referral of proposed action form

WHUP – Dalby to Miles Overtaking Lane 1

Referral of proposed action

Project title: Warrego Highway Upgrade Program Dalby to Miles Overtaking Lanes

1 Summary of proposed action 1.1 Short description

The overall Project is Warrego Highway Upgrade Program (WHUP, 2012) Warrego Highway Safety Package. The project objective is to improve the efficiency and safety of vehicles along the Warrego Highway between Oakey and Miles, Queensland. Part of this project is to construct eastbound and westbound overtaking lanes on a 2.3 km section of Warrego Highway, approximately 21 km north west of Chinchilla (Figure 1). To construct these overtaking lanes, an adequate safety zone (10.5m both sides of carriageway) must be established in order to provide as safe driving environment along this section of Warrego Highway where the maximum speed limit is 110 kph. The vegetation that requires removal is dominated by Brigalow (Acacia harpophylla). The south-eastern side contains endangered brigalow (Acacia harpophylla) threatened ecological community (TEC). An area 0.30 ha of this TEC needs to be removed to construct the proposed overtaking lanes.

Figure 1. Location of proposed overtaking lanes between Chinchilla and Miles

1.2 Latitude and longitude

Latitude Longitude location point degrees minutes seconds degrees minutes seconds NW -26 40 37 150 24 57 NE -26 40 36 150 26 23 SE -26 40 39 150 26 23 SW -26 40 40 150 24 57


Figure 2. Latitude and longitude co-ordinates (GDA94) of Project Location

1.3 Locality and property description

The project site lies within the north of the Murray-Darling Basin in Queensland and is located between the towns of Chinchilla and Miles, approximately 21 km north-west of Chinchilla (Figure 1 above). The Project will be contained within the Queensland State controlled Warrego Highway road reserve 18C between Transport and Main Roads TMR chainages 101.38 km and 103.68 km. The Project will be adjacent to the southern properties 40BWR74 and 5BWR74 and Queensland State Railway Reserve 351SP116412 to the north (See Figure 1 above and Figure 3 below).

Figure 3. Description of properties in vicinity of Project Site.

1.4 Size of the development footprint or work area (hectares)

9.66 hectares (42m wide road reserve over 2.3 km) (Presently consists of 4.60 hectares road/drains/clear zone and 5.06 hectares of brigalow (Acacia harpophylla) vegetation).

1.5 Street address of the site

Warrego Highway between Chinchilla and Miles. Queensland State Road number 18C, between Tdist 101.38 km and 103.68km.

1.6 Lot description The proposed works is located on the Warrego Highway within the road reserve (use GPS points to locate site) adjacent to southern properties 40BWR74 and 5BWR74 and the Queensland State Railway Reserve 351SP116412 to the north.

1.7 Local Government Area and Council contact (if known) Western Downs Regional Council


1.8 Time frame Proposed date to finalise design – 21 December 2016 Proposed date to call for construction tenders – prior to 1 February 2017 Proposed start of construction – prior to 1 June 2017

1.9 Alternatives to proposed action

X No

Yes, you must also complete section 2.2

1.10 Alternative time frames etc

No

X 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 State assessment

No

X Yes, you must also complete Section 2.5

1.12 Component of larger action

No

X Yes, you must also complete Section 2.7

1.13 Related actions/proposals

X No

Yes

1.14 Australian Government funding

No

X Yes, provide please also complete section 2.8

1.15 Great Barrier Reef Marine Park

X No Yes, you must also complete Section 3.1 (h), 3.2 (e)


2 Detailed description of proposed action 2.1 Description of proposed action The Warrego Highway is Queensland’s principal east-west freight route, extending 714 km west from Brisbane to Charleville. It serves as the main connection between the key agricultural and resource rich regions of western Queensland and the Port of Brisbane, and is critical to the ongoing development of the Surat Basin resources industry. The Highway is a four-lane, dual carriageway highway between Ipswich and Toowoomba, and generally a two-lane highway west of Toowoomba. Through the Warrego Highway Upgrade Strategy (WHUS 2012), the Queensland State Government has identified 41 short, medium and long-term investment priorities over the next 20 years to ensure the Warrego Highway infrastructure continues to serve regional Queensland for decades to come. Key priorities in the strategy are the construction of additional overtaking lanes, the upgrading of intersections and widening of the highway in various locations, and the construction of the Toowoomba Second Range Crossing. Based on the goals of the Warrego Highway Upgrade Strategy (WHUS), 15 projects were identified and listed on the Warrego Highway Upgrade Program (WHUP) under a $635 million funding arrangement between the Australian and Queensland governments. The WHUP projects are discussed in Section 2.7 below. One of these projects is the construction of seven overtaking lanes between Dalby and Miles. Figure 4 below indicates the locations of the seven overtaking lanes. This proposed action refers to only the overtaking lanes Site 5(E) and 7(W) (Project Site) in Figure 4 below as this is the only site supporting brigalow (Acacia harpophylla) vegetation.

Figure 4. Locations of proposed overtaking lanes between Dalby and Miles.


Within the Project Site, brigalow exists either side of the Warrego Highway. A Flora/Fauna/Vegetation survey was conducted by Boobook Ecological Consulting (Attachment A) to determine whether the proposed overtaking lane project at the Project Site would affect any brigalow TEC, or Endangered Vulnerable or Near Threatened (EVNT) flora and fauna species. No EVNT species were identified within the proposed project area, though brigalow TEC was identified. Figure 5 below illustrates the location of brigalow TEC identified by Boobook Ecological Consulting (note that the area surveyed was greater than the Project Site area). This EPBC Referral applies only to the overtaking lanes at the Project Site as construction of these overtaking lanes will affect endangered brigalow (Acacia harpophylla) threatened ecological community (TEC). Construction of all the other overtaking lanes depicted in Figure 4 above will not affect any ‘Matter of National Environmental Significance’.

Figure 5. Area (brown) of brigalow (Acacia harpophylla) threatened ecological community (TEC) identified in the Boobook Ecological Consulting survey. Green areas not TEC. Not all of the brigalow TEC identified in the survey will be affected by the proposed works. Figure 6 below illustrates brigalow TEC that will be affected , surveyed brigalow TEC that will not be affect, and brigalow that is non TEC that will and will not be affected. There is brigalow vegetation within the road reserve east and west of the surveyed area, and on adjacent properties.

Figure 6. Brigalow (Acacia harpophylla) vegetation that will be affected by proposed action The existing road comprises: • Dual carriageway, total width of 7.0 metres, 6.0 metre wide clear zones, and brigalow vegetation to the road reserve

boundary fence (illustrated in Figure 7 below). The safety zone is an open area along the road for errant vehicles to recover if they leave the road;

• Formed table drains along each side of the Warrego Highway road; • Underground Telstra infrastructure along the southern road reserve boundary; • The Western Railway Line runs parallel to the Warrego Highway on the northern side of the Warrego Highway road

reserve; and


• Strips of Brigalow vegetation occur parallel to the highway along both the northern and southern sides. The width of vegetation on the southern side of the Warrego Highway is 10.0 metres; the width of vegetation on the northern side of the Warrego Highway is 12.0 metres wide.

Figure 7. Type section of existing Warrego Highway formation at Project Site. The proposed works will include:

• Constructing adjacent dual overtaking lanes with a 1.0 metre wide painted median, total width of 15.0 metres (Figure 8 below);

• Clearing the majority of large brigalow vegetation (an area of 4.14 hectares of the 5.06 ha) in the road reserve between the road formation and the road reserve boundary along the section of Warrego Highway for the 2.30 km length of the overtaking lanes. Vegetation needs to be removed either side of the road to construct 10.5 metre wide safety zones (illustrated in Figure 9 below).

• The vegetation to be removed includes a section 8.5 metres wide by 350 metres long (0.30 hectares) of brigalow (Acacia harpophylla) TEC. All the other brigalow vegetation (3.84 hectares) to be cleared in the Project Site is non-TEC brigalow.

• Stripping of topsoil; • Boxing out of the current sealed road shoulders on both sides of the road. Construction of overtaking lanes on both

sides of the existing road centre line. The sealed road width will be increased from 7.0 metres on the existing road formation to 15.0 metres on the overtaking lanes (refer to Figure 7 below);

• Reshaping both sides of the highway to form adequate drainage structures and the replacement of topsoil. A safety zone is required that is a minimum of 10.5 metres wide. This is the standard safety clear zone for this type of road and the existing maximum speed limit of 110 kph;

• Construction of the road formation and sealing pavement; • Replacement of line marking and roadside signage; • Stabilisation and rehabilitation of drainage paths and other disturbed areas; • Construction site decommissioning; and road maintenance, including for drainage infrastructure and pavement; and • Overtaking lanes have been designed as per the Department of Transport and Main Roads ‘Road Planning and

Design Manual’ which is the department’s primary reference for the planning and design of roads. • Various machines will be used to clear and grub, conduct earthworks and construct the road formation and

pavement. Cleared native vegetation will be mulched and topsoil stockpiled to be used on-site during stabilisation and/or rehabilitation works.

• The construction site offices, and laydown areas for machinery and materials storage will be in previously cleared areas either in the road reserve at the eastern side of the Project Site or by agreement on neighbouring private property.

