KOALA MANAGEMENT PLAN APPENDIX Y ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
CEL12001 CEL12001 Prepared for Boral Resources (Qld) Pty Limited April 2013
Document Information Prepared for Boral Resources (Qld) Pty Limited Project Name File Reference Koala Management Plan_160413 Job Reference CEL12001 Date April 2013 Contact Information Cardno Chenoweth ABN 43076992991 Level 11,40 Creek St Brisbane 4000 Telephone: (07) 3831 8582 Facsimile: (07) 3831 8587 Document Control Version Date Author Author Initials Reviewer 1 13/12/2012 David Francis, Doug Mohr DF David Francis DF 2 24/01/2013 David Francis, Doug Mohr DF David Francis DF 3 6/02/2013 David Francis, Doug Mohr DF David Francis DF 4 18/02/2013 David Francis, Doug Mohr DF David Francis DF 5 16/04/2013 David Francis, Doug Mohr DF David Francis DF Reviewer Initials Cardno 2012. Copyright in the whole and every part of this document belongs to Cardno and may not be used, sold, transferred, copied or reproduced in whole or in part in any manner or form or in or on any media to any person other than by agreement with Cardno. This document is produced by Cardno solely for the benefit and use by the client in accordance with the terms of the engagement. Cardno does not and shall not assume any responsibility or liability whatsoever to any third party arising out of any use or reliance by any third party on the content of this document. April 2013 Cardno ii
Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION 4 1.1 Purpose of Management Plan 4 1.2 Legislative Context 4 1.3 Provision of net benefit 4 1.4 Koala Management 4 2 ASSESSMENT OF HABITAT 5 2.1 Method 5 2.2 Findings 5 3 IMPACTS 7 4 IMPACT MITIGATION 8 4.1 Attaining Net Benefit 8 4.2 Rehabilitation 8 4.2.1 Alluvial Areas within Buffer area 9 4.2.2 Balance of the Buffer Area 9 4.3 Connectivity 9 4.4 Site Management/ Operations 10 References 11 Tables Table 3-1 Assessment of impact on Koala habitat 7 Table 4-1 Proposed response to impacts on Koala habitat 8 Glossary ToR Terms of Reference EIS Environmental Impact Statement SEQ Koala SPRP DERM South East Queensland Koala State Planning Regulatory Provisions Department of Environment and Resource Management now Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (DEHP) April 2013 Cardno iii
1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose of Management Plan This document has been prepared in response to the requirements of the Gold Coast Quarry project Terms of Reference (ToR) for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Specifically Section 4.3.3 Terrestrial fauna requires the proponent to prepare a koala management plan and include it in the EIS. 1.2 Legislative Context The koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) is listed as a vulnerable species in the South East Queensland (SEQ) Bioregion. The principal planning instrument related to koalas is the South East Queensland Koala State Planning Regulatory Provisions (Koala SPRP). The provisions of the Koala SPRP do not apply to the project as a result of its declaration as a Significant Project. Nevertheless, Policy 2.2.2 of the South East Queensland Regional Plan 2009 2031 seeks the achievement of a net benefit for koalas as part of development proposals in the South East Queensland region where they result in the clearing of koala habitat. The general policy is supported across a range of other relevant planning instruments. A portion of the remnant regional ecosystems present within the Study Area including the Disturbance Footprint are also considered Essential Habitat for koalas. The koala was also listed as a vulnerable species under the Commonwealth s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 within Queensland, New South Wales and Australian Capital Territory on 2 May 2012. However, the project was identified as a Controlled Action by the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water and Communities on 21 December 2010, which predates the koala s listing. Despite this, Boral is committed to achieving net benefit for koalas as part of the Gold Coast Quarry project. Specifically, within the Initial Advice Statement it is noted: Boral remains committed to investigating the delivery of a net benefit for koalas as part of the Project. 1.3 Provision of net benefit The provision of net benefit can be calculated according to various approaches. The Department of Environment and Resource Management s 1 (DERM) 2010 Offsets for Net Gain of Koala Habitat in South East Queensland Policy policy is used to guide projects under the SPRP, projects within mapped Koala Protection Areas and community infrastructure activities conducted by Queensland public sector organisations. The approach relies primarily on quantifying the number of individual koala habitat trees to be removed. The proposed project is not subject to the requirements of the policy. An approach that has also been historically acceptable to DEHP has been to utilise the methods outlined in Policy 4 Koala survey methodology for site assessment and Policy 2 Offsets for net benefit to koalas and habitat assessment of the Nature Conservation (Koala) Conservation Plan 2006 and Management Program 2006-2016 (DERM, 2005). The non-statutory net benefit for the current project has been calculated generally in accordance with this approach. 1.4 Koala Management The welfare of individual koalas during project construction and operation must also be considered in the project design and management commitments. 1 Now the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (DEHP) April 2013 Cardno 4
