) Current state of the environment

Response 3.3(g) The site was found to be highly disturbed as a result of historical pastoral practices, invasion from exotic weeds and impacts from domestic and feral animals. The property is currently managed for rural purposes and has a history of cattle use. It is noted that the site was previously used for training purposes by the American military during World War II and is listed on the Department of Defence register as requiring unexploded ordinance (UXO) clearance.

The majority of site remains cleared and maintained as paddocks. Remaining vegetation is predominately regrowth following extensive clearing and rural practices (refer Attachment 5 – Figure 5 ). The southern portion of the site is heavily degraded by regular maintenance practices and notable disturbance was observed in the northern portion of the site, which contains a very high density of Acacia regrowth and an abundance of introduced species. A number of drainage features traverse the site which flow into Woollaman Creek, which bounds the site to the south. The site can be separated into four distinct zones:

Area 1 – Remnant Vegetation
Area 2 - Unmaintained Regrowth Areas
Area 3 – Waterbodies and Drainage Features
Area 4 – Open Paddocks

Refer to Attachment 5 - Ecological Assessment Report EPBC Act Referral for further detail.

The site contained a number of pest weeds including Ambrosia artemisiifolia (Annual Ragweed), Baccharis halimifolia (Groundsel Bush), Cinnamomum camphora (Camphor Laurel), Lantana camara (Lantana), Lantana montevidensis (Creeping Lantana), Opuntia tomentosa (Velvety Tree Pear), Schinus terebinthifolius (Broad Leaved Pepper Tree) and Tecoma stans (Yellow Bells) which are listed as restricted plants under the Biosecurity Act 2014 (Attachment 5 – Section 4.5 ). Vast swathes of Lantana in particular cover most disturbed areas of the site, including in remnant and non-remnant patches.

Sites directly to the east of the referral area are to be developed in accordance with permits associated with the Greater Flagstone PDA. The site is bound by Woollaman Creek to the south and is situated on the periphery of the Flinders- Karawatha Bioregional Corridor habitat area to the west. Connectivity to bushland to the north, the Bioregional Corridor to the west and Woollaman Creek to the south will be retained through provision of 525.1 ha of Environmental Protection and Open Space linear corridors along site waterways.

3.3 (h) Commonwealth Heritage Places or other places recognised as having heritage values

Response 3.3(h) There have been no Commonwealth Heritage Places or other heritage places identified across the site.

3.3 (i) Indigenous heritage values

Response 3.3(i) No indigenous heritage values are known to occur on-site.

001 Referral of proposed action v August 2016 Page 51 of 70 3.3 (j) Other important or unique values of the environment

Response 3.3(j) The site does not contain any other important or unique values of the environment. However, it does adjoin to the west the Flinders-Karawatha Bioregional Corridor recognised for its significant biodiversity, rural production, cultural heritage, scenic amenity and outdoor recreation values. The Corridor is about 56,350 hectares in size and extends 60 km from Karawatha Forest in Brisbane’s outer suburbs to south of Ipswich at Flinders Peak and on to the Wyaralong Dam near Boonah. The proposed development incorporates a significant environmental buffer along the boundary shared with the Flinders-Karawatha Bioregional Corridor.

3.3 (k) Tenure of the action area (eg freehold, leasehold)

Response 3.3(k) The entire extent of the site is freehold land.

3.3 (l) Existing land uses of area of proposed action

Response 3.3(l) The site is currently utilised for pastoral purposes including cattle grazing. Adjoining land to the south is also used for rural purposes while land to the east over the Undullah property has been subject to historical logging. More broadly, surrounding land uses include rural residential, urban development and roads and linear infrastructure.

3.3 (m) Any proposed uses of area of proposed action

Response 3.3(m) The proposed use of the land is for a residential development and environmental protection as per the Greater Flagstone Priority Development Area Development Scheme (refer Plan 1 ).

001 Referral of proposed action v August 2016 Page 52 of 70 4 Environmental Outcomes

The proposed action will result in the clearing of vegetation which is considered to provide critical habitat for MNES, specifically for the Koala and Grey-headed Flying-fox. As highlighted throughout this referral document, this vegetation has been subject to broad scale clearing and more recently pastoral practice and regular maintenance activities. While evidence of Koala and Grey-headed Flying Fox was located on-site as part of contemporary MNES survey, as no Koalas and no roost camps for Grey-headed Flying-Fox were recorded on-site, it is considered that these species utilise the property as part of a broader home range and do not exclusively occupy the site. Optimal habitat for both Koala and Grey-headed Flying-fox is located within the adjoining Flinders-Karawatha Bioregional Corridor to the east, which provides a protected and connected landscape for these species.

The project will result in the clearing of 190.5 ha of vegetation defined as critical habitat for the Koala and Grey-headed Flying Fox (as outlined in detail in this referral in Section 3 and Section 5 ).

As a result of existing approvals and State Government regulations, the following obligations are imposed through EDQ’s PDA Guideline 17 to ensure a net gain in Koala habitat in the region:

1. A financial contribution made to the State Government for investment in creation of a net gain in Koala Habitat of $15,000 per hectare of mapped Bushland Habitat and $5,000 per hectare of High and Medium Value Rehabilitation Habitat plus $150 per completed dwelling. 2. Replanting or securing of external land for State required obligations (Refer Section 5 of this referral for Environmental Offset Explanation)

In combination, these State Government mandated Koala and revegetation obligations combined with the on-site environmental offset outcome align with the requirements of the EPBC Act Environmental Offset Policy . It is noted the in the approval provided for EPBC2014/7206 the decision report acknowledges obligations of PDA Guideline 17 as achieving the calculations and policy outcomes of the EPBC Act Environmental Offset Policy .