Figure 8. Type section of proposed overtaking lanes

Figure 9. Type section of proposed overtaking lanes at Project Site indicating removal of brigalow (Acacia harpophylla) TEC


2.2 Alternatives to taking the proposed action Not applicable. There are no alternatives to constructing overtaking lanes locations between Chinchilla and Miles. 2.3 Alternative locations, time frames or activities that form part of the referred action In order to discard the proposed action, a number of alternative locations between Chinchilla and Miles (Figure 1 above) were investigated. However, limitations of intersections with side roads and property accesses, and inappropriate line of sight visibility due to topography road curves extinguished the possibility of locating the overtaking lanes anywhere other than at the Project Site. 2.4 Context, planning framework and state/local government requirements The proposed action is planned as part of the Warrego Highway Upgrade Strategy: Brisbane to Charleville (2012) set out by the Queensland Government. The goal of this plan is to improve road safety and transport efficiency on the second-highest traffic volume national highway outside south-east Queensland after the Bruce Highway. The upgrade strategy outlines the future strategic plans and funding for upgrading the entire Warrego Highway to meet current and future needs. For this project, Local, State and Federal Acts under which relevant approvals are required, may be required or will be considered against are set out in Table 1. Table 1: Legislation and approvals relevant to the proposed action

FACTOR LEGISLATION AGENCY REQUIREMENT Overall environmental acceptability

Environmental Protection Act 1994 DEHP General environmental duty Environmental Protection and Biosecurity Conservation Act 1999

DoE Referral if potential for significant impact to Matter/s of National Environmental Significance

Construction Sustainability Planning Act 2009 DSDIP Depending on construction methodology, may require permit to take water under Water Act 2000 Exempt from requirement to obtain permit to clear regulated vegetation pursuant to Schedule 24 of Sustainable Planning Regulation 2009

Vegetation clearing

Vegetation Management Act 1999 DNRM Map and define regulated vegetation in the project sites

Threatened and priority flora and fauna

Nature Conservation Act 1992 DEHP Species management program for potential impacts on protected fauna, including animal breeding places

Environmental Offsets Act 2014 DEHP May require environmental offsets for significant residual impact on threatened species

Weeds Biosecurity Act 2014 DAFF Control of pest species Heritage sites Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 DATSIMA Duty of care, procedures under environmental

management plan for construction 2.5 Environmental impact assessments under Commonwealth, state or territory legislation This proposed action is subject to the Commonwealth and State legislation requirements outlined in Table 1 above. It is also subject to environmental impact assessment under the environmental policy and management framework of the Department of Transport and Main Roads. Under this assessment process, the proposed action falls into the medium end of environmental concern. The environmental assessment and reporting for this project currently consist of:

• Preliminary survey and site assessment by TMR (Attachment B) • Commissioned specialist flora and fauna surveys, and reporting (Attachment A) • Liaisons and negotiations with project designers to seek best outcomes in project design.

The outcomes of the above measures will be considered when determining state impact assessment obligations.

2.6 Public consultation (including with Indigenous stakeholders) Communication strategies are detailed in the attached document “Warrego Highway Upgrade Program, Program Management Plan, 2016 - 2019” (Attachment C). The WHUP Communications Management Plan is being developed and will define the communication objectives and strategies for the project. TMR’s communication and stakeholder engagement policies will be used to undertake the communications activities.


Public Consultation: Where a WHUP project impacts a township precinct, significant engagement with the community, local businesses and local government consultation will occur to communicate and receive feedback on what is proposed and the implications. This has occurred for projects where property resumptions will be required (for example, the overtaking lane at Site 2, illustrated in Figure 4 above) and for a WHUP project through Dalby regarding parking in front of residences and businesses, signalised pedestrian crossings for school children and the relocation of utility services. Public consultation has not been undertaken yet for the Dalby to Miles overtaking lanes as property resumptions are not required. This will happen prior to construction as per TMR’s standard communication process requirements. A process to record and address any complaints from the public will be established and used by regional staff. Indigenous engagement: An Indigenous Cultural Heritage Risk Assessment (ICHRA) was conducted by TMR according to the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 section 28 – Duty of Care Guidelines. The overtaking lanes at the Project Site was assessed at Category 4. This designation prompted the engagement of the Barrunggam People for a cultural heritage survey. The cultural heritage surveys were undertaken on 22 August 2016. No items of Aboriginal cultural heritage were identified during the surveys. Management recommendations were negotiated with the Barunggam people. The mitigation measures for the section of road reserve encompassing the project site consist of Barunggam people presenting inductions prior to land clearing activities and conducting monitoring during clearing and grubbing activities. 2.7 A staged development or component of a larger project This proposed action to construct overtaking lanes between Dalby and Miles is part of Warrego Highway Upgrade Program for the TMR Darling Downs District for 2016 – 2019. Details of the WHUP Projects are presented in the attached document “Warrego Highway Upgrade Program, Program Management Plan, 2016 - 2019” (Attachment C), illustrated in Figure 7, and summarised below in Table 2. In the lead up to the September 2013 federal government election, the Australian Government committed $508 million towards upgrading the Warrego Highway between Toowoomba and Miles. The commitment was announced in the May 2014 federal budget. The Queensland Government committed $127 million. The program was formalised by both the Australian and Queensland Governments signing the “National Partnership Agreement on Land Transport Infrastructure Projects” on 10 October 2014. The National Partnership Agreement committed a $635 million package for the 15 projects (Table 2) that comprise the Warrego Highway Upgrade Program that is to be implemented between 2016 and 2019.

Figure 7. Location of various WHUP projects


Table 2. Details of the “Warrego Highway Upgrade Program” projects Planned Projects Details Status need to check 1 Toowoomba – Oakey duplication

stage 1 (No MNES impacted)

$110 million project to extend the 4-lane Warrego Highway from Nugent Pinch Road to west of Charlton.

Project completed August 2016

2 Toowoomba – Oakey duplication stage 2 (No MNES impacted)

$160 million project to extend the 4-lane highway from the stage 1 project a further 4km westward to Kingsthorpe.

Construction expected to start early 2017 and completed in June 2018

3 Toowoomba – Oakey duplication stage 3 (No MNES impacted)

$2 million project to plan the 4-lane highway construction from Kingsthorpe to Oakey.

Planning analysis commenced July 2016 and should be finalised by November 2016

4 Oakey – Dalby overtaking lanes (EPBC 2015/7444 withdrawn – No MNES impacted)

$44 million project to provide additional overtaking lanes at regular intervals and in both directions.

Construction expected to in October 2016 and be completed in October 2017.

5 Dalby western access upgrade stage 1 (No MNES impacted)

$59 million project to upgrade the highway and improve safety at the various intersections and accesses from adjacent industrial development on the western outskirts of Dalby.

Construction expected to start December 2016. Expect completion in June 2018.

6 Dalby eastern access upgrade (No MNES impacted)

$56 million project to upgrade the highway and improve safety at the various intersections and accesses from adjacent industrial and commercial developments on the eastern outskirts of Dalby.

Construction expected to start December 2016. Expect completion in June 2018.

7 Chinchilla open level rail crossing upgrade (No MNES impacted)

$16 million project to upgrade safety at the open level rail crossing at Chinchilla

Construction expected to commence September 2017 and be completed in November 2018.

8 Chinchilla bypass planning (No MNES impacted)

$1 million project to investigate the need for a future bypass around the township due to growth of highway traffic, population and commercial growth traffic, population and commercial growth.

Planning assessment expected to be completed by October 2017.

9 Jingi Jingi Creek upgrade (No MNES impacted)

$35 million project to replace the deteriorated culverts and construct a new concrete bridge.

Construction has commenced and expected to be completed in April 2017.

10 Acland intersection upgrade (No MNES impacted)

$6 million project to improve the intersection at Sabine Road, Jondaryan so heavy vehicles have safe access to the highway.

Construction expected to commence September 2016 and be completed in May 2017.

11 Brigalow – Chinchilla upgrade (No MNES impacted)

$36 million project to widen 11 km of the highway on the eastern approach to Chinchilla.

Project being constructed; expected to be completed in October 2017

12 Dalby – Miles overtaking lanes (Proposed Action part of this project)

$35 million project to provide additional overtaking lanes at regular intervals in both directions (illustrated in Figure 4 above).

Construction expected to commence May 2017 and completed in June 2018

13 Miles western access upgrade (No MNES impacted)

$24 million project to widen and rehabilitate the highway on the western outskirts.

Construction expected to commence January and be completed in December 2018.

14 Oakey – Miles safety upgrade (No MNES impacted)

$40 million projects of road treatments to improve the safety on the busiest intersection of the highway

Construction expected to commence in September 2017 and be completed in June 2018.

15 Drillham – Palardo upgrade (No MNES impacted)

$11 million project to widen narrow sections of the highway to a safe standard for heavy vehicles.

Construction expected to commence February 2018 and be completed in December 2018.


The WHUP is part of the Warrego Highway Upgrade Strategy (WHUS). The 20-year vision of this WHUS between Toowoomba and Roma is:

• Toowoomba to Dalby – long-term upgrade to four-lane divided highway, with upgrades west of Oakey initially focusing on widening pavements to 11 metres and increasing overtaking opportunities.

• Dalby to Miles – rural two-lane highway (11 metres width) with overtaking lanes at approximately 5-10 km intervals.

• Miles to Roma – rural two-lane highway (10 metre width) with overtaking lanes at approximately 10 to 20 km intervals.

Based on TMR’s previous ecological studies and previous road corridor environmental assessments along the Warrego Highway, and based on the designs of the WHUP projects listed in Table 2 above, the Dalby to Miles overtaking lanes project at the Project Site is the only WHUP project that will impact brigalow (Acacia harpophylla) TEC or other Matters of National and State Environmental Significance MNES. It has been possible to ascertain whether MNES will be affected for the WHUP projects, that is Brigalow TEC within the Dalby – Miles overtaking lanes project. However, at this stage, it is not possible to ascertain whether there will be a requirement to affect MNES during future WHUS projects along the Warrego Highway. The reason being no detailed planning as commenced for the this 20-year project. Any future works which are likely to affect MNES will be referred to the Department of Environment and Energy as required under the EPBC Act. The reason for submitting this Referral of the Proposed Action as a staged project is that the WHUP projects (to be completed prior to 2019) are part of the Warrego Highway Upgrade Strategy (WHUS). 2.8 Related actions Total funding for the Warrego Highway Upgrade Program is $635 million. This consists of 80% ($508 million) Australian Federal Government funding and 20% ($127 million) funding from the Queensland State Government. The total funds committed to this proposed action (the Dalby – Miles overtaking lanes) is $35 million; 80% funded from the Federal Government and 20% funded from the Queensland Government. Funds have been committed to the WHUP component of the Warrego Highway Upgrade Strategy (WHUS), but not to other components of the 20-year WHUS vision between Toowoomba and Roma as described in 2.7 above.


3 Description of environment & likely impacts

3.1 Matters of national environmental significance 3.1 (a) World Heritage Properties

Description No World Heritage Areas are located within or near the project site. Nature and extent of likely impact

No impact to a world heritage property will occur either directly or indirectly as a result of the proposed action

3.1 (b) National Heritage Places

Description No National Heritage Places are located within or near the project site. Nature and extent of likely impact

No impact to a national heritage place will occur either directly or indirectly as a result of the proposed action. 3.1 (c) Wetlands of International Importance (declared Ramsar wetlands) Description

Four Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar) are listed as being within the project site catchment. These are Banrock Station wetland complex, Narran Lake Nature Reserve, Riverland, and the Coorong and Lakes Alexandria and Albert wetland. The proposed action is at considerable distance from these Ramsar wetlands and the proposed action occurs in only one catchment that contains these Ramsar wetlands, that is the Narran Lake Nature Reserve.