2 ASSESSMENT OF HABITAT 2.1 Method The presence and use of the Study Area by koalas was assessed using the following staged approach. The ultimate aim was the determination of carrying capacity and therefore koala population estimates for the Study Area: 1. Map potential Koala habitat: Koala habitat across the Study Area was mapped generally in accordance with the methods outlined in the SEQ Habitat Assessment and Mapping Project 2009 (DERM, 2009). Specifically, this included an analysis of vegetation in relation to slope, elevation, land zones and aspect as a means of classifying habitat; 2. Reconnaissance to determine Koala activity: A reconnaissance visit was undertaken in the company of Frank Carrick 2 to assist in delineating suitable areas where detailed targeted surveys should be undertaken; 3. Stratification of vegetation: Utilising historical aerial photography as a guide, vegetation of the site was stratified into broad age classes; 4. Targeted Koala surveys: Transects were targeted to within each of the 5 defined age classes. Transects were undertaken generally in accordance with the Koala survey methodology for site assessment of Policy 4 of the Nature Conservation (Koala) Conservation Plan 2006 and Management Program 2006-2016 (EPA, 2005). At each site, 5 parallel transects of 60m length were slowly traversed by 3 spotters separated by a distance of 15m. Where the targeted vegetation community was narrow, 2 parallel transects of 120m each were undertaken. A total of 17 sites were inspected; and 5. Opportunistic Observations: Further, incidental observations of Koalas, their scats and scratches were made throughout field work conducted during the course of the flora and fauna investigations. Occurrences of Koalas and scats were recorded by GPS. 2.2 Findings Koala activity had been recorded previously on site during the DDW Fauna (2005) assessment and has also been recorded in the greater Reedy Creek area (WBM, 2005). The Initial Advice Statement (Boral, 2009) notes that preliminary site investigations carried out by Frank Carrick indicated that koala utilisation of parts of the site were consistent with a moderate to low intensity of use. To assist in determining the extent of likely habitat present on site a preliminary mapping exercise was undertaken in accordance with the methods described in SEQ Habitat Assessment and Mapping Project 2009 (DERM, 2009). This indicated that most of the wooded portions of the site could be considered as potential habitat. Following this pilot mapping exercise a reconnaissance visit was undertaken in the company of Frank Carrick to assist in delineating suitable areas where detailed targeted surveys should be undertaken. The site visit confirmed koala activity in several locations as evident by scats and scratches. Targeted transects were undertaken in the locations illustrated in mapping provided in the Flora and Fauna Technical Report (Cardno Chenoweth, 2012). No koalas were observed during the dedicated surveys, this is despite individual koalas (Plates 1-3) being observed on 4 separate occasions in locations as illustrated in Flora and Fauna Technical Report (Cardno Chenoweth, 2012). 2 Dr Frank Carrick AM is a Professorial Research Fellow in the Centre for Mined Land Rehabilitation and heads The University of Queensland Koala Study Program. He is senior author or co-author of more than 100 research papers in refereed journals, as well as the co-author of the definitive work on the koala (Lee, A.K. & Carrick, F.N. The Phascolarctidae. Chapter 31 In Dyne, G.R. & Walton, D.W. eds, Fauna of Australia : Mammalia Volume 1B pp 740-754 Canberra, Australian Government Publishing Service. 1989.) April 2013 Cardno 5
Plate 1: Individual observed in the south of the site on 21/6/12 Plate 2: Individual observed by BMT WBM in the south of the site on 31/8/12. Plate 3: Male observed in the south of the site on 26/9/12 For areas within the Koala Coast with similar attributes (i.e. signs of koala activity are widespread, koalas are occasionally observed, but transects fail to locate any animals) the carrying capacity is known (on the basis of repeat surveys over a number of years) to be 0.01-0.05 koalas/ha (pers. com. Carrick, 2012). Adopting a conservative approach, it is therefore estimated that the koala density in the Study Area is in the range of 0.01-0.1 koalas/ha. April 2013 Cardno 6