A summary of these State Government mandated Koala offset outcomes is included in Section 5 , however, as Part 7 of the EPBC Act prevents environmental offsets and other beneficial attributes of the project from being considered in a Controlled Action Status referral this application focuses on providing detailed information on MNES and potential impacts. Preliminary assessment of existing management measures, embedded environmental offset outcomes and leading practice approaches to mitigation show that within the context of the Commonwealth Department of the Environment guides and policies the proposal avoids a significant impact on MNES. These aspects of the project will be more completely assessed through the assessment provision of the EPBC Act.

In addition, it is anticipated that the following environmental management mitigation measures will be committed to as part of the ongoing approvals process (refer response at Section 5 for further information):

Context Plan which incorporates the Natural Environment Overarching Site Strategy
EPBC Act Fauna Management Plan
Stage specific Vegetation Management Plans
Stage specific Stormwater Management Plan
Stage specific Erosion and Sediment Control Plan

At a local scale, the retention and rehabilitation of 434 ha of Environmental Protection within the northern portion of the site and 91.3 hectares of Linear Open Space along waterways marinating connectivity internally within the site and externally to Woollaman Creek to the south and Flinders-Karawatha Bioregional Corridor to the east. In accordance with best practice management, restoration and rehabilitation works will seek to stabilise and reverse the negative effects of

001 Referral of proposed action v August 2016 Page 53 of 70 ongoing habitat fragmentation. The intent is for managed areas of rehabilitation and restoration to rectify canopy gaps and restore bare or denuded areas to provide additional habitat and refugia within the lower strata to maintain connectivity with external approval corridors and improve terrestrial corridor viability. Rehabilitation works will occur in accordance with the South East Queensland Ecological Restoration Framework.

The primary objectives recommended for the Environmental Protection area and Linear Open Space waterway corridors rehabilitation include:

Retain significant floral species and vegetation communities
Retain and enhance fauna habitat values
Remove and manage processes potentially threatening the viability of existing habitats
Increase the extent of vegetation communities and potential fauna habitat over time.

Rehabilitation works within the Environmental Protection Area and Linear Open Space waterway corridors will include weed management and replanting with native species consistent with mapped Regional Ecosystems to augment ecological values and enhance connectivity.

Additional operational measures will be implemented in association with the clearing of each development stage including:

Installation of fauna habitat components within the Environmental Protection area (i.e. nest boxes)
Fauna awareness signage along the Environmental Protection area and Lifestyle Guidelines to new residents
Roadway crossings over the waterway corridors will be designed so as to be fauna friendly to promote continued fauna dispersal
Cat and dog restrictions in Environmental Protection and Linear Open Space corridors and adjoining allotments

Overall, the preservation and rehabilitation of the Environmental Protection Area and Linear Open Space waterway corridors under the proposal is considered to provide a noteworthy environmental outcome for Matters of National Environmental Significance that may infrequently utilise the site as part of a broader home range.

001 Referral of proposed action v August 2016 Page 54 of 70 5 Measures to avoid or reduce impacts

A number of design construction and management measures will be implemented to reduce the overall environmental impact of the project. Many of these are mandatory and based on Local and State legislation or embedded in the Material Change of Use approval over the site (refer Attachment 1). Development measures to be employed are outlined in this section of the referral.

Site Selection for Development The application site has been consistently earmarked over the last decade by the State Government as a suitable site for future urban development. There are very few sites in Queensland with easy connection to existing transport facilities and major infrastructure that can result in such a large development outcome (population base) with relatively limited environmental, economic and social impacts.

It is acknowledged in this referral and Ecological Assessment Report EPBC Act Referral (refer Attachment 5 ) notes that the site retains remnant vegetation and other habitat features, importantly, to implement the development the following core impacts do not occur:

1. No Threatened Ecological Communities are located on the site. 2. No Remnant Endangered Regional Ecosystems are located on the site. 3. Minor clearing of Of Concern and Least Concern Remnant Regional Ecosystems. 4. Over half the site (51%) is to be retained for Environmental Protection and Linear Open Space along waterway corridors, which maintain connectivity to the Flinders-Karawatha Bioregional Corridor to the east and Woollaman Creek corridor to the south. 5. No development is proposed in Costal Management or Hazard areas. 6. No development is proposed in Wetlands. 7 The site is not located within an assessable area of the Koala State Planning Regulatory Provisions.

Site Design (Proposed Concept Plan / Land Use Plan) The proposed Concept Land Use Plan (refer Attachment 3) will guide the development layout and reduce potential impacts by concentrating development in degraded land and lower value habitat areas with a focus on retaining higher value ecological features and site habitat opportunities. Only relatively small areas of site remnant vegetation communities mapped as Of Concern will be disturbed. The vast majority of clearing will occur in non-remnant areas and a small area of low order remnant communities with a state classification of Least Concern due to their abundance remaining within the immediate bioregion. The proposal also sites development within predominately cleared areas within the southern portion of the site while bolstering environmental areas in the north through significant land dedications.

Key features of the site design considered to minimise impacts include:

Retention of 434 ha of Environmental Protection area including a PDA non-development corridor which adjoins the Flinders-Karawatha Bioregional Corridor.
Retention and rehabilitation of 91.3 ha of Linear Open Space along waterways which provides connectivity to Woollaman Creek.
Retention of a high proportion of Primary Koala habitat tree species, which are predominantly within the Environmental Protection area and Linear Open Space.
Retention of highest value vegetation areas in Environmental Protection.
Buffers to the retained vegetated land to the north and west of the site external to the Priority Development Area.
Retention of major drainage lines and important connective remnant areas.

