epbc act referral

EPBC Act referral

Note: PDF may contain fields not relevant to your application. These fields will appear blank or unticked. Please disregard these fields.

Title of proposal2021/9033 - Queensland Pacific Metals -Townsville Energy Chemicals Hub TECHProject

Summary of your proposed action1.1 Project industry type Manufacturing1.2 Provide a detailed description of the proposed action, including all proposed activities

Queensland Pacific Metals (QPM) proposes to design, construct and operate a sustainable high-purity battery chemicalsrefinery called the QPM Townsville Energy Chemicals Hub Project) (the Project). The Project will process 1.5 million wetmetric tonnes (wmt) per year of high-grade nickel laterite ore, imported from New Caledonia, to produce high purity batterymaterials, including nickel sulfate, cobalt sulfate and other related products such as magnesia, high-purity alumina (HPA) andhematite (iron oxide). The anticipated operational life of the Project is 25-years.

The Project will use the proprietary DNi Process™ to produce nickel, cobalt and a number of by-products from laterite ores.The DNi Process™ is a closed-loop process whereby the nitric acid reagent is recirculated via regeneration steps. All outputswill exit the process as either saleable products, neutralised solid wastes, or water vapour.

The process proposed has numerous environmental benefits when compared to processes used at Queensland Nickel(QNI). The Project will recover more than 98% of all input chemicals, eliminating the need for tailings dams. Furthermore –based on initial consultation – the residue from the process is anticipated to be utilised in the construction industry or asrehabilitated fill on site. QPM is also examining innovative technologies for the recovery of water from the productionprocesses and the site, as well as for the use of renewable energy sources for the Project’s energy and electricityrequirements. The innovative process and design of the refinery is anticipated to result in very low levels of atmosphericemissions. All vented emissions will have passed through effective scrubbing systems to remove acids for recycling back intothe systems.

The key components of the QPM TECH Project include:• processing plant and refineries;• imported ore stockpiles;• bunded storage for leaching acid and fuels;• storage for inert residue to be either placed and rehabilitated in situ or stacked, awaiting shipment to a potential end

user;• plant and equipment lay down area – for construction and maintenance shutdowns;• wastewater and sewage treatment plant;• drained and recovered water storage prior to treatment and recycling;•• internal access roads;• bunded liquid storage tanks;• boundary binding and revegetation;• office and administrative buildings; and• sealed parking area.

When fully operational, the Project will annually produce in the order of:• 67,000 tonnes (t) of nickel sulfate;• 8,000 t of cobalt sulfate;• 690,000 t of hematite;• 4,000 t of HPA; and• 40,000 t of magnesia.

The construction and operation of the Project will result in the removal of vegetation, and disturbance of existing groundconditions on either a temporary or permanent basis. Att E2_QPM TECH_MNES AssessmentReport_v6_Part_B_Report_Sections7-11, Section 8.2, pg 101-110 provides detail on potential impacts from the Project, andinclude:

• Loss of habitat as a result of vegetation clearing;• Habitat fragmentation;• Fauna injury or mortality during vegetation clearing;• Fauna injury or mortality as a result of vehicle strike;• Disturbance to wildlife during construction as a result of noise, light and vibration;• Erosion and sedimentation which may impact on water quality;

Section 1


• Potential spills of hazardous materials;• Increase in numbers of pest animals and weeds due to increased vehicle movements and opening up areas of remnant

vegetation from clearing for infrastructure; and• Elevated bushfire risk due to increase in activities on site that may cause a fire to start.

Additional detail describing the Project is contained within Att E2_QPM TECH_MNES AssessmentReport_v6_Part_B_Report_Sections1-6, Section 4, pg 16-26.

1.5 Provide a brief physical description of the property on which the proposed action will take place and the location of theproposed action (e.g. proximity to major towns, or for off-shore actions, shortest distance to mainland)

The Project is located approximately 40 km south of Townsville at the Lansdown Eco-Industrial Precinct in Woodstock;Northern Australia’s first environmentally sustainable advanced manufacturing, processing and technology hub. The Project islocated within Townsville City Council local government area. Previously the Lansdown Eco-Industrial Precinct was owned bythe Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and was used as an agricultural research station forcropping and grazing studies.

The Project straddles two separate allotments (Lot 19 on RP901592 (127 ha) and Lot 20 on E124189 (162 ha)), collectivelyreferred to as the ‘subject site’. A road reserve (No Name Road) running north-south between the two properties(approximately 2.5ha) forms the subject site. Ghost Gum Road forms the southern perimeter of the site. Flinders Highway islocated to the east of the site.

1.6 What is the size of the proposed action area development footprint (or work area) including disturbance footprint andavoidance footprint (if relevant)?

The subject site encompasses an area of 291 ha. However, the disturbance footprint for the refinery and ancillaryinfrastructure is significantly less than this. QPM is currently completing the Definitive Feasibility Design which will finalise thesite layout. The design has incorporated no-go areas around the riparian corridors of Lansdowne Creek and Gilligan Creek,where ecological assessments identified ecological features that would be avoided if practicable (remnant vegetation andthreatened species habitat). These no-go areas encompass an area of 66 ha and forms the avoidance area for the site.Therefore, the development footprint is 225 ha. The size of the footprint will continue to be refined following the progression ofrefinery design.