3 IMPACTS Utilising vegetation mapping prepared as part of the Flora and Fauna Technical Report (Cardno-Chenoweth, 2012) the extent of koala habitat was determined for the impact area by combining areas of remnant and regrowth mapped at a scale of 1:10,000. Areas regarded as cleared or water were disregarded for the purpose of the calculation. Table 3-1 below presents an estimate of carrying capacity within the proposed impact area. Table 3-1 Assessment of impact on Koala habitat Total area of the impact minus areas devoid of vegetation (dams, existing tracks) Area (ha) Carrying capacity (koalas/ha) 63 0.01-0.1 (a) 0.63-6.3 Estimated koala numbers in impact area (a) While it is known that koalas are active on site, dedicated transects failed to record any animals. For areas within the Koala Coast with similar attributes (i.e. signs of koala activity are widespread, koalas are occasionally observed, but transects fail to locate any animals) the carrying capacity is known (on the basis of repeat surveys over a number of years) to be 0.01-0.05 koalas/ha. Adopting a conservative approach, a range of 0.01-0.1 koalas/ha has been adopted for the purposes of these calculations. In addition to direct impacts associated with the loss of habitat, additional impacts associated with the project include the potential injury or death of koalas during clearing operations or as a consequence of vehicle collisions. If site management practices are poor, there is also the risk that there will be an increase in wild dog activity within the Study Area with consequential impacts on koalas. Conversely, an improvement in land management may lead to a decrease in dog numbers. The proposed development footprint will affect koala habitat connectivity. While 63ha will be removed, this is central to a wide band of vegetation comprising 126.74ha of largely unencumbered of land. Within the proposed buffer are areas of lantana and other weeds that degrade habitat and potentially restrict access to feed trees. The proposed buffer also includes areas where regeneration of feed trees could be enhanced through improved management. The proposed entry road traverses the buffer and potentially restricts koala movement in this location. April 2013 Cardno 7
4 IMPACT MITIGATION 4.1 Attaining Net Benefit Scope for attaining benefit to koalas within the proposed buffer area was investigated. Potential for restoration and/or planting occurs within the cleared or degraded portions of the proposed buffer. Areas currently supporting mapped remnant in V7 of the regional ecosystem mapping (Queensland Herbarium, 2012) were not considered as targets for restoration. The buffer supports 2 broad geological categories being those on metasediment and those on alluvium. The latter provides the greater opportunity to rapidly establish koala habitat trees in a moist, sheltered and fertile environment. Table 4-1 below provides a summary of restoration opportunities. Table 4-1 Proposed response to impacts on Koala habitat Area (ha) Estimated benefit (koalas/ha) Estimated total benefit (koalas) Buffer Area Management The buffer area supports regrowth communities of varying integrity. Proposed weed management and facilitation of regrowth will improve the overall condition of this area. The area excludes riparian habitats (discussed below) and areas already mapped as remnant Riparian Management In the southeast and western portion of the site are areas comprised of alluvial soils that are largely devoid of trees covering an area of 5.29ha. These waterways also support threatened rainforest species upstream and downstream of existing disturbance. It is proposed that the immediate riparian fringe is restored to rainforest species (accounting for 25% of the area) and the balance is planted to preferred koala food trees (accounting for 75%) of the area. The area assessed excludes proposed rainforest plantings and minor disturbance associated with the project. 121.3 0.01 (b) 1.21 5.44 1 (c) 5.44 TOTAL (ha) 6.65 (b) The lowest carrying capacity has been adopted to conservatively estimate the benefit of the restoration work across the entire area. (c) Koalas have historically been recorded in densities up to 2.5 individuals per hectare in coastal southeast Queensland (pers comm.. Carrick). Adopting a conservative approach, it is expected that dedicated plantings in alluvial areas will result in a benefit of 1 koala/ha. The proposed on-site response delivers a benefit of 6.65 koalas. On the basis of a worst case impact of 6.3 koalas, this provides a small (6%) benefit to koalas within the Study Area. 4.2 Rehabilitation To achieve an increase of koala habitat on site, both the dry-eucalypt communities and wetter riparian / alluvial communities within the retained Buffer Area will require ecological restoration / management activities. These activities are summarised for each of these two areas below. April 2013 Cardno 8
4.2.1 Alluvial Areas within Buffer area This restoration area contains cleared area together with RE 12.3.11 (Eucalyptus siderophloia, E. tereticornis, Corymbia intermedia open forest on alluvial plains usually near coast) and covers a riparian zone that contains some remnant vegetation within the creekline and fringing area. There are parts of the creekline that are heavily degraded and these areas are currently mapped as Regrowth- other within the Flora and Fauna Technical Report (Cardno Chenoweth, 2013a). The aim of the rehabilitation of these areas will be the establishment of rainforest species to the riparian fringe areas (25% of total area) and planting of eucalyptus species to the remaining 75% of the riparian areas to help facilitate koala food requirements and facilitate fauna corridor movement. This will be achieved by: > Reconstructing a channel for the waterway in areas where it has been irreversibly damaged by 4WD activity. There areas will be secured with Jute and associated plantings; > Controlling weeds across the waterway corridor taking care to retain native species occurring as trees, shrubs and herbs; > Plant the riparian fringe for a distance of 6 metres from the edge of the bank at 1.5 metre centres where the existing species are less than this density or where the canopy is less than 50% with rainforest species; and > The balance of the area is to be planted with the following koala food tree species at 1.5 metre centres: Eucalyptus tereticornis, E. microcorys, E. propinqua, E. robusta. The extent of rehabilitation is delineated as the Riparian Precinct in the Landscape Rehabilitation Report (Cardno Chenoweth, 2013b). 