001 Referral of proposed action v August 2016 Page 55 of 70

Volume of Open Space Plan 1 shows the extent of various conservation and open space areas that provide habitat values and connectivity over the site. In total, over half (51%), or 525.1 ha of the site is to be conserved though:

433.8 ha of Environmental Protection
91.3 ha of Linear Open Space

Additionally, 62.2 ha will be dedicated as open space /recreation.

Further Assessment, Studies and Pre-clearance Surveys The assessment and approval process outlined by EDQ requires the submission and review of multiple stages of applications prior to the commencement of works. The existing approval over the referral site is an overarching Material Change of Use (refer Attachment 1). Prior to commencement of any actual works on the ground, the following sequential submissions must be lodged and approved:

1) Whole of Site Strategies (including a site strategy specifically written for Natural Environment) 2) Infrastructure Master Plans 3) Lodge and receive approval of Site Context Plans (more detailed information provided at the precinct scale) 4) Lodge and receive approval for Plans of Development (similar to Plans of Subdivision or reconfiguration) 5) Operational Works or Compliance Assessment Approval (Actual Works approvals, roads, tree clearing, landscaping, etc)

Each of these submissions and approvals require differing environmental surveys, studies, constraint planning and reporting based on the smaller area in which the application applies. At the Operational Works / Compliance Assessment phase, detailed reporting and mapping is converted into management and rehabilitation plans protecting environmental values during construction and establishing operational measures to ensure enhancement.

As a legislative requirement of the EDQ PDA application and approval process, the proponent at a minimum will need to complete the following detailed ecological surveys and reporting:

Natural Environment Site Strategy Establishes the broad environmental objectives of the entire project and includes maps of key conservation and environmental protection areas. Condition 23 of the Material Change of Use approval for the site lists the requirement for this strategy and states that it is to include:

Outline measures to conserve and enhance the site’s biodiversity values
Identify strategies for the protection of remnant endangered vegetation
Identify management plans to be provided to address clearing
Identify rehabilitation strategies for corridors of native vegetation to improve habitat extent and wildlife movement
Identify any buffering to areas of environmental significance which have conservation, biodiversity, habitat or scenic amenity
Identify strategies for flora and fauna management of the site, and determine corridors, proposed road crossing designs for expected species utilisation and rehabilitation areas (such as for koala habitat)
Detail how and when Koala habitat obligations as detailed in Guideline 17 will be delivered
Identify strategies to prevent land degradation
Identify strategies to rehabilitate major drainage lines
Identify strategies for bushfire management
Identify strategies for weed management
Identify strategies for monitoring of rehabilitation

001 Referral of proposed action v August 2016 Page 56 of 70
Identify strategies for rehabilitation of stream banks to create riparian stability for major creek corridors

For the full requirements of Condition 23 refer to the MCU Approval contained in Attachment 1.

Biodiversity Values Assessment Reports With the submission of each application for Context Plan, the proponent must include a detailed Biodiversity Values Assessment of the development area prepared in accordance with PDA Implementation Guideline 14 – Environmental Values and Sustainable Resource Use . This guideline specifies that the proponent must complete robust field surveys, plans and reports including detailed information on the following values within the Context Plan Application area:

Significant Biodiversity Values
Ecological Connectivity
Sustainable Landscape Practices
Bushfire Risk Management
Wetlands, Waterways and Water Quality

Multiple reports will be required over the referral site over a period of time enabling ongoing assessment of ecological values and tweaking of the plan of development and detailed design. These ongoing Significant Biodiversity Values Assessments assist in negating potential time lag between initial environmental surveys (completed now) and future impacts which may be decades away from occurring.

Pre-Clearance Surveys Once approvals for actual on-ground works have been issued (Operational Works / Compliance Assessment) pre- clearance surveys for flora and fauna are required in advance of any clearing. These surveys form part of the extensive management plans provided in support of final approvals.

Detailed Design Considerations (Roads) At the Plan of Development Scale (Subdivision Design), tweaking of road locations, setbacks and earthworks will occur to ensure the environmental values outlined in the Site Strategy and Context Plan are protected and enhanced. This is particularly the case where roads traverse and adjoin conservation and environmental protection areas. As committed to in the overarching Natural Environment Site Strategy , all new roads will be designed in accordance with the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads Fauna Sensitive Road Design Manual (Volumes 1 and 2). Some of the aspects and practices outlined in this manual and to be incorporated into the proposal include:

Safe Passage Road Fauna Movement Solutions Where internal roads within the project are required to cross waterways, bridges and or specific fauna movement culverts will be incorporated into the design. These structures will be designed and sized to cater for the movement of native fauna anticipated to utilise the waterway corridor. Fauna underpasses will be exclusively designed for fauna and separate to hydrology devices. The safe crossing movement solutions will be augmented by directional fauna exclusion fencing to ensure animals are funnelled away from vehicle conflicts and into safe passage areas. Where required, additional large tree plantings will be installed either side of a constructed road crossing to reinstate as quickly as possible a closed canopy over the new road infrastructure. Where considered necessary, rope tunnels and other canopy linking structures will be provided to cater for the time lag between clearing and the re-establishment of suitable vegetation.

At a smaller scale, the design of roads near to waterway corridors and the Environmental Protection area will adopt traffic calming and reduced speed signage to control vehicles adjoining sensitive areas.

001 Referral of proposed action v August 2016 Page 57 of 70 Detailed Design Considerations (Storm Water and Landscaping) Importantly, the EDQ sequential application process requires the consideration of Storm Water treatment and Landscape outcomes upfront and as separate to areas designated to conservation and environmental protection.