Additional detail describing the size of the Project and preliminary site layout is contained in Att E1_QPM TECH_MNESAssessment Report_v6_Part_A_Report_Sections1-6, Section 4.

1.7 Proposed action location

Lot - Lot 19 on RP901592 and 20 on E1241891

1.8 Primary jurisdiction Queensland1.9 Has the person proposing to take the action received any Australian Government grant funding to undertake this project?

N Yes Y No

1.10 Is the proposed action subject to local government planning approval?

Y Yes N No

Townsville City Council1.10.1.1 Name of relevant council contact officer

[email protected] E-mail

1348101.10.1.3 Telephone Number

1.10.1.0 Council contact officer details

1.10.1 Is there a local government area and council contact for the proposal?

Y Yes N No

1.3 What is the extent and location of your proposed action?See Appendix B


1.11 Provide an estimated start and estimated end date for theproposed action

Start DateEnd Date

01/02/202201/02/2047

1.12 Provide details of the context, planning framework and state and/or local Government requirements

QPM is currently finalising combined development application and environmental authority application for the Project underthe Planning Act 2016 and Environmental Protection Act 1994. This includes a planning assessment for the followingapprovals:

• Material Change of Use (MCU) involving high impact industry;• MCU for a hazardous chemical facility;• MCU involving clearing native vegetation;• State transport infrastructure generally; and• MCU for an environmentally relevant activity.

Townsville City Council is the Assessment Manager for this application (in accordance with Schedule 8 of the TownsvilleCity Plan 2014). The State Assessment Referral Agency (SARA) is the referral agency for the Project who will coordinateassessment from relevant Queensland State agencies.

The Project has demonstrated a high level of compliance of relevant performance and acceptable outcomes within the StateDevelopment Assessment Provisions, Townsville City Plan 2014 and the North Queensland Regional Plan.

In support of the combined development application and environmental authority application the following technical studieswill be undertaken to determine the likely impacts of the Project and to document how these impacts can be avoided,minimised and mitigated:

• Surface water and flooding• Traffic• Terrestrial and aquatic ecology• Groundwater• Geochemistry and contaminated land• Conceptual site model• Erosion hazard and risk• Acoustics• Air quality.

At a state level, the environmental assessments performed include all information listed under Section 125 of the EP Act toassess the Project. The technical studies have been prepared in accordance with the relevant regulations and guidelines forthe agreed approval pathway, and incorporate the findings of previous assessments, baseline studies and relevant issuesidentified in the existing technical assessments already completed for the Project.

The technical assessments have been prepared using a conservative and “worst-case” approach to identifying the potentialimpacts of the Project, including cumulative impacts. This demonstrates the adoption of the precautionary principle. Whereenvironmental impacts have been identified through the assessment process, efforts have

been made when practicable to avoid or minimise those impacts through refinement of the design and site layout. Whereattempts to avoid or minimise impacts though design have been of limited effect, further mitigation measures have beennominated for future phases of the Project. This demonstrates the integration of the principle of conservation of biologicaldiversity and ecological integrity in the impact assessment process.

The findings of the assessment have determined the Project is consistent with the: objectives of the EPBC Act and relevantQueensland legislation, including how the principles of ecologically sustainable development have been incorporated in thedesign, construction and operations of the Project. All potential impacts to environmental values of the subject site andsurrounding areas have been identified and best practice environmental mitigation measures have been proposed toameliorate environmental risk.

The assessment of the combined development application and environmental authority application will follow the stepswithin the Development Assessment Rules under the Planning Act.

Following approval of the Project under the Planning Act, and subject to detailed design, a number of secondary approvals,permits and/or licences may be required from the Queensland Government and local council (Townsville City Council). Thesemay include approved species management programs, roadworks permits and operational works permits for filling andexcavation access works, and stormwater works. Further information on the Legislative context can be found in Att E1_QPMTECH_MNES Assessment Report_v6_Part_A_Report_Sections1-6.pdf, section 2, page 6.

1.13 Describe any public consultation that has been, is being or will be undertaken, including with Indigenous stakeholders


QPM recognises the importance of effective stakeholder engagement in the successful delivery of the Project.Pre-referral meetings have been held with representatives of the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment in

April and June 2021. Numerous pre-lodgement meetings and engagement opportunities have been held with Townsville CityCouncil, the State Assessment Referral Agency (and relevant QLD State agencies) and the Port of Townsville in relation tothe Project.

QPM has developed a comprehensive Communications and Engagement Plan for the Project and has been implementingthis in consultation with TCC (as the precinct owner).

QPM has implemented and is carrying out an engagement process with local landholders regarding the Project. QPM willbe providing community newsletters related to the Project development at key development milestones, with an invitation toprovide feedback via a website or direct contact.

QPM has also engaged and consulted with the Bindal People who are the registered Native Title claimants for subject site.A Cultural Heritage Management Agreement (CHMA) has been signed and QPM are working with the Bindal people to identifythe appropriate time to complete a cultural heritage clearance, likely to be later in 2021. In addition, the Bindal People will bein attendance during local works such as the geotechnical investigation to ensure that if any artefacts of cultural significanceare found they are handled appropriately.