4.2.2 Balance of the Buffer Area The following recommendations were adapted from Policy 11 of the Nature Conservation (Koala) Conservation Plan 2006 and Management Program 2006-2016 and have been designed to ensure the longterm viability of the existing habitat and safe movement opportunities for Koalas in the area. Adherence to the recommendations will ensure that over time the habitat value of the subject site for Koalas will increase significantly: > Weed control in disturbed areas. Exclusion of weeds will allow natural regeneration of native plant species in these areas. This will be the primary mechanism by which to facilitate tree establishment within the buffer. Planting will be utilised only where this approach is unsuccessful; > Revegetation (where required) of Koala habitat should select species to mirror those already occurring naturally in the area; > Provide for the planting of trees at a density to mirror surrounding undisturbed areas; > Provide a range of understorey and groundcover species in addition to canopy species to provide a natural environment and ecosystem function of plants to the site. Koalas commonly shelter in shadier understorey species such as Casuarina and Acacia; and > Allow for adequate monitoring and maintenance of planting sites including watering, mulching and weeding until the plants are able to survive without human intervention. 4.3 Connectivity Buffer area rehabilitation as outlined in Section 4.2.2 will enhance connectivity by removing obstacles to koala movement (e.g. Lantana thickets) and improving habitat. The proposed site entry potentially represents a gap for koala movement. It is therefore proposed that the cutting is formed to incorporate a slope that is traversable for a diversity of wildlife. This area will also require planting to facilitate fauna April 2013 Cardno 9
movement. Additional supplementary planting is proposed between the proposed cutting and the adjacent forest where there has been historic disturbance 4.4 Site Management/ Operations Koala welfare will also be considered as part of site operations but this is considered appropriate practice and not part of the net benefit package. In summary, the following actions derived from Policies 1 and 6 of the Nature Conservation (Koala) Conservation Plan 2006 and Management Program 2006-2016 will be undertaken: > Damage to vegetation as a consequence of site activities (e.g. quarrying operations, boundary fence establishment) will be restricted through the use of fencing and/or signage; > Clearing will be undertaken sequentially, with clearing of vegetation that ensures not more than three hectares or 3 per cent of the site s area, whichever is the greater; is cleared in any one day. A break in clearing is to be undertaken between each day, with such breaks lasting at 12 hours, lasting from 6.00pm to 6.00am on the following day; > No tree in which a koala is present, or a tree with a crown overlapping a tree in which a koala is present, is to be cleared; > During construction phases and for the life of operational activities native vegetation clearing will be undertaken as sequential clearing (as defined under the Nature Conservation (Koala) Conservation Plan 2006); > Operational activities are staged in line with operational need (i.e. no broad-scale clearing will occur until the pending phase of the project requires clearing); > Restricting most activities to approved operational hours (i.e. essential maintenance, security access may be required during night time hours); and > Limit traffic speed. This will be particularly relevant at the site entry where there is a restriction in retained habitat. It is recommended that where the site entry crosses retained habitat that the speed limit is restricted to 40km/hr. > Where property boundary fencing is proposed it is to be designed as not to exclude the movement of koalas. > While clearing is to be undertaken sequentially, it is important to note that it will also be phased over the life of the project. Figure 1 identifies clearing phases. > Undertake wild dog management on site in collaboration with Gold Coast City Council s programs across the greater area. April 2013 Cardno 10
References Cardno Chenoweth, 2013a. Flora and Fauna Technical Report:. Prepared for Boral Resources (Qld) Pty Ltd Cardno Chenoweth, 2013b. Landscape Rehabilitation Report:. Prepared for Boral Resources (Qld) Pty Ltd Carrick. F, 2012. Personal Communication with Dr. Frank Carrick, EcoIndig Resources Pty Ltd. Department of Environmental Protection Agency (Qld), 2005. Nature Conservation (Koala) Conservation Plan 2006 and Management Program 2006-2016. DDW Fauna, 2005. Basic Fauna assessment, Proposed Boral Quarry, Reedy Creek. Prepared for Boral Resources (Qld) Pty Ltd. Queensland Herbarium, 2012. Survey and Mapping of 2009 Remnant Vegetation Communities and Regional Ecosystems of Queensland, Version 7. GIS Mapping. WBM Oceanics, 2005. Flora and Fauna Assessment: Reedy Creek LAP. April 2013 Cardno 11