Management Measures In addition to mitigation outcomes incorporated in the design process, a number of management measures are proposed to ensure impacts are avoided and or minimised through the construction and operational phases. These include: a) Stormwater and Flooding Master Plan A site Stormwater and Flooding Master Plan Strategy will be prepared to specifically comply with the following approval conditions and standards applied to the project due to its size and diversity of land uses:

Include a flooding report as per Logan Interim Flood Response 2011
Include a stormwater management report detailing measures to be implemented to ensure the integrity and values of waterways is maintained and enhanced
Comply with standards of Queensland Water Quality Guidelines (DERM 2009), ANZECC Guidelines (2000), Urban Stormwater Planning Guidelines (DERM 2010), State Planning Policy for Healthy Waters (SPP 4-10)
Demonstrate how the proposed infrastructure and other actions will contribute towards the achievement of an overarching site strategy for TWCM (Condition 18 of the MCU approval) (refer Attachment 1). b) Confirmation and Pre-Clearance Surveys As a result of the likely time delay from preparation of assessment reports to approvals and again through the sequencing of development precincts and clearing works, it is a requirement that a system of pre-clearance surveys are conducted prior to each stage of actual site clearing. These surveys can be used to safeguard the site against changing Commonwealth, State and Local government species listings and inform management plans relative to the natural features in each Context Plan and Plan of Development. c) Vegetation Clearing and Management Plan A Vegetation Clearing and Management Plan (VC&MP) will form part of a broader management document submitted which each stage of the operational works package. The VC&MP will be critical to limit vegetation clearing to only what is required within each stage of works to help control erosion and sediment control risks and provide for the long term sequencing of clearing over the application area. The likely contents of each VC&MP include:

Clearly show all trees to be removed and retained
Include details of all civil works likely to impact on existing vegetation
Temporary and permanent exclusion and protection fencing tor riparian corridors and parklands
Roles and responsibilities for site contractors, developer and the consultant group
Stockpiling and site access locations
A clearing sequencing plan showing the commencement of clearing and direction of removal (this should be in conjunction with the Fauna Management Plan to allow for the appropriate flushing of fauna towards surrounding safe haven areas.
Links to weed management and revegetation proposals
The stock piling and reuse of cleared vegetation
Specific details on the removal of previously identified potential fauna habitat trees
Where trees are shown to be retained within disturbance zones they should be accompanied by necessary arborist specifications incorporated into the VC&MP.

001 Referral of proposed action v August 2016 Page 58 of 70 d) Fauna Management Plan A Fauna Management Plan (FMP) should be prepared for the impacts of the construction phase covering for the loss of vegetated areas, isolated trees and barriers and impediments to dispersal. The FMP should link closely with the VC&MP and include details on:

Summary of species surveyed as using the site and which of those are likely to be impacted by works occurring within each stage of works
List relevant State and Federal legislation constraints and controls for the above listed fauna
A plan showing existing habitat opportunities and locations
Detail the threats for existing fauna species
Include clearing sequencing plan from VC&MP
Specify management and mitigation measures – could include temporary use of fauna exclusion fencing
Details of fauna spotter role and contacts and certification
Specific fauna management procedures for potential or known habitat trees
Commitment to the early installation of nest boxes to surrounding bushland areas to be retained
Commitment to the early rehabilitation of proposed strategic corridors to minimise lag time between clearing and the functioning of future corridors e) Fauna Spotter Roles and Reporting The Fauna Management Plan will be implemented by an EHP registered wildlife spotter / catcher. This role is mandated for any clearing of native vegetation in Queensland both within and external to Priority Development Areas. Within EDQ , the role of the Fauna Spotter is to complete an assessment of the works area no more than two weeks prior to the works actually occurring and present a report to EDQ on the findings and how the proposed clearing is to be managed. The Fauna Spotter / Catcher is required at the pre-start meeting and to be on-site during all times of construction. Under the Nature Conservation Act 1992 , registered Fauna Spotter / Catchers must complete a return of operations report to the Queensland State Government stating all fauna encountered and the specific management measures used to ensure the safety of native animals. f) Rehabilitation and On-Going Management Plan As outlined in the Greater Flagstone Urban Development Area Development Scheme , the northern portion of the site is identified as Environmental Protection to be preserved and enhanced through this and surrounding development proposals in the PDA. The proposal intends to retain a total of 525.1 ha within Environmental Protection and Linear Open Space. Detailed Rehabilitation Plans will be prepared in accordance with the South East Queensland Restoration Framework are subject to assessment by EDQ . g) Stormwater Quality Management Plan / Erosion and Sediment Control Plans Further to the whole of site Master Plan, a detailed Stormwater Quality Management Plan and Erosion Sediment Control Plan will be prepared covering both the construction and operational phases for each stage of works. The plan will contain details on the exact location of stormwater treatment systems, including structural and surface treatment devices. The plan will include details on:

Objectives, monitoring, reporting, actions for non-compliance
Identification of possible sources of water pollution including nutrients and contaminates
Details on management and quality devices proposed.
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan

Operational Measures The proposal is a large scale residential project and at completion will include many variable precincts and land uses over the tenure of the project. Development densities increase with proximity to local centres with built environments containing medium density development. Areas away from centres are expected to be less dense and in areas integrated

001 Referral of proposed action v August 2016 Page 59 of 70 within environmental values surrounding the PDA. Within some of these stages, a number of potential operational awareness tools and, in some areas, specific regulations are likely to be applied. a) Lifestyle Guidelines – New Residents Awareness As part of the release of new Plan of Development Areas which adjoin or are in close proximity to sensitive receiving environments, the proponent will prepare a lifestyle guideline document to help promote a range of ecological sustainable living principles. Development areas directly adjoining Environmental Protection and waterway corridors, will be targeted for a tailored lifestyle guidelines document. The guidelines should be used to directly educate and raise awareness of a large audience towards the management of surrounding creeks, bushland, and other conservation areas including the Flinders-Karawatha Bioregional Corridor. Topics within the education documents will include:

• Appropriate plant selection on allotments • Inappropriate planting species (known local or declared weed species) • Management of household scale run off • Protection of native animals and the types residents could expect to see • Understanding storm water devices • Appropriate management of domestic animals • Location of dog on-lead and off-leash areas • Key local and state phone numbers to contact if distressed or orphaned fauna is located.