The first community information sessions were held on June 21 and June 22, 2021, in Woodstock and Townsvillerespectively. Key themes which were raised in these sessions. The summary report from the first Community InformationSession have been attached to this referral form (Att D QPM TECH Project Consultation Summary Report_v2).

QPM is committed to the ongoing engagement with local community and other stakeholders and will be holding additionalcommunity information sessions as the Project progresses through the assessment process. The next community informationsessions will align with the public notification of the Project. Public notification of the Project is required beneath the PlanningAct 2016.

1.14 Describe any environmental impact assessments that have been or will be carried out under Commonwealth, State orTerritory legislation including relevant impacts of the project

An Environmental Assessment Report (EAR) has been prepared to support the Project, addressing matters of local andState environmental significance:

• a description of the subject site and surrounding land uses relevant to the application;• a detailed description of all relevant baseline environmental values;• an appreciation of the regulatory requirements and a statement of compliance with these obligations;• a rigorous impact assessment to document the potential impacts of the project on the identified environmental

values;• adequately detailed mitigation and management measures to ameliorate the potential impacts; and• a statement of commitments related to any mitigation and management measures deemed necessary.

Environmental assessments include: MSES ecology, aquatic ecology, traffic, surface water and flooding, groundwater,geochemistry and contaminated land, ecology, air quality, acoustics, erosion hazard and a conceptual site model.

1.15 Is this action part of a staged development (or a component of a larger project)?

N Yes Y No

1.16 Is the proposed action related to other actions or proposals in the region?

Y Yes N No

1.16.1 Identify the nature/scope and location of the related action (Including under the relevant legislation)

The QPM TECH Project will be located approximately 40 km south of Townsville at the Lansdown Eco-Industrial Precinct.The land is well supported by existing infrastructure which will be instrumental to the development and operation of the QPMTECH Project. This includes gas pipeline, power transmission, road and water supply. In 2020, approval was provided by theDepartment of State Development, Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning to amend the zoning of the Precinct to HighImpact Industry. This is an important step in the ongoing development of the Precinct. In addition to DriveIT NQ which areunder construction, three companies, QPM, Edify Energy and Imperium3 Townsville, have signed up to establish themselvesat the Precinct.


Section 2

2.1 Is the proposed action likely to have any direct or indirect impact on the values of any World Heritage properties?

Y Yes N No

Potential for indirect impacts to the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Property.

The MNES are located downstream of the subject site, although substantial distances downstream. The Great Barrier ReefMarine Park which is situated off Townsville is over 60 km downstream along the Ross River system (into which LansdowneCreek drains) although it first flows through the impoundment of Lake Ross which is 20 km downstream from the subject site.

Property

The Project has the potential to impact surface water quality values which could in turn impact on the MNES. The mainconstruction activities that could impact surface water quality values include:

• Excavation and earthworks during construction for the construction of site access roads, dams, and areas of refineryand processing infrastructure. This if uncontrolled could lead to erosion and sedimentation, and deterioration of water qualityand changes to on-site flows. If excess levels of sediment are mobilised discharging into drainage lines which could adverselyimpact aquatic habitats and water quality. Specifically, increased suspended sediments can reduce light penetration,decreasing photosynthesis of aquatic flora and decrease dissolved oxygen.

• Use of fuels and chemicals in all Project phases potentially resulting in contamination through spills, leaks oruncontrolled releases.

• Altered catchment conditions during Project operations. If stormwater runoff is not adequately contained, there ispotential for adverse downstream impacts.

• Stormwater runoff, erosion and contaminants from Project infrastructure in operations, including on site dams andresidue storage areas if uncontrolled. Water collected in on site dams may contain a range of pollutants, includinghydrocarbons, heavy metals etc.

A number of on-site dams and sediment ponds will be constructed to contain runoff from Project infrastructure, as well ason site management practices outlined in Att E2_QPM TECH_MNES Assessment Report_v6_Part_B_Report_Sections7-11,Section 9.4 and 9.5, pg 114-115. These measures are designed to maintain background water quality in adjacent creeklinesand subsequently flowing downstream, into these MNES. Project infrastructure will be designed and constructed to ensurethat water quality objectives are met, and pathways to impact surface and groundwater quality are minimised.

Residue storage locations and on-site dams will be subject to appropriate design, construction and maintenance, withongoing structural monitoring and assessment in accordance with Queensland State requirements. Monitoring will beundertaken surrounding the Project to characterise areas of potential contamination and monitor for any releases ofcontaminants. The monitoring will include soil, sediment, surface water and groundwater in areas of concern and within down-gradient locations. This will include habitat quality monitoring in retained habitat areas to measure the success of revegetationand pest control activities.

An assessment of the Project against the objectives of the Reef 2050 Long-Term Sustainability Plan (Commonwealth ofAustralia, 2018) has been undertaken and contained within Section 8.2 of the MNES Assessment Report attached to thisreferral form. Indirect impacts from potential changes to water quality have also been identified and described in the MNESAssessment Report (Att E2_QPM TECH_MNES Assessment Report_v6_Part_B_Report_Sections7-11, Section 8.2.3, pg107).