Nature and extent of likely impact

The construction of the overtaking lanes will occur on flat land with controls in place to prevent chemical and soil runoff. Given the distance of the proposed action to the Ramsar wetlands (460 km south west) and small size of the development footprint (9.66 ha) compared to the Condamine-Balonne catchment (13,600,000ha), there is negligible potential for Ramsar wetlands to be impacted either directly or indirectly by the proposal.


3.1 (d) Listed threatened species and ecological communities Description A search using the Protected Matters Search Tool (PMST) was undertaken with a 1km radius of the project site and the results are presented in Attachment D. This was supplemented by searches of the Queensland Government Wildlife Online Database, and the Atlas of Living Australia records database, and a flora/fauna/vegetation survey by Boobook Ecological Consulting (Attachment A). Eighteen threatened animal species, two threatened plant species, and four Threatened Ecological Communities were identified as possibly occurring within the project footprint and surrounds. These are discussed below. The likelihood of presence or absence of suitable habitat and of each threatened species considered as possibly occurring has been assessed. This assessment took into account suitable on-site habitat, features of the site, professional judgement and local knowledge.

The EPBC protected matters search identified the following threatened fauna species (or their habitat) as:

likely to occur in the project area: • Erythrotriorchis radiatus, Red Goshawk [942] Vulnerable • Geophaps scripta scripta, Squatter Pigeon (southern) [64440] Vulnerable • Grantiella picta, Painted Honeyeater [470] Vulnerable • Chalinolobus dwyeri, Large-eared Pied Bat, Large Pied Bat [183] Vulnerable • Nyctophilus corbeni, South-eastern Long-eared Bat [83395] Vulnerable • Egernia rugosa, Yakka Skink [1420] Vulnerable •

may occur in the project area: • Calidris ferruginea, Curlew Sandpiper [856], Critically Endangered • Lathamus discolour, Swift Parrot [744] Endangered • Poephila cincta cincta, Black-throated Finch (southern) [64447] Endangered • Rostratula australis, Australian Painted Snipe [77037] Endangered • Maccullochella peelii, Murray Cod [66633] Vulnerable • Dasyurua hallucatus, Northern Quoll [331] Endangered • Petauroides volans, Greater Glider [254] Vulnerable • Phascolarctos cinereus, Koala (combined populations of Queensland, New South Wales and the Australian Capital

Territory) [85104] Vulnerable • Pteropus poliocephalus, Grey-headed Flying-fox [186] Vulnerable • Anomalopus mackayi, Five-clawed worm-skink [25934] Vulnerable • Delma torquate, Collared Delma [1656] Vulnerable • Furina dunmalli, Dunmall's Snake [59254] Vulnerable

The EPBC protected matters search identified the following threatened flora as: may occur in the project area:

• Homopholis belsonii, Belson’s Panic [2406] Vulnerable; and • Thesium austral, Austral Toadflax, Toadflax [15202] Vulnerable.

The EPBC protected matters search identified the following threatened ecological communities TEC as occurring and potentially occurring in the project area:

• Brigalow (Acacia harpophylla dominant and co-dominant), Endangered – Community known to occur within area • Coolabah - Black Box Woodlands of the Darling Riverine Plains and the Brigalow Belt South Bioregions, Endangered –

Community may occur within area • Natural grasslands on basalt and fine-textured alluvial plains of northern New South Wales and southern Queensland,

Critically Endangered – Community likely to occur within area • Weeping Myall Woodlands, Endangered – Community likely to occur within area

In summary, the number of potential MNES identified across the project area included (Boobook, 2016):

• Confirmed presence of the endangered Brigalow (Acacia harpophylla dominant and co-dominant) TEC • Potential habitat for one flora species listed as vulnerable under the EPBC Act , Belson’s Panic (Homopholis belsonii) • Potential habitat for seven (7) EPBC Act listed fauna species including the vulnerable Painted Honeyeater (Grantiella

picta), the extinct Paradise Parrot (Psephotus pulcherrimus), the vulnerable Koala (Phascolarctos cinereus), the vulnerable Southern-eastern Long-eared Bat (Nyctophilus corbeni), the vulnerable Dunmall’s Snake (Furina dunmalli) and the vulnerable Yakka Skink (Egernia rugosa).



Threatened Ecological Community Ground-truthing by Boobook Ecological Consulting showed RE 11.4.3 (Brigalow Acacia harpophylla dominant and co-dominant) and the brigalow TEC to be confined to one patch at the south-east of the project area and extending eastward. 1.4 ha of the EPBC Act listed endangered Brigalow (dominant or co-dominant) TEC was identified within the study area. This TEC is analogous to the Queensland RE 11.4.3, which is described as “Acacia harpophylla and/or Casuarina cristata shrubby open forest on Cainozoic clay plains” (DEHP, 2016). The TEC occurs within the south-easterly extent of the project area, south of the Warrego Highway. The study noted that die-back of mature trees were apparent within the canopy layer. Other areas of RE 11.4.3 regrowth vegetation was identified within the northern and southern extents of the project area and were assessed against the Approved Conservation Advice for the Brigalow (Acacia harpophylla dominant and co-dominant) ecological community (DoE, 2013). These patches did not meet the definition of a Brigalow TEC due to failing on condition thresholds due to dominance of exotic species within the ground layer, as well as failing on diagnostic thresholds due to not meeting the 0.5 ha size threshold of a Brigalow TEC. Threatened Species No EPBC Act listed flora or fauna were identified within the project area, however, despite the relatively small and uniform project area, potential habitat for a range of threatened flora and fauna was identified. Threatened flora species The Boobook field inspection indicated that suitable habitat for the vulnerable listed grass, Belson’s Panic (Homopholis belsonii) was present within the 5.06 ha of Brigalow vegetation across the project area, with the most likely occurrence of the species noted to be within the remnant RE 11.4.3 occurring in the south-east parts of the project area. Targeted searches for this species were conducted in accordance with the Flora Survey Guidelines – Protected Plants (DEHP, 2014) methodology and provided comprehensive coverage of the project area, including the south-eastern parts. No individuals of Belson’s Panic were observed. Much of this species’ habitat within the project area is impacted by previous disturbance to soil and vegetation due to road works and fence construction with associated ingress of non-native grasses. Threatened fauna species Habitat for the extant Painted Honeyeater, Koala, Southern-eastern Long-eared Bat, Dunmall’s Snake, Yakka Skink and extinct Paradise Parrot was observed during the field assessment. Potential habitat for the species were derived based on known range and habitat associations from published sources sucha as the Atlas of Living Australia and Boobook unpublished data. Habitat for the species occurs in the form of uniformed vegetation of a narrow linear configuration comprising of ground-truthed RE 11.4.3. This Brigalow woodland comprises of both regrowth and remnant Acacia harpophylla open forest within a sparse lower shrub layer on clay plains. Brigalow is the dominant tree species, with emergent Eucalyptus woolsiana (Molly Box) present, and a mid-dense layer of Brigalow recruits. The vegetation has experienced some previous disturbance to the ground layer (soil and exotic incursion), as well as notable canopy die-back of many of the mature trees. Brigalow woodland provides varying degrees of value to a range of fauna species. Litter on the floor of Brigalow woodlands, particularly woody debris is important habitat for threatened reptiles (Yakka Skink and Dunmall’s Snake). Abundance of woody debris or litter was not specified as being present in the study area, rather evidence of recent clearing and piled earth was identified within the field assessment. Mistletoes are a key resource for animals in Brigalow woodlands as they produce nectar and fleshy fruits which are eaten by numerous species, notably the Painted Honeyeater (DoE, 2013). Mistletoe within the Brigalow woodland was identified in high abundance. The Painted Honeyeater is strongly associated with the presence of abundant mistletoes in Eucalyptus and Acacia communities and is likely to utilise project area for foraging, periodically. Five species of mistletoe occur within the Brigalow woodland habitat, including Amyema congener (Variable Mistletoe), A. maidenii (Pale-leaved Mistletoe), A. miquelii (Bronze Mistletoe), A. quandang (Grey Mistletoe) and Viscum bancroftii (Brigalow Jointed Mistletoe). Amyema is the preferred genus by the Painted Honeyeater (OEH, 2015). Likelihood of Occurrence of listed threatened species and ecological communities The MNES identified within PMST results were reviewed for likelihood of occurrence. Table 3 below provides justification for species or communities being assessed as ‘known’, ‘likely’, ‘potential’, ‘unlikely’ or ‘no’. These terms are defined as follows:

• “known” = the species, population or ecological community was or has been observed on the site. • “likely” = suitable high quality habitat for a species, population or ecological community occurs on the site. • “potential” = suitable habitat for a species, population or ecological community occurs on the site, but there is

insufficient information to categorise the species as likely, or unlikely to occur. • “unlikely” = a low to very low probability that a species, population or ecological community uses/occurs on the site. • “no” = the species will not occur on site e.g. marine species in a terrestrial study site. This assessment is based on a number of factors including the species distribution and habitat requirements, previous records in the vicinity of the study area, field assessment results and professional experience of this report’s authors and their colleagues.


Table 3. Likelihood of occurrence of identified MNES

Value Common name 1EPBC Status

NCA Status

Likelihood of occurrence Assessment details²

Threatened ecological communities

Brigalow (Acacia harpophylla dominant and co-dominant)

Brigalow TEC E - Known 1.4 ha of Brigalow TEC was identified within the project area. The proposed disturbance area will clear approximately 0.30 ha of this TEC.

Coolibah – Black Box Woodlands of the Darling Riverine Plains and the Brigalow Belt Bioregions

Coolibah TEC E - No. The TEC was not identified within the field survey which covered the entire extent of disturbance area.

Natural grasslands on basalt and fine-textured alluvial plains of northern New South Wales and southern Queensland

Grasslands TEC E - No. The TEC was not identified within the field survey which covered the entire extent of disturbance area.

Weeping Myall Woodlands

Weeping Myall TEC

E - No. The TEC was not identified within the field survey which covered the entire extent of disturbance area.

Threatened fauna species

Calidris ferruginea Curlew Sandpiper CE Unlikely.

No suitable habitat

The project area does not include suitable habitat (mudflats, coastal areas or lakes etc.) which the species inhabits.

Chalinolobus dwyeri Large-eared Pied Bat

V Unlikely.

No suitable habitat.