Through raising awareness, the lifestyle guidelines will help new residents take direct ownership of the local streetscapes, immediate creek corridors and open space infrastructure maximising the outcomes promoted through the Natural Environment Site Strategy . b) Detailed Landscape Submissions A non-invasive, locally endemic species palette will be adopted throughout all project areas providing the following ecological benefits:

• Additional native trees, shrubs and ground covers for native fauna known to adapt to fringing urban environments • Reduce the potential for non-native and exotic landscape species invading retained bushland and waterway areas • Reduce maintenance and fertiliser requirements • Provide an in-ground example to future residents of a practical suite of working native plants for incorporation into private gardens. • Help establish a more sustainable and robust connected link along Sandy Creek and other site tributaries. c) Cat and Dog Restrictions The variability of the proposed development areas within the proposal do not feasibly support wholesale cat and/or dog restrictions on private allotments. For the bulk of the project area, a broad non-mandated animal control scheme will be proposed which is likely to include the following features:

• Broad resident education on responsible domestic animal ownership within the area • Dog on-lead areas within and adjoining designated conservation areas – supported by notification and education signage • Specific dog off-leash areas in support of controls in other locations • Logan City Council Animal Control Local Law which requires registration, vaccinations, etc. will apply throughout the project.

In a limited number of locations, more stringent private allotment animal controls will be applied. These areas will likely be along areas which adjoin the Environmental Protection area and western allotments which adjoin the Flinders– Karawatha Bioregional Corridor. In these locations, controls will vary from complete prohibition to limiting the number

001 Referral of proposed action v August 2016 Page 60 of 70 and size of animals allowable on individual allotments. These controls are regulated through the application of a covenant on the created allotment prescribing the prohibition or restriction on the allotment title making purchasers aware up-front and allowing the controls to apply in perpetuity. d) Building Envelopes / Vegetation Protection / Covenants Based on the required development densities prescribed in the Greater Flagstone Priority Development Area Development Scheme , the average allotment size created will be approximately 400 square metres. In the precincts surrounding the local centres allotments and densities will be more intense. Based on the type of development required to comply with EDQ planning controls, there are very few opportunities where existing native trees can be safely retained and protected in private property. The exception is in the western extents of the project where allotments form part of the environmental protection buffer and where steep grades substantially limit the ability to create smaller allotments. These locations present an opportunity to establish larger allotments where vegetation is retained and protected through building location envelopes. Again, where these controls are considered appropriate, covenants will be used to enforce the controls on allotment titles. e) Offset Planting and Financial Contributions EDQ operates a specifically designed offset obligation for projects resulting in impacts in the Greater Flagstone Priority Development Area . The governing controls are specified in PDA Implementation Guideline 17 – Remnant Vegetation and Koala Habitat Obligations in greater Flagstone and Yarrabilba PDAs . As titled, the guideline specifies offset requirements for the clearing of non-viable Endangered Remnant Vegetation and Koala Habitat. The proposal does not impact on any Endangered Remnant Vegetation, however, does trigger Koala offsets. Two types of Koala habitat offsets will apply to the site:

1. A clearing contribution listed at $15,000 per hectare of Bushland Habitat cleared containing defined non-Juvenile Koala Habitat trees (NJKHT) and $5,000 per hectare (or $920 per tree) for clearing of NJKHT in open areas mapped Medium and High Value Rehabilitation under the Koala State Planning Policy. 2. An operational contribution of $150 per created dwelling.

Koala habitat values mapping overlayed with the likely clearing footprint is included in Attachment 5 - Figure 8 and shows the following volumes of clearing and charges applicable to the project under Guideline 17:

1. Clearing of Koala Habitat Bushland equals 30.3 ha x $15,000 = total charge of $454,500 2. Clearing of Koala Suitable for Rehabilitation Habitat 19.2 ha x $5,000 = total charge of $96,000 3. $150 per dwelling charge multiplied by Master Plan Yield of 7,250 equals $1,087,500

Total cost of environmental offset for Koala on the site Equals = $1,638,000

Although providing the opportunity for land owners to undertake direct offset planting, Guideline 17 provides a preference for a financial contributions supported by a less challenging process for approval. The overarching goal of Guideline 17 is to generate a total figure of $30 million through Koala obligations contributions. The operational tax applied to dwellings occurs for all allotments within the PDA regardless of clearing or even location relative to Koala habitat. This levy is applied to contribute towards the incorporation of fauna sensitive outcomes of external infrastructure, such as roads and rail, which EDQ will upgrade to support the growth of the PDA. The types of infrastructure this dwelling charge will contribute towards include the retrofitting of fauna crossing solutions, fauna friendly and exclusion fencing and local replanting of Koala Food Trees.

The clearing costs linked to financial contributions which make up the balance of the total of the financial obligation generated are to be spent directly on the west in the Flinders–Karawatha Bioregional Corridor. Although not directly itemised, the justification for creation of Guideline 17 was to provide funds for the purchasing, securing and enhancing of allotments within the bioregional corridor.