EMM has completed a surface water quality assessment as part of the application for the Project. This will be assessed bythe Queensland Department of Environment and Science (DES) and a suite of conditions will be applied by DES as part of theEnvironmental Authority (EA) for the Project, expected to include:

• Adherence to trigger levels and contaminant limits specified in the EA;• Development and implementation of a Receiving Environment Monitoring Program will be applied to manage

potential impacts to surface water and water quality;• Notification requirements to the administering authority during release events or potential exceedances;• Monitoring requirements and contaminant limits for onsite water storages; and• Development and implementation of a Water Management Plan including site water balance management.

Impact

2.1.2 Do you consider this impact to be significant?

N Yes Y No

Matters of national environmental significance


2.2 Is the proposed action likely to have any direct or indirect impact on the values of any National Heritage places?

Y Yes N No

Potential for indirect impacts to the Great Barrier Reef.

The MNES are located downstream of the subject site, although substantial distances downstream. The Great Barrier ReefMarine Park which is situated off Townsville is over 60 km downstream along the Ross River system (into which LansdowneCreek drains) although it first flows through the impoundment of Lake Ross which is 20 km downstream from the subject site.

Place






A number of on-site dams and sediment ponds will be constructed to contain runoff from Project infrastructure, as well ason site management practices outlined in Att E2_QPM TECH_MNES Assessment Report_v6_Part_B_Report_Sections7-11,Section 9.4 and 9.5, pg 114-115. These measures are designed to maintain background water quality in adjacent creeklinesand subsequently flowing downstream, into these MNES. Project infrastructure will be designed and constructed to ensurethat water quality objectives are met, and pathways to impact surface and groundwater quality are minimised.


An assessment of the Project against the objectives of the Reef 2050 Long-Term Sustainability Plan (Commonwealth ofAustralia, 2018) has been undertaken and contained within Section 8.2 of the MNES Assessment Report attached to thisreferral form. Indirect impacts from potential changes to water quality have also been identified and described in the MNESAssessment Report (Att E2_QPM TECH_MNES Assessment Report_v6_Part_B_Report_Sections7-11, Section 8.2.3, pg107).




Impact


N Yes Y No


2.3 Is the proposed action likely to have any direct or indirect impact on the ecological character of a Ramsar wetland?

Y Yes N No

Potential for indirect impacts to Bowling Green Bay. Bowling Green Bay wetland is over 50 km downstream along theHaughton River system (into which Gilligan Creek drains).

Wetland






A number of on-site dams and sediment ponds will be constructed to contain runoff from Project infrastructure, as well ason site management practices outlined in Sections 9.4 and 9.5 of the MNES assessment report (Att E2_QPM TECH_MNESAssessment Report_v6_Part_B_Report_Sections7-11, Section 9.4-9.5 - pg 114). These measures are designed to maintainbackground water quality in adjacent creeklines and subsequently flowing downstream, into the MNES. Project infrastructurewill be designed and constructed to ensure that water quality objectives are met, and pathways to impact surface andgroundwater quality are minimised.


An assessment of the Project against the objectives of the Reef 2050 Long-Term Sustainability Plan (Commonwealth ofAustralia, 2018) has been undertaken and contained within Section 8.2.3 of the MNES Assessment Report attached to thisreferral form. Indirect impacts from potential changes to water quality have also been identified and described in the MNESAssessment Report (Att E2_QPM TECH_MNES Assessment Report_v6_Part_B_Report_Sections7-11, Section 8.2.3, pg107).




Impact


N Yes Y No


2.4 Is the proposed action likely to have any direct or indirect impact on the members of any listed species or any threatenedecological community, or their habitat?

Y Yes N No

Squatter Pigeon (Geophaps scripta scripta).

Squatter Pigeons were observed on three different occasions during active diurnal bird surveys and while traversing thesite. Two records were located within the subject site and one record was heard close to the northern boundary. Habitat wassuitable in the vegetated areas; however, the weed cover was so high in much of the non-remnant land it is largely unusablefor this species.

Further information on the survey findings in relation to this species, their habitat requirements and distribution within theProject area is provided in the MNES Assessment Report attached to this referral form (Att E2_QPM TECH_MNESAssessment Report_v6_Part_B_Report_Sections7-11, Section 10.2, pg 121-123).

Species or threatened ecological community

No important population is present in the Project area.The Project will result in the loss of up to 41 ha of breeding habitat and 0.1 ha of dispersal habitat (though no important

populations are present on site).It is expected that individuals disturbed by construction activities will temporarily move awayfrom the area of disturbance into extensive areas of significant retained habitat bordering and within the subject site. Retainedhabitat in the creeklines of Gilligan Creek and Lansdowne Creek will offer refugia for the species and extensive areas ofgrassy woodland occurs just to the north of the subject site. Connectivity to this area will be maintained. The assessmentunder the Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1 identified that the Project will not cause any significant residual impacts toSquatter Pigeon. Refer Att E2_QPM TECH_MNES Assessment Report_v6_Part_B_Report_Sections7-11, Section 10.2, pg121-123.

Impact

White-throated Needletail (Hirundapus caudacutus).

White-throated Needletails migrate north and have largely left Australia by April to breed in the Northern Hemisphere.Surveys undertaken were completed at an opportune time for this species as they would be moving north through the subjectsite. As this species is strictly an aerial feeder it would use the entire area as foraging habitat. The species however was notsighted during the survey.