The species requires a combination of sandstone cliff/escarpment to provide roosting habitat that is adjacent to higher fertility sites, particularly box gum woodlands or river/rainforest corridors which are used for foraging. No maternity roost sites are known in Queensland.



NCA Status


Anomalopus mackayi Five-clawed Worm-skink

V Unlikely.

No suitable habitat or records.

In Queensland, it only occurs in Bluegrass (Dichanthium sericeum) and/or Mitchell Grass dominated grasslands.

No grasslands occur within the project area.

Dasyurus hallucatus Northern Quoll, Digul

E

Unlikely.

No potential habitat or records.

The species occupies a diversity of habitat across its range, however, none of which occur within the project area as the entire site is uniform Brigalow woodland (not known habitat).

Delma torquata Collared Delma V V Unlikely. No potential habitat.

The Collared Delma usually inhabits eucalypt-dominated woodlands and open-forests within land zones 3 (alluvium), 9 (undulating country on fine-grained sedimentary rocks) and 10 (sandstone ranges) (Brigalow Belt Reptiles Workshop 2010).

Erythrotriorchis radiatus Red Goshawk V E Unlikely. No suitable habitat.

The species prefers forest and woodland with a mosaic of vegetation and large prey populations and permanent water. These features are not present within the project area.

Egernia rugosa Yakka Skink V V Potential. Marginal habitat and records.

Marginal habitat is present for the species in the form of degraded Brigalow woodland. Historical records of the species are present within 10km of the project area.

Furina dunmalli Dunmall's Snake V V Potential. Marginal habitat and records.

Marginal habitat is present for the species in the form of degraded Brigalow woodland. Historical records of the species are present within 10km of the project area.

Geophaps scripta scripta Squatter Pigeon (southern)

V V Unlikely. Lacking suitable habitat.

Although some potential habitat in the form of open-woodlands and scrub is present within the project area, the species is more generally associated with well-drained soils with patches of gravelly or dusty soil, which is not present within Brigalow woodlands.

Grantiella picta Painted Honeyeater

V V Likely. Suitable habitat, known in region.

Suitable habitat available in the form of Brigalow woodland (both regrowth and remnant) as well as the primary food source, mistletoe, in high abundance occurs both within the study area and disturbance area. The most recent occurrence nearby to the study are was recorded in 2005, approximately 6km south of the project area.



NCA Status


Lathamus discolor Swift Parrot CE E Unlikely. No suitable habitat.

Key habitats in northern NSW and south-eastern QLD include Narrow-leaved Red Ironbark Eucalyptus crebra, Forest Red Gum forests and Yellow Box forest. This habitat is not suitable within the project area. Further, no records of the species occur within the surrounding region.

Maccullochella peelii Murray Cod V No. No waterways present. This species is aquatic.

Nyctophilus corbeni Corben’s Long-eared Bat

V V Unlikely. No suitable habitat.

Throughout Queensland, the species habitat is dominated by various eucalypt and bloodwood species. The Brigalow woodland lacks these tree species, and also the distinct canopy and dense shrub layer preferred by the species.

Petauroides volans Greater Glider V

Unlikely. No suitable habitat.

The Greater Glider is known to inhabit eucalypt forests and woodlands and use hollows in old growth trees for shelter. The species requires a high abundance of hollow bearing trees. Brigalow woodland, the habitat identified within the project area, is unlikely to support the required hollow densities to support the species.

Phascolarctos cinereus Koala V V Unlikely. No suitable habitat.

Koalas are leaf-eating specialists, primarily consuming leaves from eucalypt species. Based on the field ecological assessment (Boobook, 2016), limited Eucalypt and no Corymbia or Angophora species were identified within the project area, therefore, it is unlikely the species would utilise the narrow strip of Brigalow woodland habitat identified within the project area.

Poephila cincta cincta Southern Black-throated Finch

E E Unlikely. No suitable habitat, outside known distribution.

The species requires open grassy woodlands and is usually found within close proximity to permanent water. Further, the project area is outside the species known distribution. Very few records occurring south of Rockhampton.

Pteropus poliocephalus Grey-headed Flying-fox

V - Unlikely. No suitable habitat.

The species typically camps in closed forests dominated by rainforest, melaleuca or mangroves. No suitable habitat is present within the project area.

Rostratula australis Australian Painted Snipe

E E Unlikely, No suitable habitat.

The species is dependent on wetlands. No wetlands have been identified within the project area or surrounding adjacent region appropriate for the species.



NCA Status


Threatened flora species

Homopholis belsonii Belson’s Panic V V Unlikely. Suitable habitat, however, targeted surveys failed to locate the species.

Although suitable habitat (5.06 ha) is present for the species and it has been recorded within the surrounding area, a targeted flora survey was conducted for the species by a suitably qualified person and was not detected. The survey effort was conducted within the prime conditions for identifying the species and was not detected, therefore, given the small project area required to be surveyed and the lack of detection, the species is considered unlikely to occur within the disturbance footprint or within the adjacent area (project area).

Thesium australe Austral Toadflax V V Unlikely. No suitable habitat.

Austral Toadflax is semi-parasitic on roots of a range of grass species, notably Kangaroo Grass (Themeda triandra). Kangaroo Grass (primary habitat) was not identified within the study area. In addition, a targeted flora survey was conducted which did not identify the species presence.

¹ CE = critically endangered, E = endangered, V = vulnerable ² Unless otherwise referenced, source of information has been derived from the relevant species ‘Species Profiles and Threats Database – Department of the Environment’.


Impact Assessment In determining the significance of impact associated with the overtaking lanes the relevant criteria listed in the Matters of National Environmental Significance – Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1 (DoE) dated 2013 was applied. Brigalow (Acacia harpophylla dominant and co-dominant) TEC Ecology and distribution The listed Brigalow ecological community extends from south of Charters Towers in Queensland, in a broad swathe east of Blackall, Charleville and Cunnamulla, south to northern New South Wales near Narrabri and Bourke (DoE, 2016). The community occurs within a range of bioregions within Queensland, however, predominantly within Brigalow Belt North, Brigalow Belt South, Darling Riverine Plains and Southeast Queensland (DoE, 2016a). The community is characterised by the presence of Brigalow, with other dominant species generally including Belah (Casuarina cristata) and Eucalyptus species. In Queensland, sixteen REs provide the floristic composition of a Brigalow TEC, including RE 11.4.3 ground-truthed within the project area. A patch of Brigalow vegetation must meet the diagnostic characteristics and condition thresholds listed in the Approved Conservation Advice for the community in order to be considered the TEC (DoE, 2013a). Brigalow vegetation is usually associated with deep gilgaied clays, sedentary clays, miscellaneous deep clays and loamy red soils. The soils usually have a clay field-texture throughout the profile, are relatively fertile and tend to have a high salt content (DoE, 2016a). Brigalow (Acacia harpophylla dominant and co-dominant) TEC within the project area The project site is located in the southern Brigalow Belt Bioregion. The characteristic vegetation for this province is Brigalow (Acacia harpophylla) woodland/open forest. As evident in Figure 8 below, clearing or thinning of native vegetation for grazing activities has occurred over much of the area. Within the road reserve that is potentially affected by the action, there are two corridors of brigalow (Acacia harpophylla) vegetation, one either side of the Warrego Highway. Similar isolated strips of brigalow occur within the adjacent landscape.

Figure 8. Aerial view of project area illustrating surrounding landscape. The RE 11.4.3 is a component Regional Ecosystem of the Brigalow (Acacia harpophylla dominant and co-dominant). For each area of potential TEC, Boobook Environmental Consulting conducted an assessment of the vegetation against TEC threshold criteria (DoE 2013). It was determined that most patches of potential TEC were excluded on the basis that they were less than 0.5 ha in extent. One strip on the northern side of the Highway (western end) exceeds the area threshold. However, this strip was considered not to meet condition criteria in that it is very narrow (averaging <3 m width) with non-native grasses dominant at its edges and very common evidence of soil and vegetation disturbance throughout the length of the strip. Only one area was considered to meet the condition criteria, this being a strip on the south-eastern end of the Site and extending eastward beyond the Site boundary. Figure 9 provides an example of the brigalow TEC within the Project Site, while Figure 10 presents an example of brigalow vegetation that is not classified as brigalow TEC.


Figure 9. Brigalow TEC in Project Site Figure 10. Non-TEC brigalow in Project Site

The one patch of Brigalow (dominant and co-dominant) TEC that was identified comprised a total area of 1.4 ha. This observed patch of Brigalow TEC occurs within the southern road reserve of the Warrego Highway and is limited to the easterly extent of the project area. The TEC meets the diagnostic criteria described in Approved Conservation Advice for the Brigalow (Acacia harpophylla dominant and co-dominant) ecological community (2013), that is the presence of Acacia harpophylla is dominant in the tree layer and is one of the 16 Queensland regional Ecosystems, that is RE 11.4.3. This patch also satisfies the condition thresholds (patch size greater than 0.5ha and exotic perennial plants compromise less than 50% of the total vegetation cover). No other Brigalow vegetation occurring within the project area meets the criteria of a Brigalow TEC due to failing on the key diagnostic characteristics and condition threshold (Boobook Ecological Consulting 2016) as defined in Approved Conservation Advice for the Brigalow (Acacia harpophylla dominant and co-dominant) ecological community (2013). Of this 1.4 ha patch of Brigalow TEC, 0.30 ha will be directly impacted by the proposed action. This 0.30 ha will be taken from the most westerly extent of the TEC, leaving the remaining 1.10 ha of Brigalow TEC within a continual linear shape to the east of development (outside the proposed project site area). This patch of remaining vegetation will still meet the condition thresholds of a Brigalow TEC described above. It is unlikely that the remaining patch of Brigalow TEC will be impacted by the proposed action, for the following reasons:

• Management and mitigation measures will be employed to ensure the vegetation clearance is confined to the 0.30 ha indicated within the disturbance footprint; and

• Indirect impact will be restricted to slight weed incursion along the clearance boundary. However, the patch remains in a highly disturbed environment and is very linear in shape, which reduces the likelihood of additional edge effects.

Impacts to 0.30 ha of Brigalow TEC have been assessed against the significant impact criteria (Table ). Proposed action impacts are not likely to be significant on this MNES value. Table 4: Significant impact criteria - Brigalow TEC

Significant impact criteria Significant impact Response to criteria

Reduce the extent of an ecological community No

The extent of occurrence for Brigalow TEC will remain unchanged following the development of the project.