001 Referral of proposed action v August 2016 Page 61 of 70

Guideline 17 notes the purpose of charging the financial obligation is to ensure the project contributes to a net gain in Koala habitat in the region. On the 30 th of October 2014 the DoE made the determination on the Greater Flagstone Project (EPBC 2014/7206). This project area retained the applicable charges from Guideline 17. Within this referral and approval, the DoE acknowledged and conditioned the Guideline 17 costs as meeting the requirements of the EPBC Act Environmental Offset Policy .

“The proponent is under obligation by EDQ, to contribute financially towards a fund that will purchase and protect habitat areas that have the highest conservation value for south-east Queensland koalas. This fund is underpinned by the offset framework known as ULDA Guideline 17, Remnant vegetation and koala offset obligations in Greater Flagstone and Yarrabilba UDAs (2012)….”

The Department notes that the proposed financial contribution meets the requirements of the EPBC Act environmental offset policy, and as such, the Department should not impose additional and duplicative offsets on the proponent. This strategic approach is in line with the current memorandum of understanding between the Commonwealth of Australia and the Queensland State Government.

(Extracts from Draft Recommendations Report – EPBC 2014/7206 – Attachment B – Page 7 of 14 Section 3.6 Offsets – Underlining and bolding provided by Saunders Havill Group )

Therefore, the offset contributions imposed by EDQ achieves objectives within the EPBC Act Environmental Offsets Policy as they will deliver an overall conservation outcome that maintains Koala habitat within South East Queensland. By contributing to a larger pool of funds, EDQ will be able to buy and protect strategic habitat areas which have the highest conservation value for South East Queensland Koalas.

001 Referral of proposed action v August 2016 Page 62 of 70 6 Conclusion on the likelihood of significant impacts

6.1 Do you THINK your proposed action is a controlled action?

X No, complete section 5.2 Yes, complete section 5.3

6.2 Proposed action IS NOT a controlled action.

Response 6.2 Beneficial outcomes of the Project such as mandated offsets, State Government regulations and site design will minimise, mitigate, and offset negative attributes to a level where Significant Impacts on Matters of National Environment Significance are avoided. However, it is understood that the legislative context of this Part 6 Referral Assessment prevents Departmental Officers from considering such beneficial outcomes in their assessment of the project and in determining the Controlled Action status of the application. The majority of positive outcomes for the project have not been detailed in this referral with a focus on identifying matters and the impacts linked to these matters. If the positive factors were considered in this referral, the project is assessed to minimise, mitigate and offset impacts on protected matters through site design, management plans and a large financial contribution towards creating a net gain in Koala and by default Grey-headed Flying-fox habitat within the region.

The identification, proposed management and proposed offsetting of the impact is considered acceptable based on the detailed information included in this referral as summarised as:

Assessment and Impact Certainty

Detailed site survey has been completed over an 8 month period utilising methods espoused by the Department of Environment in the searching for threatened species and communities as noted has having the potential to occur and or have relevance to the site.
The collected site data and the use of the site by specifically scheduled species has been identified, mapped and described in accordance with the Departmental requirements.
Impacts have been noted, analysed and assessed in accordance with Departmental Guidelines, criteria and practice notes.
Plans, notes, schedules, the proposal and its impacts were provided to the Department and discussed in a pre- referral context, inclusive of meetings in Canberra well in advance of this referral application.
The matters and the impacts to these matters through the site proposal are well known and quantified in accordance with Departmental metrics

Site Context, Infrastructure and Planning Framework

The application site is predominantly surrounded by a modified landscape of rural residential land uses and while providing habitat for specific matters (i.e. Koala and Grey-headed Flying-fox) is not pristine or crucially located for the local survival of the species.
The land occurs within a declared and gazetted Priority Development Area (PDA) forecasted to provide housing needs predicted for the region.
The development designation is supported by large scale commitments to future Local and State Government infrastructure for roads, sewer, water and electricity

001 Referral of proposed action v August 2016 Page 63 of 70 The project results in impacts to Koala and Grey-headed Flying-fox habitat mostly of relatively poor condition and low value through the clearing of predominantly non-remnant vegetation. More specifically, the project will remove 190.5 ha of vegetation assessed as habitat critical to the survival of the Koala and the Grey-headed Flying-fox. Despite the size and volume of clearing required to implement this project, impacts are considered to be minimised and mitigated below the level to be classified as ‘significant’ by the following factors:

1. The proposal involves clearing of predominately non-remnant vegetation, which is reflective of historical clearing and pastoral practice. 2. No Koalas were recorded on-site as part of contemporary field survey and the majority of the development footprint is contained within cleared and non-remnant areas where no evidence of Koala was recorded despite targeted searches. 3. Contemporary surveys identified that overall the site is considered to be an area of Low Use by Koala. Although it is noted that activity was predominantly located within cleared portions of the site where only Koala food trees remain (i.e. 30 closest trees are all Koala trees), this is a considered a constraint of the SAT methodology. In the majority of vegetated non-remnant portions of the site, no use by Koala was recorded. 4. The development is contained to 441 ha (only 43%) of the 1,028 ha project site and will be progressively sequenced over decades. 5. Areas of highest ecological value and optimal habitat for both the Koala and Grey-headed Flying-fox will be retained by the development. The development will retain 434 ha (or 42%) of the site within Environmental Protection and 91.3 ha within Linear Open Space along waterway corridors to retain connectivity between Flinders-Karawatha Bioregional Corridor to the west and Woollaman Creek to the south. These areas will undergo rehabilitation works in accordance with best practice guidelines. 6. The site proposal will be constructed over a long currency period (15 years) with commencement occurring within the cleared portions of the site before transitioning into the semi vegetated areas and ultimately removing areas of lower order remnant vegetation. The impact will be gradual by comparison to mitigation measures and offsets and allows for the establishment of conservation outcomes and time lag controls for enhancing long term koala habitat areas. 7. The site exists within a heavily regulated environmental offset area and must deliver a total financial investment for the Koala species of $1,638,000. These funds are to contribute towards the persistence of the Koala locally and under State Government Legislation must in part be used to establish and increase in Koala Habitat and by default Grey- headed Flying-fox habitat within the region 8. Prior to any clearing occurring, multiple applications and assessment processes will be completed by the Queensland Government. These application phases include Context Plans, Plans of Development, Operational Works and Compliance Assessment. 9. With each of the applications prepared in item 6, additional and more detailed ecological survey, assessment and reporting is required. As stipulated in the conditions of approval for this project, this includes the drafting and lodging of: a. A Natural Environment Whole of Site Strategy b. Significant Biodiversity Values Reporting as required by Implementation Guideline 14 c. Responses to MEDQ Implementation Guideline 17 for impacts on Koala habitat. 10. Prior to any clearing on any portion of the site, a detailed process requiring the preparation of management plans must be completed. Required management plans include: a. Vegetation Management Plans b. Fauna Management Plans c. Stormwater Management Plans d. Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plans e. Fauna Management Road Design Strategies 9. The use of EHP registered Fauna Spotter Catchers, pre-clearance surveys and post works audits and associated monitoring and reporting are mandatory for this project.

001 Referral of proposed action v August 2016 Page 64 of 70 The existing approval and State Government legislative processes guarantee the sequential and holistic management and minimisation of site impacts. Of equal importance in considering mitigation factors for a significant impact are the volume of land being retained for ongoing environmental outcomes and the approved effect of commitments for the Koala.

The Greater Flagstone Priority Development Area Development Scheme includes approximately 643 ha of the site zoned for urban living or residential outcomes (refer Attachment 2 ). Further, the approved MCU zoning plan for the site allows approximately 941 ha of the site to be developed for urban purposes (refer Attachment 1). The proposal outlined in this referral is to develop only 441 ha of this urban zoned land, contributing 525.1 ha of total site area to connected linear open space (91. ha) and conservation (433.8 ha) outcomes. The vast majority of this land occurs along the north-western site edge (or is connected to it) resulting in a direct buffer to and expansion of the adjoining Flinders-Karawatha Bioregional Corridor. To secure an equivalent amount of land adjacent to this corridor would otherwise require substantial investment, however, in this instance, the land becomes dedicated as a consequence of the action. Importantly, this dedication and preservation will occur directly adjacent to the impact and on land with both a zoning and value for residential outcomes.

It is acknowledged that the EPBC Act does not provide for assessment of offsets within the ‘Controlled Action’ status of a referral. For this project, the offsets are not being proposed to compensate for a Commonwealth impact, but rather they are a requirement of an existing State Government approval. Furthermore, they specifically relate to the impacted matter of the Koala (and by default the Grey-headed Flying-fox). To not consider this existing outcome as a mitigating factor would be a duplication of the State’s assessment process. Alternatively to a ‘Not a Controlled Action’ outcome, this referral demonstrates sufficient existing requirements to manage and offset impacts to warrant its consideration as ‘Assessment on Referral Documentation’.

6.3 Proposed action IS a controlled action

Not applicable

001 Referral of proposed action v August 2016 Page 65 of 70 7 Environmental record of the responsible party

Yes No 7.1 Does the party taking the action have a satisfactory record of responsible environmental management?

Provide details

In addition to being a large landowner in Queensland, PIDC ’s development history in Qld is the 200 lot Pacific Beach development at Tugun and the 700 lot University Shores project at Varsity Lakes. Based on these precedents, PIDC has a record of responsible environmental management.

7.2 Provide details of any proceedings under a Commonwealth, State or Territory law for the protection of the environment or the conservation and sustainable use of natural
resources against: (a) the person proposing to take the action, or (b) if a permit has been applied for in relation to the action - the person making the application.

If yes, provide details

7.3 If the person taking the action is a corporation, please provide details of the corporation’s environmental policy and planning framework and if and how the
framework applies to the action?

If yes, provide details of environmental policy and planning framework

The action taken is in accordance with PIDC 's environmental policy. PIDC seeks to establish a positive environmental legacy for the benefit of future generations. We are committed to minimising our overall impact on the environment and encouraging environmentally responsible behaviour on the part of our employees, partners and key stakeholders. We continually seek to apply innovative and proven solutions to environmental issues in collaboration with our multi-disciplinary consultant team and in so doing, meet and in some cases, exceed environmental laws and regulations.

7.4 Has the party taking the action previously referred an action under the EPBC Act, or
been responsible for undertaking an action referred under the EPBC Act?

Provide name of proposal and EPBC reference number (if known)

2014/7319 - Pacific International Development Corporation Pty Ltd/Transport - land/Dairy Rd, Wyatt Rd and Teviot Rd, Flagstone/QLD/Construction and upgrade of approximately 7km of external road corridor, Flagstone, Qld – Assessed as ‘Not a Controlled Action’.

001 Referral of proposed action v August 2016 Page 66 of 70 8 Information sources and attachments (For the information provided above)

8.1 References Australian Koala Foundation , The Spot Assessment Technique: determining the importance of Habitat Utilised by Koalas (Phascolarctos cinereus) , available online https://www.savethekoala.com/sites/default/files/docs/conserve/The%20Spot%20Assessment%20Technique.pdf

Australian Koala Foundation 2012, National Koala Tree Protection List; Recommended Tree Species for Protection and Planting of Koala Habitat .