The species occurs widely across eastern Australia, although does not breed in the country. The subject site is not locatednear the edge of the species range. There is no evidence to indicate a population in the area is likely to be a key population forbreeding, dispersal or maintaining genetic diversity in the species. As swifts are almost exclusively aerial, direct impacts totheir habitat are not expected to occur as a result of vegetation clearance for the Project. There is limited potential the speciescould roost in an area of woodland across the subject site, although this use will be sporadic, temporary and across a broadarea (i.e. not involving regular or repeated roost sites). The majority of suitable roost trees (larger more mature trees) arelocated within riparian corridors which are avoided by the project. As White-throated Needletail arrive and disperse over abroad front across northern and eastern Australia, it is not expected that the number of birds using the site will place anecologically significant proportion of the population at risk. The assessment under the Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1identified that the Project will not cause any significant residual impacts to White-throated Needletail. Refer Att E2_QPMTECH_MNES Assessment Report_v6_Part_B_Report_Sections7-11, Section 10.3, pg 130-136.

Impact

Southern Black-Throated Finch (Poephila cincta cincta).

No Black-throated Finch were observed during surveys.

A landholder to the north of the subject site anecdotally identified he had Black-throated Finches using his property, whichbecame a focus for the second survey undertaken along with other areas of water sources.




The Significant impact guidelines for the endangered Black-throated finch (southern) (Poephila cincta cincta) - EPBC Actpolicy statement 3.13 (DEWHA, 2009), lists actions that may lead to the loss, degradation and/or fragmentation of black-throated finch (southern) habitat and may have a significant impact on the subspecies.

More favoured habitats are located within riparian corridors which support required habitat factors although as noted abovehabitat quality on the site is compromised by the weedy nature and is of low quality, not likely to be heavily utilised upon byBlack-throated Finch within the region. No-go areas established in the subject site include habitat for this species alongriparian corridors. Through the identified mitigation measures such as staged clearing, retaining potential habitat on siteincluding riparian corridors, and managing these retained habitats to improve condition and reduce threats, the Project willensure impacts on the regional Black-throated Finch population are minimised.

Up to 9.2 ha of potential Black-throated Finch habitat (marginal breeding) and 22.5 ha of foraging habitat will be cleared forProject infrastructure. 64.6 ha of habitat is retained in the subject site. The assessment under the Significant ImpactGuidelines 1.1 and Significant impact guidelines for the endangered Black-throated finch (southern) (Poephila cincta cincta) -EPBC Act policy statement 3.13 identified that the Project will not cause any significant residual impacts to Southern Black-throated Finch. Refer Att E2_QPM TECH_MNES Assessment Report_v6_Part_B_Report_Sections7-11, Section 10.4, pg137-152.

Impact

Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat (Saccolaimus saccolaimus nudicluniatus).

Numerous calls were recorded on an Anabat device in March 2021 which while not able to be categorically identified. Therecordings were made in the southwest of the subject site in the riparian corridor of Lansdowne Creek. Therefore, given theother records in the region, including the nearby Majors Creek solar farm at Woodstock, the species was assessed as likely tooccur. Subsequent to this in July 2021, this species was reliably identified from nine calls from four different sites across thesubject site, with a single unresolved call at the remaining site likely being from this species. A further 26 calls may have beenfrom this species.

Further information on the survey findings in relation to this species, their habitat requirements and distribution within theProject area is in Att E2_QPM TECH_MNES Assessment Report_v6_Part_B_Report_Sections7-11, Section 10.5, pg 153-162).


Watercourses within the subject site which may be utilised by roosting individuals in the area will not be disturbed, includingLansdowne Creek in the west where the echolocation calls for the species were recorded.

The Project footprint will result in the loss of 5.2 ha of potential roosting habitat.

Preferred habitats are located within riparian corridors. No-go areas established in the subject site include habitat for thisspecies along riparian corridors. Areas of preferred habitat will be avoided and mitigation measures be put in place, includingstaging of clearing and checking of any potential roost trees to be cleared. The species will still be able to forage across thesubject site. Retained habitat in the creek lines of Gilligan Creek and Lansdowne Creek will offer refugia for the species andextensive areas of woodland occur just to the north and west of the subject site and within the study area. Connectivity tothese areas will be maintained. The assessment under the Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1 identified that the Project will notcause any significant residual impacts to Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat. Refer Att E2_QPM TECH_MNES AssessmentReport_v6_Part_B_Report_Sections7-11, Section 10.5, pg 153-162).

Impact

Koala (Phascolarctos cinereus).

This species was not observed while undertaking surveys or incidentally through secondary signs such as scat or scratchesdespite the Eucalypt woodland habitat present. Individual eucalypt paddock trees were also surveyed and no evidence ofKoala use was observed. The watercourse at the western boundary was dominated by Melaleuca, but creek in the southeastcorner had Melaleuca and Eucalyptus co-dominant. This might be seasonally dependent i.e., in drier conditions the



groundcover may be lower, making movement easier for Koalas. Although not high quality, the best habitat for Koalaswithinthe subject site is the square patch of remnant woodland on the northern boundary of the site. The main impediment forKoalas utilising the subject site is the low abundance of primary food trees and the dense understorey of herbaceous weeds.Koalas are not expected to traverse the cleared areas in the central part of the site due to the high abundance of weeds.

