Item
DETSI Comment
How comment has been addressed
Relevant Sections in
Supporting Information
Report
Other
27
Appendix D is in draft mode and still has results pending with further information to be incorporated. In the absence of the completed information, assessments undertaken to determine significant residual impacts potentially require further investigation. Please complete all required information. One (1) round of surveys is not sufficient to make a confident determination of the presence/absence of species and value of habitat. As per relevant guidance, at least two (2) surveys undertaken in different seasons is a minimum requirement. Relevant guidance material includes: o Terrestrial Vertebrate Fauna Survey Guidelines for Queensland o Flora Survey Guidelines – Protected Plants o Methodology for surveying and mapping regional ecosystems and vegetation communities in Queensland
Report has been finalised and included as an Appendix
Appendix E
28
A second round of fauna surveys has been undertaken in accordance with the Terrestrial Vertebrate Fauna Survey Guidelines, with consideration to species specific survey guidelines where relevant. Additional protected plant surveys were undertaken by Grant Paterson. Regional ecosystem ground-truthing was undertaken throughout the project area by both Grant Paterson and WTS ecologists, utilising the quaternary methodology from Methodology for surveying and mapping regional ecosystems This has been included in the various ecological plans The statement that Cycas megacarpa may be affected by contamination is a logical conclusion to make when assessing flora at what is one of Queenslands’s most contaminated abandoned mines. It is not practical to conduct contamination land and soil fertility studies across such a large area for 46 individual plants. This is not best practice in accordance with any established guidance. Wording in the supporting information report has been changed to indicate there is a risk that the population of Cycas megacarpa within the project area will decline without intervention Cycads determined to occur ‘not in the wild’ and therefore there is no impact to habitat. This is outlined in species SRI and in the Cycas megacarpa Management Plan.
Appendix M
29
Include a map of survey areas and validate historical disturbance extents.
Appendix E, Appendix J, appendix K and Appendix M. Section 6.9.1.1 and risk assessment Table 60
30
It is suggested that Cycas megacarpa may be affected by contamination, however, there is insufficient detail to determine whether this impact extends to all plants or is confined to specific areas of habitat. A comprehensive assessment is required to establish the extent of contamination affecting the native habitat ecosystem. This should include validation of the historical contamination source, its location, and the spatial extent of its impact within the Upper Mundic Gully area. For example, of the 46 identified plants, clarify how many are directly impacted by contamination and to what degree.
31
The department acknowledges that the relocation of the 46 identified Cycas megacarpa will be necessary if the proposal proceeds as planned. However, it is also recognised that this will result in a loss of habitat at the local level. To address this, provide a more detailed justification demonstrating why the population will not be adversely impacted at the local level, as required under Significant Residual Impact (SRI) assessment guidelines. This should include evidence-based analysis of habitat availability, population viability, and the effectiveness of proposed mitigation and management measures
Species SRI in Section 6.9.1.1 Cycas megacarpa Management Plan is provided in Appendix J
Powered by FlippingBook