Fragment or increase fragmentation of an ecological community, for example by clearing vegetation for roads or transmission lines

No

The Brigalow TEC occurs within the south-easterly side of the Warrego Highway road reserve. The Brigalow woodland vegetation has previously been fragmented through the development of the Warrego Highway and other surrounding land uses. The proposed development will clear the westerly extent of the patch, however, will not fragment the remaining patch further. A remaining continuous patch of 1.05 ha will persist adjacent (easterly) to the disturbance area.

Adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of an ecological community No

Brigalow vegetation is usually associated with deep gilgaied clays, sedentary clays, miscellaneous deep clays and loamy red soils. Erosion and sediment controls will be implemented to avoid adverse impacts to the surrounding habitat (remaining 1.05 ha of Brigalow TEC) and soil integrity within the project area. The removal of 0.30 ha of Brigalow TEC is unlikely to adversely affect this habitat.

Modify or destroy abiotic (non-living) factors (such as water, nutrients, or soil) necessary for an ecological community’s survival, including reduction of

No

The Brigalow TEC patch is surrounded by a previously cleared landscape. The current TEC patch has survived (structurally and condition thresholds) through surrounding



groundwater levels, or substantial alteration of surface water drainage patterns.

clearing events, therefore, it is unlikely that the proposed action will impact the ecological community’s survival.

Cause a substantial change in the species composition of an occurrence of an ecological community, including causing a decline or loss of functionally important species, for example through regular burning or flora or fauna harvesting

No

The proposed action will remove a quarter of the identified Brigalow TEC within the project area. Clearing will be taken from the west, leaving a patch continuous patch of 1.05 ha to the east of the project area. This patch will still meet the condition threshold (greater than 0.5 ha) of a Brigalow TEC. Additionally, the remaining patch will be managed to avoid incursion of exotic ground species, and will not be altered by fire or further clearing. The remaining patch will be demarcated to avoid accidental clearing beyond the proposed disturbance area.

Cause a substantial reduction in the quality or integrity of an occurrence of an ecological community, including, but not limited to: – assisting invasive species, that are harmful to the listed ecological community, to become established, or – causing regular mobilisation of fertilisers, herbicides or other chemicals or pollutants into the ecological community which kill or inhibit the growth of species in the ecological community

No

Clearing is proposed to take the western extent of the patch of Brigalow TEC. The configuration of the patch (linear), will not be changed, therefore, the current state of edge effects impacts and unlikely to be increased by the proposed action. Effective erosion and sediment controls, in addition to weed management strategies will be implemented to ensure that sediment or weed incursion will not encroach into the remaining patch of TEC. Therefore, substantial reduction to the quality or integrity of the TEC is unlikely.

Interfere with the recovery of an ecological community No

The project will result in 0.30 ha of Brigalow TEC being directly cleared. This equates to 0.02 % of mapped REs analogous to Brigalow TEC (potential TEC) occurring within the westerly most extent of the Eastern Darling Downs subregion. The clearing does not interfere with the recovery of the TEC.

An area 1.4 ha of Brigalow TEC was identified within and directly east of the project area. Of the 1.4 ha of Brigalow TEC, 0.30 ha will be directly impacted by the proposed project. The 1.3 ha of Brigalow TEC identified outside the project area will not be affected. The impacts from the proposed action on the Brigalow TEC are unlikely to be significant due to the small scale of clearing required and the remaining Brigalow TEC patch remaining viable in the project area. Painted Honeyeater (Grantiella picta) Ecology and distribution The species has a broad distribution across eastern Australia, but is nowhere very numerous (Department of Land Resource Management, 2015). The species is highly nomadic and is distributed mainly west of the Great Dividing Range when in Queensland (Rowland, J. 2012). The Painted Honeyeater inhabits dry open forests and woodlands, and is strongly associated with mistletoe (Rowland, J. 2012). It will mostly occur in woodland habitats with a high abundance of mistletoes. These woodlands are usually are dominant with Acacia spp (including Brigalow, Acacia pendula and Acacia aneura), Belah (Casuarina cristata) and Bull-oak (Allocasuarina luehmannii) (Rowland, J. 2012). Regrowth woodland which contains similar or higher densities of mistletoe than remnant woodland is a key habitat source for the species. Although the species is more common in wider blocks of remnant woodlands than in narrower strips, such as within a road reserve, the species can still occur within narrow roadside strips if ample mistletoe fruit is available (OEH, 2015). The species has a highly specialised diet of mainly mistletoe fruit, and is typically found in the vicinity of abundant fruiting mistletoes. The species relies heavily on the Amyema genus of mistletoe (OEH, 2015; Rowland, J. 2012).


Painted Honeyeater within the project area The Atlas of Living Australia contains records of the Painted Honeyeater approximately 6 km south of the project area. The most recent record was taken in 2005 and occurs adjacent to mapped Brigalow vegetation. The species has not been recorded within the project area, however, the project area contains foraging resources, primarily in the form of mistletoe within the Brigalow woodland, suitable for the species. Several small patches of Brigalow woodland, occurring within narrow linear strips was identified within the project area, comprising of approximately 7 ha. Due to the high presence of mistletoe, particularly of the preferred genus (Amyema) of the Painted Honeyeater, the entire Brigalow woodland habitat was assumed to be habitat for the species. Due to the species highly nomadic nature and sparse distribution throughout the eastern extent of Australia, it is unlikely that the project area hosts critical habitat or an important population of the species. Potential impacts and mitigation An area of 5.06 ha of potential habitat was identified within the project area. Of this, 4.14 ha will require clearing. Any removal of Brigalow, the most important host plant of mistletoe within the project area, is likely to impact on this food resource. Although clearing of a resource will occur, the species is generally is more associated within larger tracts of remnant vegetation, therefore, impacts to an important population is unlikely. In addition, no records have been observed within the project area. According to the field assessment, mistletoe is an abundant resource in both regrowth and remnant Brigalow communities within the wider area (Boobook, 2016). Approximately 1670 ha of Brigalow woodland has been mapped within the western most extent of the Eastern Darling Downs subregion. Mistletoe occurs within the wider area and is assumed to occur in all Brigalow woodland communities, as Brigalow is the main host of the species in the area. The clearing of the 4.14 ha of Painted Honeyeater habitat equates to approximately 0.3% of Brigalow woodland within the western most extent of the Eastern Darling Downs subregion. Although the species may utilise the project area periodically (occasional visitor), given suitable habitat within the surrounding wider area, the proposed impact is unlikely to impact on critical habitat for the species. Impacts to 4.14 ha of Painted Honeyeater habitat have been assessed against the significant impact criteria (Table ). Impacts to the Painted Honeyeater are unlikely to be significant. Table 5: Significant impact criteria - Painted Honeyeater


Lead to a long-term decrease in the size of an important population of a species No

Whilst the Painted Honeyeater is likely to occur in the project area, it does not have an important population at this location.

Reduce the area of occupancy of an important population No


Fragment an existing important population into two or more populations No


Adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of the species No

Habitat for the Painted Honeyeater within the study area has been determined as a small patch of foraging habitat, however, it is not considered to be habitat critical to the survival of the species

Disrupt the breeding cycle of an important population No


Modify, destroy, remove or isolate or decrease the availability or quality of habitat to the extent that the species is likely to decline

No

The habitat patch to be removed is 4.14 ha, situated within a disturbed landscape. There are a lot more similar patches of similar and better quality (i.e. larger) in the Eastern Darling Downs subregion. The species is highly nomadic and will be able to access these other resources in the absence of the vegetation to be removed in the study area. Therefore, the proposed habitat removal is unlikely to modify, destroy, remove or isolate or decrease the availability or quality of habitat to the extent that the species is likely to decline.

Introduce disease that may cause the species to decline No

There are no known diseases that threaten the species. Good practise vehicle hygiene protocols should be observed during works to ensure pathogens are not introduced to the study area.



Interfere substantially with the recovery of the species No

There is no adopted or made Recovery Plan for this species. However, key conservation and management actions listed within the Conservation Advice state actions should include protecting all woodland from clearing in which the Painted Honeyeaters have been regularly sighted. No regular sightings of the species have been recorded within the vegetation present within the study area, with the closest records approximately 6km south and recorded last in 2005. Therefore, it is unlikely the take of the vegetation will interfere substantially with the recovery of the species given that similar value habitat is available within the greater surrounding landscape.

Yakka Skink (Egernia rugosa) Ecology and distribution The core of the Yakka Skink’s distribution is within the Mulga Lands and Brigalow Belt bioregions (EPA, 2008). The species occurs on a wide variety of vegetation types including Poplar Box (Eucalyptus populnea) Ironbark (Eucalyptus spp.), Brigalow, White Cypress Pine (Callitris glaucophylla) and Lancewood (Acacia shirleyi) woodlands and open forests and substrates including rocky, sandy, clay and loamy red earth. These substrates correspond to Queensland RE Land Zones 3, 4, 5, 7, 9 and 10 (DoE, 2016). The species commonly utilises microhabitat as shelter, such as partly buried rocks, logs, tree stumps, dense leaf litter and fallen bark (Brigalow Belt Reptiles Workshop 2010). Individuals dig deep burrow systems between partly buried rocks or logs or utilised rabbit warrens or deep tunnel / gully erosion (EPA, 2008). The species is known to occur in Brigalow TEC, and generally requires large, healthy connected patches of suitable habitat (EPA, 2008). Distinguishing evidence of the species presence may include the communal latrine sites the species produces. The species defecate in a pile outside burrow entrances and may use several sites during the year with the occurred burrow identified by scat piles (DoE, 2016). Yakka Skink within the project area The Atlas of Living Australia contains one record of the species occurring within 10 km of project area. No evidence of the species, including burrows or latrines were recognised during the field survey, however, the precautionary principle was applied and the Brigalow woodland was assumed to be suitable habitat for the species. As such, the 5.06 ha of Brigalow woodland habitat identified within the project area is considered suitable habitat for the Yakka Skink. Due to the species high site-fidelity and limited capacity to disperse from a colony site (DoE, 2016b), it is unlikely that the project area hosts critical habitat or an important population of the species due to the lack of evidence of the species occurrence, and the surrounding available habitat within the landscape. Potential impacts and mitigation The species is threatened by loss of habitat due to clearing and thinning, inappropriate roadside management through loss of microhabitat features in remnant roadside vegetation strips and feral animal attacks (DoE, 2016b). The proposed action will require clearing 4.14 ha out of the 5.06 ha of potential habitat identified for the species within the project area. It should be noted that, although 5.06 ha of vegetation clearing is proposed, the state of the vegetation is predominantly disturbed, with evidence of previous clearing and canopy die-back. Potential impacts can be mitigated by retaining fallen timber and other microhabitat features, where possible to facilitate the retention of habitat features required for the species survival. Where microhabitat features can be salvaged post clearing, they should be relocated into adjacent potential habitat. Potential impacts are limited to the 4.14 ha of Brigalow woodland that will be directly cleared during the proposed action. Given the disturbed nature of the project area, it is unlikely that the proposed clearing will indirectly impact the remaining Brigalow woodland within the project area. Impacts to 4.14 ha of Yakka Skink habitat have been assessed against the significant impact criteria (Table 6). Impacts to the Yakka Skink are unlikely to be significant.