The Project footprint will result in the loss of 12.7 ha of potential habitat.

An assessment of potential Koala habitat in the subject site following the ‘referral guidelines for the vulnerable Koala’ (DoE2014) under the EPBC Act was undertaken. The assessment identified a habitat score of four (4), which is not consideredacritical habitat. Habitat on the subject site does not meet the criteria for critical habitat for the species as defined in the EPBCAct referral guidelines for the vulnerable Koala (DoE 2014), although marginal habitat will be cleared, there is a low likelihoodthe species will be present on the subject site. Preferred habitats are located within riparian corridors which support preferredforaging tree species including Queensland Blue Gum. No-go areas established in the subject site include habitat for thisspecies along riparian corridors. Through the identified mitigation measures such as staged clearing, retaining Koala habitaton site including riparian corridors, and managing these retained habitats to improve condition and reduce threats, the Projectwill ensure impacts on any local Koala population are minimised. The assessment under the Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1identified that the Project will not cause any significant residual impacts to Koala. Refer Section 10.6 of MNES AssessmentReport attached to this referral form for further detail (Att E2_QPM TECH_MNES AssessmentReport_v6_Part_B_Report_Sections7-11, Section 10.6, pg 163-176).

Impact


N Yes Y No

2.5 Is the proposed action likely to have any direct or indirect impact on the members of any listed migratory species or theirhabitat?

Y Yes N No

Fork-tailed swift (Apus pacificus).

Multiple records of this species are represented within the study area and habitat is present within the subject site. Duringsurveys this species was identified adjacent to the subject site; therefore, it is considered as known to occur. Furtherinformation on the survey findings in relation to this species, their habitat requirements and distribution within the Project areais provided in the MNES Assessment Report attached to this referral form (Att E2_QPM TECH_MNES AssessmentReport_v6_Part_B_Report_Sections7-11, Section 10.7, pg 177-182).

Migratory species

No habitat map has been prepared for this species as it is an aerial insectivore that spend most of their time aloft, and couldoccur anywhere over the subject site, therefore the whole subject site is considered potential foraging habitat. The speciesdoes not breed in Australia, and as a wide ranging nomadic species, foraging habitat also provides a surrogate for dispersalhabitat. The Project will not have a significant residual impact on Fork-tailed Swift habitat and the risk of an impact on anecologically significant proportion of the population (defined by DoE 2015 as being 100 birds or 0.1% of the population) isconsidered to be low.

Impact

Oriental Cuckoo (Cuculus optatus).

This species was recorded directly adjacent to the subject site in an area of woodland along Lansdowne Creek. As such it isconsidered known to occur. Further information on the survey findings in relation to this species, their habitat requirementsand distribution within the Project area is provided in the MNES Assessment Report attached to this referral form (AttE2_QPM TECH_MNES Assessment Report_v6_Part_B_Report_Sections7-11, Section 10.8, pg 183-188).

Migratory species

Large areas of potential Oriental Cuckoo habitat across the subject site will be avoided, and the riparian woodlands ofGilligan Creek and Lansdowne Creek (where the species was recorded) will be avoided. The Project will not have a significantresidual impact on Oriental Cuckoo and the risk of an impact on an ecologically significant proportion of the population(definedby DoE 2015 as being 1,000 birds or 0.1% of the population) is considered to be low. Refer Section 10.8 of MNESAssessment Report attached to this referral form for further detail (Att E2_QPM TECH_MNES AssessmentReport_v6_Part_B_Report_Sections7-11, Section 10.8, pg 183-188).

Impact


Rufous Fantail (Rhipidura rufifrons).

Multiple records of this species exist within the study area and suitable habitat is represented as riparian vegetation.Additionally this species was identified adjacent to the subject site along Lansdowne Creek; therefore, the species isconsidered as known to occur. Further information on the survey findings in relation to this species, their habitat requirementsand distribution within the Project area is provided in Att E2_QPM TECH_MNES AssessmentReport_v6_Part_B_Report_Sections7-11, Section 10.9, pg 189-194.

Migratory species

Large areas of potential Rufous Fantail habitat across the subject site will be avoided, and the riparian woodlands of GilliganCreek and Lansdowne Creek where the species is most likely to occur, will be avoided.

No foraging habitat is mapped within the Project footprint, and 16.9 ha within the subject site (i.e. no impact). Refer Section10.9 of MNES Assessment Report attached to this referral form for further detail (Att E2_QPM TECH_MNES AssessmentReport_v6_Part_B_Report_Sections7-11, Section 10.9, pg 189-194).

Impact

Spectacled Monarch and Black-faced Monarch (Monarcha trivirgatus and Monarcha melanopsis)

Migratory species

Preferred rainforest or vine thicket habitat does not occur, therefore mapped habitat constitutes potential foraging ordispersal habitat. Large areas of potential Spectacled Monarch and Black-faced Monarch habitat across the subject site will beavoided, and the riparian woodlands of Gilligan Creek and Lansdowne Creek where the species is most likely to occur, will beavoided. The Project will not have a significant residual impact on Black-faced Monarch and the risk of an impact on anecologically significant proportion of the population (defined by DoE 2015 as being 460 birds or 0.1% of the population) isconsidered to be low.