Australian Soil Resource Information System , http://www.asris.csiro.au/

Dique DS, de Villiers DL and Preece HJ 2003, Evaluation of line-transect sampling for estimating Koala abundance in the Pine Rivers Shire, south-east Queensland.’ Wildlife Research 30: 127-133.

Gassmans Development Perspectives 2016, Updated Ecological Threatened Species Management Plan - Addendum, Flinders Estate, Undullah commissioned by Pacific International Group

Gassmans Development Perspectives 2015, Updated Ecological Assessment Report – Addendum, Flinders Estate, Undullah commissioned by Pacific International Group

Hill & Curran 2003, Area, shape and isolation of tropical forest fragments: effects on tree species diversity and implications for conservation. Journal of Biogeography, 30: 1391-1403.

John Warren and Associates Pty Ltd 2011, Ecological Assessment Report commissioned by Pacific International Group

Phillips S & Callaghan J 2011, The Spot Assessment Technique: a tool for determining localised levels of habitat use by Koalas Phascolarctos cinereus . Australian Zoologist 35(3) : 774-780.

Saunders Havill Group 2016, Ecological Assessment Report EPBC Act Referral commissioned by Pacific International Group

Urban Land Development Authority 2011, Greater Flagstone Urban Development Area Development Scheme, available online http://www.dsdip.qld.gov.au/resources/plan/pda/greater-flagstone-development-scheme.pdf

Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland 2012, Looking out for Quolls in Logan – Summary of Survey Results October 2012 available online http://www.wildlife.org.au/v3/projects/quolls/image/logansurveysoct2012.pdf

8.2 Reliability and date of information

Refer to 8.1 References

001 Referral of proposed action v August 2016 Page 67 of 70 8.3 Attachments

attached Title of attachment(s) You must attach figures, maps or aerial photographs Figure 1 – Greater showing the project locality (section 1)
Flagstone Urban Development Area, GIS file delineating the boundary of the Figure 2 – Site Context, referral area (section 1) Figure 3 – Site Aerial, Attachment 3 – Land Use Plan figures, maps or aerial photographs
Figure 2 – Site Context, showing the location of the project in Figure 3 – Site Aerial respect to any matters of national Attachment 7 – Critical environmental significance or important Habitat Plan features of the environments (section 3) If relevant, attach copies of any state or local government
Attachment 1 – MCU approvals and consent conditions (section Approval, Attachment 2 2.5) – Greater Flagstone Urban Development Area Development Scheme copies of any completed assessments to
Attachment 5 – meet state or local government approvals Ecological Assessment and outcomes of public consultations, if Report EPBC Act Referral available (section 2.6) Figure 6 PMAV copies of any flora and fauna investigations
Attachment 5 – and surveys (section 3) Ecological Assessment Report EPBC Act Referral, Attachment 6 – WPSQ Quoll Report technical reports relevant to the
Attachment 4 – EPBC Act assessment of impacts on protected PMST Search Results, matters that support the arguments and Attachment 5 – conclusions in the referral (section 3 and 4) Ecological Assessment Report report(s) on any public consultations - - undertaken, including with Indigenous stakeholders (section 3)

001 Referral of proposed action v August 2016 Page 68 of 70 9 Contacts, signatures and declarations

Proposed action title: Lots 3 on S311896, 200 on SP133189 and 1 on RP97710 in the Greater Flagstone Priority Development Area

9.1 Person proposing to take action

Name and Title: Mr Darwin King - Managing Director Organisation: Pacific International Development Corporation Pty Ltd Trust deed: Attached ACN / ABN: 105 107 828 / 82 265 732 087 Postal address 12 Nerang St, NERANG QLD 4211 Telephone: 0408 885 180 Email: [email protected] & [email protected]

I qualify for exemption NA from fees under section 520(4C)(e)(v) of the EPBC Act because I am:

If you are small business NA entity you must provide the Date/Income Year that you became a small business entity:

I would like to apply for a NA waiver of full or partial fees under Schedule 1, 5.21A of the EPBC Regulations . Under sub regulation 5.21A(5), you must include information about the applicant (if not you) the grounds on which the waiver is sought and the reasons why it should be made:

Declaration I declare that to the best of my knowledge the information I have given on, or attached to this form is complete, current and correct. I understand that giving false or misleading information is a serious offence. I declare that I am not taking the action on behalf of or for the benefit of any other person or entity.

Signature Date 23 August 2016

001 Referral of proposed action v August 2016 Page 69 of 70

Designated proponent 9.2 NA Name of proposed proponent: If the name of the proposed proponent is not the same person as named at item 1 of

section 9.1 above, please complete all of the below fields in section 9.2.

ACN / ABN (if applicable) :

Postal address:

Telephone:

Email:

Declaration by the I ...... , the proposed proponent, consent to the proposed proposed proponent: designation of myself as the proponent for the purposes of the action described in this

referral.

Date: Signature:

Declaration by the I ...... , the person proposing to take the action, consent to person proposing to take the action: the proposed designation of...... as proponent for the purposes

of the action described in this referral.

Signature: Date:

9.3 Person preparing the referral information (if different from 9.1) Name Murray Saunders Title Director Organisation Saunders Havill Group Pty Ltd ACN / ABN (if applicable) 24 144 972 949 Postal address 9 Thompson Street, Bowen Hills, QLD 4006 Telephone (07) 3251 9415 Email [email protected]

Declaration I declare that to the best of my knowledge the information I have given on, or attached to this form is complete, current and correct. I understand that giving false or misleading information is a serious offence.

Signature Date 22/08/2016

001 Referral of proposed action v August 2016 Page 70 of 70