Table 6: Significant impact criteria - Yakka Skink



Whilst the Yakka Skink may occur within the project area, it does not have an important population at this location.






Habitat for the Yakka Skink within the project area has been determined as a small patch of Brigalow woodland habitat, however, it is not considered to be habitat critical to the survival of the species




No

The habitat patch to be removed is 4.14 ha, situated within a disturbed landscape. There are a lot more similar patches of similar and better quality (i.e. larger) in the Eastern Darling Downs subregion. The species utilises a range of vegetation types and substrates. Therefore, the proposed habitat removal of a uniformed patch of Brigalow is unlikely to modify, destroy, remove or isolate or decrease the availability or quality of habitat to the extent that the species is likely to decline.


There are no known diseases that threaten the species. Good practise vehicle hygiene protocols should be observed during works to ensure pathogens are not introduced to the project area.


The Threat Abatement and Recovery for the species highlight actions that may improve the conservation status of the species. Notably, actions include maintaining large, healthy connected patches of suitable habitat and retaining fallen timber and ground cover. The project area does not obtain large connected patches of suitable habitat, rather, fragmented, disturbed linear patches of potential habitat. As such, the proposed clearing will not interfere substantially with the recovery of the species. In addition, fallen timber and other microhabitat features, will be retained and relocated into the adjacent potential habitat, where practical.

Dunmall’s Snake (Furina dunmalli) Ecology and distribution The distribution of Dunmall's Snake extends from near the Queensland border throughout the Brigalow Belt South and Nandewar bioregions, as far south as Ashford in New South Wales (DoE, 2016c). The species has been historically recorded in Oakey and Miles, nearby to the project area, amongst other locations predominantly within the south-eastern interior of Queensland (DoE, 2016c). The species has a highly fragmented distribution, especially in the Darling Downs due to extensive land clearing practices (DoE, 2016c). Limited is known about the species, however, it is very cryptic and limited records of the species occur. As such, given the species rarity and difficulty in detecting the species, the occurrence of important habitat is considered to be a surrogate for an ‘important population’ (DoE, 2016c). The species has been found in a broad range of habitats, including woodlands comprising of Brigalow, Cypress and Bull-oak (DoE, 2016c) and shelters under fallen timber and ground litter (Brigalow Belt Reptiles Workshop, 2010). Dunmall’s Snake within the project area The project area is within the Dunmall’s Snakes known range and habitat type (Boobook, 2016). No evidence of the species was identified within the field assessment, however, given the secretive nature of the species, the precautionary principle


was applied and the Brigalow woodland was assumed to be suitable habitat for the species. As such, the 5.06 ha of Brigalow woodland habitat identified within the project area is considered suitable habitat for the Dunmall’s Snake. Important habitat for the species is illustrated on Map 10 of the ‘Draft Referral Guidelines for the nationally listed Brigalow Belt reptiles’ (DSEWPaC, 2011). The closest mapped important habitat to the project area occurs west, near Miles, Queensland. No important population or critical habitat occurs within the project area. Potential impacts and mitigation Potential impacts are limited to the impacts upon clearing 4.14 ha of the 5.06 ha identified potential Dunmall’s Snake habitat within the project area. This habitat has previously been disturbed through previous road upgrades and fencing. The habitat is likely to lack some of the microhabitat features the species prefers, such as fallen timber and ground litter, however, where microhabitat features can be salvaged post clearing, they should be relocated into adjacent potential habitat to mitigate potential impacts. Impacts to 4.14 ha of Dunmall’s Snake habitat have been assessed against the significant impact criteria (Table 7). Impacts to the Dunmall’s Snake are unlikely to be significant. Table 7: Significant impact criteria - Dunmall's Snake



Whilst the Dunall’s Snake may occur within the project area, it does not have an important population at this location.


Whilst the Dunmall’s Snake may occur within the project area, it does not have an important population at this location.




Habitat for the Dunmall’s Snake within the project area has been determined as a small patch of Brigalow woodland habitat, however, it is not considered to be habitat critical to the survival of the species.




No

The habitat patch to be removed is 4.14 ha, situated within a disturbed landscape. There are a lot more similar patches of similar and better quality (i.e. larger) in the Eastern Darling Downs subregion. The species utilises a range of vegetation types and substrates. Therefore, the proposed habitat removal of a uniformed patch of Brigalow is unlikely to modify, destroy, remove or isolate or decrease the availability or quality of habitat to the extent that the species is likely to decline.


There are no known diseases that threaten the species. Good practise vehicle hygiene protocols should be observed during works to ensure pathogens are not introduced to the project area.


No formal Recovery Plan for the species is available, however, the main threats to the species is broad scale land clearing and habitat modification. The project area does not obtain large connected patches of suitable habitat, rather, fragmented, disturbed linear patches of potential habitat. As such, the proposed clearing will not interfere substantially with the recovery of the species. In addition, fallen timber and other microhabitat features, will be retained and relocated into the adjacent potential habitat, where practical.


Conclusion The proposed action will directly impact 0.30 ha of Brigalow TEC, as well as 4.14 ha of potential habitat (Brigalow woodland) for the Painted Honeyeater, Yakka Skink and Dunmall’s Snake. Due to the small nature of Brigalow TEC clearance, and surrounding similar value habitat for the threatened species within the subregion, no significant residual impacts are likely to occur from the proposed action. 3.1 (e) Listed migratory species The EPBC protected matters search identified ten listed migratory species, all birds (listed in Table 8 below), as possibly occurring within the project area site. Fourteen listed marine species were also identified. The species are listed in the EPBC Matters of NES Site 5 & 7 report in Attachment D. The only species or species habitat identified as likely to occur within the area was the non-threatened Apus pacificus (fork-tailed swift). The migratory species identified within PMST results were reviewed for likelihood of occurrence. Table 8 below provides justification for species being assessed as ‘unlikely’, the term defined as ‘a low to very low probablility that the species, population or ecological community uses/occurs on the site’.


The criteria for including migratory species under the various international migratory bird agreements mean that the species included may not be of conservation significance throughout their global range. Therefore, although migratory species are considered as MNES, they may not contribute to key environmental concerns for a particular site, especially when they are not also considered threatened. The migratory species identified as potentially occurring in the Project Site (Apus pacificus) is a highly mobile species which has a large natural distribution and are found in many habitats throughout Australia. The fork tailed swift’s breeds in the northern hemisphere, so this activity will not be affected by the proposed action. An assessment of the expected impact on the identified migratory species potentially occurring in the project footprint was undertaken against the Significant Impact Guidelines (DoE 2013). The proposed action will not have a significant impact because: (1) the species is widely distributed; (2) the proposed action will have a small direct impact on brigalow communities which are not considered important habitat for the migratory species; (3) the proposed action will not result in invasive species that are harmful to the migratory species; (4) the proposed action will not seriously disrupt the lifecycle of an ecologically significant proportion of the population. Also, the area of disturbance resulting from the proposed action is small and will not result in significant impacts to any of the identified migratory or marine species.


Table 8: Likelihood of occurrence of identified migratory species


NCA Status


Apus pacificus Fork-tailed Swift M Unlikely, However, within known distribution.

The species is almost exclusively aerial. It is unlikely that the species would be utilising a small linear tract of vegetation (within the project area) to locate insect prey, when preferred habitat dry and open habitat are within proximity to the project area (State Forests north and south).

Cuculus optatus Oriental Cuckoo M Unlikely. No suitable habitat.

The species favours monsoon forest and rainforests, habitat which is not present within the project area.

Hirundapus caudacutus White-throated Needletail

M Unlikely. No suitable habitat.

Occurs most often over open forest and rainforest, as well as heathland, and remnant vegetation on farmland.

Merops ornatus Rainbow Bee-eater


Open forests and woodlands, shrublands, farmland, areas of human habitation, inland and coastal sand dune systems, heathland, sedgeland, vine forest and vine thicket.

Motacilla flava Yellow Wagtail M Unlikely. No suitable habitat.

The species requires bare ground and swamp margins. There is no suitable habitat within the project area.

Myiagra cyanoleuca Satin Flycatcher M Unlikely. No suitable habitat.

Satin Flycatchers mainly inhabit eucalypt forests, often near wetlands or watercourses. They generally occur in moister, taller forests than the other flycatcher species. This habitat is not present within the narrow road reserve Brigalow vegetation.

Rhipidura rufifrons Rufous Fantail M Unlikely. No suitable habitat.

The species inhabits wet sclerophyll forests usually with a shrubby understorey often including ferns. This habitat is not present within the project area.

Ardea alba Great Egret, White Egret


Swamps and marshes, grasslands, margins of rivers and lakes, salt pans, esturine mudflats and other wetland habitats.

Ardea ibis Cattle Egret M Unlikely. No suitable habitat.

Grasslands, wooded lands, terrestrial wetlands. Shallow, open and fresh wetlands including meadows and swamps with low emergent vegetation and abundant aquatic flora. Feeds in low-lying grasslands, pastures and croplands. Roosts near lakes and swamps.

Gallinago hardwickii Latham’s Snipe M Unlikely. No suitable habitat.

The species occurs in permanent and ephemeral wetlands. No wetlands occur within the project area.

¹ CE = critically endangered, E = endangered, V = vulnerable ² Unless otherwise referenced, source of information has been derived from the relevant species ‘Species Profiles and Threats Database – Department of the Environment’


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 The proposed Project area is not located within a Commonwealth Marine Area. Nature and extent of likely impact

No impact to a Commonwealth marine area will occur as a result of the proposed action. 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 The proposed action is not located on Commonwealth land. Nature and extent of likely impact

No impact to Commonwealth land will occur as a result of the proposed action.

3.1 (h) The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park

Description The project is not located within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Nature and extent of likely impact

No impact to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park will occur as a result of the proposed action.