Refer Section 10.10 of MNES Assessment Report attached to this referral form for further detail (Att E2_QPM TECH_MNESAssessment Report_v6_Part_B_Report_Sections7-11, Section 10.10 and 10.11, pg 195-207).

Impact

Latham’s Snipe (Gallinago hardwickii).

The species has not been recorded in the subject site, although is likely to occur on a sporadic basis if conditions aresuitable. Limited habitat is present within the subject site.


Migratory species

Some sections in the east of the subject site, specifically where a broad trench between a dam and a waterway makes forwetter substrates, is suitable for the Latham’s Snipe to feed in. This area is located in the no-go zone and as such will be awayfrom project infrastructure. The Project will not have a significant residual impact on Oriental Cuckoo and the risk of an impacton an ecologically significant proportion of the population is considered to be low. Refer Att E2_QPM TECH_MNESAssessment Report_v6_Part_B_Report_Sections7-11, Section 10.12, pg 208-212.

Impact


N Yes Y No

2.6 Is the proposed action to be undertaken in a marine environment (outside Commonwealth marine areas)?

N Yes Y No


2.7 Is the proposed action likely to be taken on or near Commonwealth land?

N Yes Y No

2.8 Is the proposed action taking place in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park?

N Yes Y No

2.9 Is the proposed action likely to have any direct or indirect impact on a water resource from coal seam gas or large coalmining development?

N Yes Y No

2.10 Is the proposed action a nuclear action?

N Yes Y No

2.11 Is the proposed action to be taken by a Commonwealth agency?

N Yes Y No

2.12 Is the proposed action to be undertaken in a Commonwealth Heritage place overseas?

N Yes Y No

2.13 Is the proposed action likely to have any direct or indirect impact on any part of the environment in the Commonwealthmarine area?

N Yes Y No


Description of the project area3.1 Describe the flora and fauna relevant to the project area

Background research and desktop ecological assessments have been completed to provide an understanding of thebroader ecological values, landscape features, vegetation communities and threatened species associated with the subjectsite.

The MNES Assessment Report has been attached to this referral and provides a comprehensive discussion of thedatabases searched, field survey methods employed and all results. Field ecology surveys were undertaken across thesubject site between 8 - 11 March 2021 and 26 – 31 July 2021. Field survey methods included a range of survey techniquesincluding; spotlighting for nocturnal mammal and birds, deployment of Anabat detectors ,diurnal bird surveys, habitatassessments, active searches and verification of vegetation community mapping by ground-truthing REs. Records weretaken of incidental observations during surveys. Surveys did not identify any EPBC Act listed flora or threatened ecologicalcommunities within the project area. Vegetation communities are concentrated to the east and western boundaries of thesubject site, in proximity to the two waterways (Lansdowne Creek and Gilligan Creek). Native vegetation is discussed infurther detail in Att E1_QPM TECH_MNES Assessment Report_v6_Part_A_Report_Sections1-6, Section 6.6, 6.7, 6.8 (pg 46-54), and Att E1_QPM TECH_MNES Assessment Report_v6_Part_B_Report_Sections7-11, Sections 7.1, 7.2 (pg 57-68).

Two threatened fauna species under the EPBC Act were recorded during field surveys being:• The southern form of Squatter Pigeon (Geophaps scripta scripta).• Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat (Saccolaimus saccolaimus nudicluniatus)

Five species of migratory birds under the EPBC Act were observed being:•Fork-tailed Swift (Apus pacificus) - this species was identified feeding over the entire subject site•Oriental Cuckoo (Cuculus optatus), Spectacled Monarch (Symposiachrus trivirgatus), Black-faced Monarch (Monarcha

melanopsis) and Rufous Fantail (Rhipidura rufifrons) along the western riparian corridor.

Other fauna species which had the potential to be present in the study area following a desktop likelihood of occurrenceassessment (although were no confirmed during surveys) include:

•White-throated Needletail - White-throated Needletails migrate north and have largely left Australia by April to breed in theNorthern Hemisphere. Surveys undertaken were completed at an opportune time for this species as they would be movingnorth through the subject site. As this species is strictly an aerial feeder it would use the entire area as foraging habitat.

•Southern Black-throated Finch - The Southern Black-throated Finch has undergone an extensive northerly rangeretraction. Its preferred habitats consist of grassy woodland dominated by eucalypts (savannah communities), but it will alsouse Melaleuca or Acacia dominated communities with a diversity of grass species. No Black-throated Finch were observedduring surveys however suitable habitat was identified in the west and east of the subject site. Additionally, a landholder tothe north of the subject site anecdotally identified he had Black-throated Finches using his property. This property is thelot/plans immediately north of the subject site, and corresponds with database records from the area around Jones Road.

•Australian Painted Snipe - The Australian Painted Snipe was not observed during surveys and limited habitat wasidentified within the subject site. Some sections in the east of the subject site, specifically where a broad trench between adam and a waterway makes for wetter substrates, is potentially suitable for the Australian Painted Snipe to feed in undercertain conditions. The riparian habitat in the west of the subject site is very rocky and does not provide the muddy substratesfor the Painted Snipe to feed in.