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

Description

This project is not a coal seam gas or large mining development. Nature and extent of likely impact

The proposed action will not impact on a water resource as a result of a coal or coal seam gas development.

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 Commonwealth or a Commonwealth agency?

X No


If yes, nature & extent of likely impact on the whole environment

3.2 (c) Is the proposed action to be taken in a Commonwealth marine area?

X No


If yes, nature & extent of likely impact on the whole environment (in addition to 3.1(f))


3.2 (d) Is the proposed action to be taken on Commonwealth land?

X No


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 Great Barrier Reef Marine Park?

X No


If yes, nature & extent of likely impact on the whole environment (in addition to 3.1(h))

3.3 Other important features of the environment The Environmental Scoping Report (2016) (Attachment B) provides an environmental assessment of the proposed action and project site. 3.3 (a) Flora and fauna

Flora

The project area is not within a High Risk Area on the Nature Conservation Act 1992 Flora Survey Trigger Map. The threatened (vulnerable) flora species Picris barbarorum according to the Queensland Nature Conservation Act 1992 is listed on the DEHP database (Wildnet) from within a 1 km radius of the project. This species was not observed during the field surveys.

Boobook Ecological Consulting did not identify any Endangered, Vulnerable or Near Threatened flora species or MNES flora species during the survey. It was considered that potential habitat for the grass Homopholis belsonii was present on the Site, though much of this has been impacted by previous disturbance to soil and vegetation due to road works and fence construction with associated ingress of non-native grasses, especially Green Panic (Megathyrsus maximus).

Fauna

No Endangered, Vulnerable or Near Threatened fauna species or MNES fauna species were identified during the survey. As discussed in Section 3.1(d) above, habitat for the Painted Honeyeater, Yakka Skink and Dunmall’s Snake was observed during the field assessment. Any removal of brigalow vegetation is likely to impact on this fauna habitat. However as regrowth and remnant brigalow vegetation communities occur in the wider area, and the small area of existing brigalow to be cleared for the project, the impacts to fauna are unlikely to be significant.

3.3 (b) Hydrology, including water flows The Project Site is within the Condamine River Catchment in the Murray-Darling basin. The closest permanent watercourse is the Condamine River, approximately 19 km south of the Project Site. The topography of the project site is flat. Table drains on both sides of the highway run parallel to the road reserve and pass through a small culvert approximately in the middle of the project site that allows rainfall runoff to flow southward. Drainage areas are wide and shallow with no evidence of standing water. There are numerous ephemeral drainage lines in the surrounding landscape that flow during floods and rain events. 3.3 (c) Soil and Vegetation characteristics The project site crosses a landscape dominated by flat clay plains with grades 1-2%. These plains contain numerous small localised depressions, known as ‘Gilgai’ microrelief. The surrounding lands are primarily moderately deep, medium to course structured self-mulching cracking clays (black vertosols) occur throughout the project area. As described in Section 3.1 (d) above, the project site is located in the southern Brigalow Belt Bioregion. The characteristic vegetation for this province is Brigalow (Acacia harpophylla) woodland/open forest. However, as evident in Figure 8 above in Section 3.1 (d), clearing or thinning of native vegetation for grazing activities has occurred over much of the area, resulting in the present landscape being dominated by pasture grass species.


3.3 (d) Outstanding natural features There are no outstanding natural features within the project area and surrounds. Extensive clearing of remnant vegetation for grazing purposes has occurred in the surrounding landscape (Figure 8 above in Section 3.1 (d)). 3.3 (e) Remnant native vegetation The entirety of the project site was located within mapped (DSITI 2016) remnant vegetation currently mapped as RE 11.4.3 Brigalow (Acacia harpophylla dominant and co-dominant). The presence of woody vegetation corresponding to this RE was confirmed during a flora survey conducted by Boobook Ecological Consulting (Report in Appendix A). However, while some of the vegetation present is attributable to RE 11.4.3 on floristic and structural features, it was stated that its configuration would not allow mapping at the 1:100,000 scale used for vegetation mapping in inland Queensland as the width of the linear strips is far less than the minimum 75 metre mappable at this scale (Neldner et al. 2012). In addition, other areas described as advanced regrowth do not currently meet structural thresholds for the RE (DEHP 2016) and would not be mapped in State mapping as remnant (as defined by the Vegetation Management Act 1999 – Queensland Government 2016). As a result current mapping (DSITI2016) over-estimates the extent of remnant RE 11.4.3 present at the project site. Other strips of remnant vegetation on freehold properties in the area surrounding the Project Site have not been mapped or classified as regional ecosystems (Figure 11 below).

Figure 9. Mapped regional ecosystems within the Project Site area. 3.3 (f) Gradient (or depth range if action is to be taken in a marine area) The topography of the area is characterised by flat alluvial plains with gentle undulations, predominantly surrounded by highly modified grazing land. 3.3 (g) Current state of the environment The area surrounding the proposed action is currently used extensively for grazing purposes. These areas are generally dominated by pastures and weeds. Ecological values are limites due to the highly modified landscape. The brigalow communities in these areas have generally been cleared (refer to Figures 8 and 11 above of aerial views), though a few fragments remain. The aerial pictures in Figures 8 and 11 above illustrate the extend of cleared vegetation in the landscape. Figures 12 and 13 below is a good indication of the surrounding landscape. Most of these patches have not been classified as brigalow RE 11.4.3.


Figures 12 and 13. Grazing landscape south of the Project Site The Western Railway Line and rail reserve is directly north of the Warrego highway (Figure 14 below). An undeclared road reserve supporting remnant brigalow is north of the railway reserve. A number of weed species such as velvety tree pear (Opuntia tomentosa) and mother of millions (Bryophyllum houghtonii) occur in the landscape, including the Project Site. Weeds in the Project Site will be controlled prior to construction commencing.

Figure 14. Railway corridor in relation to Warrego Highway Project Site 3.3 (h) Commonwealth Heritage Places or other places recognised as having heritage values No Commonwealth Heritage Places or places on the Register of National Estate occur in the Project area. 3.3 (i) Indigenous heritage values An Indigenous heritage survey was undertaken on 22 August 2016. The Barunggam people will present inductions prior to land clearing activities and conduct monitoring during clearing and grubbing activities (Wallace 2016). 3.3 (j) Other important or unique values of the environment No other important or unique values of the environment have been identified within the Project area or immediate vicinity. 3.3 (k) Tenure of the action area (eg freehold, leasehold) The area of works is within road reserve tenure for a State-controlled road. 3.3 (l) Existing land/marine uses of area Existing land uses include the present Warrego Highway and Western Line Railway as major transport routes, and rural and agricultural uses (grazing) adjacent to the road reserve. 3.3 (m) Any proposed land/marine uses of area No major changes to land use are planned for the Project area as the work is completely within road reserve for a State-controlled road.


4 Environmental outcomes As part of determining the status of brigalow vegetation, communities and regional ecosystems within the proposed action area, an assessment has been undertaken of brigalow along the Warrego Highway road reserve between Dalby and Roma (Figure 15 below). The assessment identified sections of road reserve that contained brigalow that is not classified as a Regional Ecosystem or a TEC, and also identified sections that contained brigalow that are likely or possibly to be Brigalow TEC.

Figure 15. Brigalow identified along the Warrego Highway between Dalby and Roma Following the initial assessment, it is planned to conduct additional ecological surveys later in 2016 or early 2017 to assess ecological values (flora, flauna, REs and TECs) between Oakey and Roma. This data is essential for planning future road infrastructure projects, for assessing the impact these projects will have on MNES species and TECs, to determine whether proposed projects can be modified to avoid MNES, and also for the EPBC Act Staged Assessment of future Warrego Highway Upgrade Strategy projects.

5 Measures to avoid or reduce impacts Two measures have been initiated to reduce the impact to the Brigalow TEC. One initiative has been to design the overtaking lanes as far as possible from the Brigalow TEC, that is as far west as possible. This action has reduced the area of Brigalow TEC from the initial estimate of 0.50 hectares to 0.30 hectares. The second initiative has been to design the road batters with a 1:6 gradient instead of a 1:4 gradient. Although having a flatter batter slope increases the quantity of material required to construct the road formation, this action reduces the safety zone from 12.0 metres to 10.5 metres, and hence, reduces the amount of brigalow vegetation to be cleared. This will provide a narrow buffer zone of linear brigalow vegetation (as depicted in Figure 9 of Section 2.1) between the Warrego Highway and neighbouring properties that will link the Brigalow TEC immediately east of the project area with patches of brigalow vegetation in the road corridor west of the project area. Revegetating areas within the road corridor of the Warrego Highway was considered. However, due the width of the road corridor and the area required for infrastructure of overtaking lanes and safety zones, there are no areas for revegetation. Existing regulatory controls identified in section 2.4 and 2.5 of this referral will apply to the proposed action. In addition, the following measures will be implemented by TMR and Contractors to reduce the impacts on the Brigalow TEC.

• Mark remnant Brigalow TEC adjacent to the development footprint (that is immediately east of the project area) with physical barriers to create no-go zones during construction, with no access or incidental disturbance permitted. A clause will be included in the Contract dicuments informing the Contractor of the Brigalow TEC east of the project area and stating this vegetation must not be impacted upon. These measures will eliminate the risk of damage to the brigalow TEC from damage and soil compaction during construction, and reduce the risk of weed invasion during and after construction.

• Additional workspace areas (for example, vehicle turnaround locations) will be located in non-TEC areas. • Any machinery and fill material brought to the site will be verified as weed-free to reduce the spread of weeds into

the surrounding Brigalow TEC. • Weeds identified within the work area will be controlled prior to construction commencing. • Exposed soil and stockpiles will be protected with adequate erosion and sediment control measures to reduce the

loss of topsoil and movement of sediment into adjacent brigalow TEC during construction.


6 Conclusion on the likelihood of significant impacts

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

X No, complete section 6.2

Yes, complete section 6.3

6.2 Proposed action IS NOT a controlled action. The Proponent considers that the proposed action should not be considered a controlled action. Field assessments conducted by Boobook (2016) confirmed the presence of 1.4 ha of Brigalow (dominant or co-dominant) TEC within the project area and immediately east of the project area, as well as potential habitat (5.06 ha within project area) for a range of threatened fauna and flora species. The potential species were assessed for their likelihood of occurrence, which resulted in one species (Painted Honeyeater) considered as ‘likely’ to be present, and two species (Yakka Skink and Dunmall’s Snake) considered as ‘potential’ within the project area. The proposed action will directly impact 0.30 ha of Brigalow TEC, as well as 4.14 ha of potential habitat (Brigalow woodland) for the animals Painted Honeyeater, Yakka Skink, Dunmall’s Snake and Belson’s Panic grass (the 4.14 ha of potential habitat includes the 0.3 ha of Brigalow TEC). However, due to the small nature of Brigalow TEC clearance, and surrounding similar value habitat for the threatened species within the subregion, no significant residual impacts are likely to occur from the proposed action.

6.3 Proposed action IS a controlled action

Matters likely to be impacted

World Heritage values (sections 12 and 15A)

National Heritage places (sections 15B and 15C)

Wetlands of international importance (sections 16 and 17B)

Listed threatened species and communities (sections 18 and 18A)

Listed migratory species (sections 20 and 20A)

Protection of the environment from nuclear actions (sections 21 and 22A)

Commonwealth marine environment (sections 23 and 24A)

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (sections 24B and 24C)

A water resource, in relation to coal seam gas development and large coal mining development (sections 24D and 24E)

Protection of the environment from actions involving Commonwealth land (sections 26 and 27A)

Protection of the environment from Commonwealth actions (section 28)

Commonwealth Heritage places overseas (sections 27B and 27C)


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?

X

Provide details Please refer to www.tmr.qld.gov.au

7.2 Has either (a) the party proposing to take the action, or (b) if a permit has been applied for in relation to the action, the person making the application - ever been subject to any proceedings under a Commonwealth, State or Territory law for the protection of the environment or the conservation and sustainable use of natural resources?

X

If yes, provide details Please refer to www.tmr.qld.gov.au

7.3 If the party taking the action is a corporation, will the action be taken in accordance with the corporation’s environmental policy and planning framework?

X

If yes, provide details of environmental policy and planning framework Please refer to www.tmr.qld.gov.au

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?

X

Provide name of proposal and EPBC reference number (if known) Department of Transport and Main Roads/Transport – land/Approx. 4.5km west of Oakey to approx. 18km before Dalby/QLD/Construction of overtaking lanes at four locations along the Warrego Hw: 2011/5997 QLD Department of Transport and Main Roads/Transport – land/Warrego Highway, Darling Downs /QLD/Improvement of a section of the Warrego Highway: 2010/5639


8 Information sources and attachments (For the information provided above)

8.1 References Boobook Ecological Consulting (2016). Flora/Fauna/Vegetation Survey Report, Project 222-18C-9 Overtaking Lanes (Warrego Highway near Goombi), Darling Downs District.

Brigalow Belt Reptiles Workshop (2010). Proceedings from the workshop for the nine listed reptiles of the Brigalow Belt bioregions. 18-19 August. Brisbane: Queensland Herbarium. Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (DEPH) (2014). Flora Survey Guidelines – Protected Plant. Brisbane, Queensland. Available online at: https://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/licences-permits/plants-animals/documents/flora-survey-guidelines.pdf. Department of Environment and Heritage protection (DEHP) (2016). Regional Ecosystem Description Database (REDD).Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, Queensland Government, Brisbane. https://www.qld.gov.au/environment/plants-animals/plants/ecosystems/descriptions/

Department of the Environment (2013). Matters of National Environmental Significance – Significance impact guidelines 1.1 Available at: http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/publications/significant-impact-guidelines-11-matters-national-environmental-significance

Department of the Environment (DoE) (2013a). Approved Conservation Advice for the Brigalow (Acacia harpophylla dominant and co-dominant) ecological community. Canberra, Australia. Available online at: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/communities/pubs/028-conservation-advice.pdf Department of the Environment and Energy (DotEE) (2016). Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of the Environment, Canberra. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/sprat.pl Department of the Environment (2016a). Brigalow (Acacia harpophylla dominant and co-dominant) in Community and Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of the Environment, Canberra. Available from:http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat. Department of the Environment (2016b). Egernia rugosa in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of the Environment, Canberra. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat. Department of the Environment (2016c). Furina dunmalli in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of the Environment, Canberra. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat. Department of Land Resource Management (2015). Painted Honeyeater Grantiella picta. Northern Territory, Australia. Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (DSEWPaC) (2011). EPBC Act draft referral guidelines for the nationally listed Brigalow Belt reptiles. Canberra, Australia. Available online at: http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/570964ac-15bf-4e07-80da-848fead7b0cd/files/draft-referral-guidelines-comment-brigalow-reptiles.pdf. Road Planning abnd Design Manual (2013) 2nd Edition. Department of Transport and Main Roads, Queensland. http://tmr.qld.gov.au/business-industry/Technical-standards-publications/Road-planning-and-design-manual-2nd-edition.aspx

DSITI (2016). Copy of the Remnant Regional Ecosystem Map Version 9. Online RE Map. The Department of Science, Information Technology and Innovation, Brisbane. https://environment.ehp.qld.gov.au/map-request/re-broad-veg-group/

Environmental Scoping Report (2016). Oakey – Miles Overtaking Lanes (Sites 5E & 7W), Package C, Project No: 222/18C/009. Department of Transport and Main Roads, Queensland.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (Queensland) (2008). Available online at: https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/d91e2790-b7a9-482c-a4eb-4c02a2e89920/files/tsday08-skink.pdf

EPBC Act Protected Matters Report (EPBC Mastters of NES Site 5 & 7), Report created 26/9/16.

Neldner, V.J., Wilson, B. A., Thompson, E.J. and Dillewaard, H.A. (2012) Methodology for Survey and Mapping of Regional Ecosystems and Vegetation Communities in Queensland. Version 3.2. Queensland Herbarium, Environmental Protection Agency, Brisbane.

https://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/licences-permits/plants-animals/documents/flora-survey-guidelines.pdf

https://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/licences-permits/plants-animals/documents/flora-survey-guidelines.pdf

https://www.qld.gov.au/environment/plants-animals/plants/ecosystems/descriptions/

http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/publications/significant-impact-guidelines-11-matters-national-environmental-significance

http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/publications/significant-impact-guidelines-11-matters-national-environmental-significance

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/communities/pubs/028-conservation-advice.pdf

http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat



http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/570964ac-15bf-4e07-80da-848fead7b0cd/files/draft-referral-guidelines-comment-brigalow-reptiles.pdf

http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/570964ac-15bf-4e07-80da-848fead7b0cd/files/draft-referral-guidelines-comment-brigalow-reptiles.pdf

http://tmr.qld.gov.au/business-industry/Technical-standards-publications/Road-planning-and-design-manual-2nd-edition.aspx

http://tmr.qld.gov.au/business-industry/Technical-standards-publications/Road-planning-and-design-manual-2nd-edition.aspx

https://environment.ehp.qld.gov.au/map-request/re-broad-veg-group/

https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/d91e2790-b7a9-482c-a4eb-4c02a2e89920/files/tsday08-skink.pdf


Office of Environment & Heritage (OEH) 2015. Painted Honeyeater – profile. Available at: http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/threatenedspeciesapp/profile.aspx?id=10357 Queensland Government Warrego Highway Upgrade Strategy WHUS (2012): Brisbane to Charleville. Available at: http://tmr.qld.gov.au/About-us/Corporate-information/Publications/Warrego-Highway-Upgrade-Strategy.aspx Rowland, J. 2012. Painted honeyeater, Grantiella picta. Targeted species survey guidelines. Queensland Herbarium, Department of Science, Information Technology and Innovation, Brisbane. Wallace, J. (2016). Personal communication. Senior Cultural Heritage Offxcer, Transport and Main Roads, Queensland. Warrego Highway Upgrade Program WHUP (2012), Program Management Plan, 2016 – 2019. Department of Transport and Main Roads, Queensland. http://tmr.qld.gov.au/About-us/Corporate-information/Publications/Warrego-Highway-Upgrade-Strategy.aspx

8.2 Reliability and date of information The information provided is reliable for the following reasons:

• Integrity of the MNES tool and Wildlife Online databases, which are kept up to date • Cross-referencing between the MNES tool, Wildlife Online and Atlas of Living Australia • Recent flora, fauna and TEC condition survey.

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/threatenedspeciesapp/profile.aspx?id=10357

http://tmr.qld.gov.au/About-us/Corporate-information/Publications/Warrego-Highway-Upgrade-Strategy.aspx




8.3 Attachments

attached Title of attachment(s)

You must attach

figures, maps or aerial photographs showing the project locality (section 1)

Included in this referral

GIS file delineating the boundary of the referral area (section 1)

figures, maps or aerial photographs showing the location of the project in respect to any matters of national environmental significance or important features of the environments (section 3)

Included in this referral

If relevant, attach

copies of any state or local government approvals and consent conditions (section 2.5)

Not applicable

copies of any completed assessments to meet state or local government approvals and outcomes of public consultations, if available (section 2.6)

Attachment C – Warrego Highway Upgrade Program, Program Management Plan, 2016 – 2019. Department of Transport and Main Roads, Queensland.

copies of any flora and fauna investigations and surveys (section 3)

Attachment A – Boobook Ecological Consulting (2016). Flora/Fauna/Vegetation Survey Report, Project 222-18C-9 Overtaking Lanes (Warrego Highway near Goombi), Darling Downs District.

technical reports relevant to the

assessment of impacts on protected matters that support the arguments and conclusions in the referral (section 3 and 4)

Attachment B – Environmental Scoping Report (2016). Oakey – Miles Overtaking Lanes (Sites 5E & 7W), Package C, Project No: 222/18C/009. Department of Transport and Main Roads, Queensland Attachment D – EPBC Act Protected Matters Report (EPBC Mastters of NES Site 3 & 4), Report created 08/06/16.

report(s) on any public consultations

undertaken, including with Indigenous stakeholders (section 3)

Not applicable at this stage


Attachments Attachment A – Boobook Ecological Consulting (2016). Flora/Fauna/Vegetation Survey Report, Project 222-18C-9 Overtaking Lanes (Warrego Highway near Goombi), Darling Downs District.

Attachment B – Environmental Scoping Report (2016). Oakey – Miles Overtaking Lanes (Sites 5E & 7W), Package C, Project No: 222/18C/009. Department of Transport and Main Roads, Queensland. Attachment C – Warrego Highway Upgrade Program, Program Management Plan, 2016 – 2019. Department of Transport and Main Roads, Queensland. Attachment D – EPBC Act Protected Matters Report (EPBC Mastters of NES Site 5 & 7), Report created 08/06/16.

referral of proposed action form

Documents