•Koala - This species was not observed while undertaking surveys or incidentally through secondary signs such as scat orscratches despite the Eucalypt woodland habitat present. Individual eucalypt paddock trees were also surveyed and noevidence of Koala use was observed. The watercourse at the western boundary was dominated by Melaleuca, however thecreek in the southeast corner had Melaleuca and Eucalyptus present.

3.2 Describe the hydrology relevant to the project area (including water flows)

The subject site is divided by the Burdekin Basin and Ross River Basin. Most of the subject site is in the Burdekin Basincatchment and generally drains to the east via a series of named and unnamed waterways. The western extent of the subjectsite is bounded by Lansdowne Creek which is a major tributary to the Ross River and Ross River Dam.

The central and eastern portion of the subject site drain to the Haughton River sub catchment area of the Burdekin Basin.The central portion of the site drains to Fields Creek via several unnamed waterways and drainage lines.

The eastern portion of the subject site drains to Gilligan Creek which flows through the south-east portion of the subjectsite. Both Fields Creek and Gilligan Creek traverse (via culverts) the Mount Isa rail line, Flinders Highway and WoodstockGiru Road before flowing into Serpentine Lagoon and Majors Creek. Majors Creek is a major tributary to the Haughton Riverwhich flows into the Pacific Ocean approximately 40 km north-east of the subject site.

Section 3


The western portion of the site drains to Lansdowne Creek which is in the One Mile, Spring and Lansdowne creekssubcatchment area of the Ross River Basin. Lansdowne Creek is the main drainage feature associated with the subject siteand has an upstream catchment area of 38.5 km2. Lansdowne Creek rises approximately 10 km south-west of the subjectsite and generally flows in a northerly direction before discharging to Ross River Dam approximately 14 km downstream ofthe subject site. The Ross River Dam forms the major water supply source for the TCC water supply system. LansdowneCreek is classified as a fourth order waterway using the Strahler method of stream ordering defined in the GeoscienceAustralia drainage network of Queensland.

All other waterways that drain through or adjacent to the subject site are classified as first order streams. LansdowneCreek, and all other surface water features within or immediately downstream of the subject site, are expected to have anephemeral streamflow regime which are dry most of the year and only contain water for short periods following rainfall.

3.3 Describe the soil and vegetation characteristics relevant to the project area

Soil types have been mapped in detail across the subject site and surrounds at the 1:10,000 scale (Murtha and Crack1966). The subject site soils are primarily characterised by:

• Woodridge Loam overlying clays (WsL) and Woodridge sandy loam A1 & bleached A2 overlying red mottled sandyclay (WI) in the western portion of the subject site; and

• Woodridge Loam/Gilligan Clay (WC) in the eastern portion of the site.

The geology of the subject site and surrounds is characterised by Quaternary alluvium underlain by weathered to freshgranite (Queensland Government 2021). There have been limited drilling and geological investigations within andimmediately surrounding the site.

The vegetation characteristics are best described by the communities in the ground-truthed RE mapping for the subjectsite. Native vegetation is discussed in further detail in Att E1_QPM TECH_MNES AssessmentReport_v6_Part_A_Report_Sections1-6, Section 6.6, 6.7, 6.8 (pg 46-54), and Att E1_QPM TECH_MNES AssessmentReport_v6_Part_B_Report_Sections7-11, Sections 7.1, 7.2 (pg 57-68).

3.4 Describe any outstanding natural features and/or any other important or unique values relevant to the project area

The MNES Assessment Report (Att E1_QPM TECH_MNES Assessment Report_v6_Part_A_Report_Sections1-6; AttE2_QPM TECH_MNES Assessment Report_v5_Part_B_Report_Sections7-11; and Att E3_QPM TECH_MNES AssessmentReport_v6_Part_C_Appendices) does not identify any outstanding or unique values.

3.5 Describe the status of native vegetation relevant to the project area

The majority of the subject site is cleared and is mapped as Category X under the Vegetation Management Act 1999. Fieldsurveys identified changes to State vegetation mapping after undertaking ground-truthing in the field. These changesinvolved:

• reassigning remnant RE 11.3.35 adjacent to Landsdowne Creek to RE 11.3.35a due to the dominance of Corymbiatessellaris;

• refinement of the boundaries and condition of RE 11.3.25b along Landsdowne Creek on the western boundary;• removal of a small patch of HVR RE11.3.35 on the northern boundary;• expansion of the remnant patch of RE 11.3.30 on the northern boundary of the subject site; and• refinement and reassignment of HVR and remnant riparian vegetation associated with Gilligan Creek in the south-eastern

section of the Project area which is now all considered as HVR RE11.3.35.

Overall, all vegetative areas across the site (including non-remnant vegetation) showed varying levels of degradation.Remnant and HVR vegetation were typically affected by weed encroachment and lacked natural shrub layer composition.Large expanses of the Project area have also been completely or selectively cleared.

There are four ground truthed REs in the subject site:•RE 11.3.25b (Least Concern) - Melaleuca leucadendra and/or M. fluviatilis, Nauclea orientalis open forest. This remnant

community was located along the western boundary of the subject site near Lansdowne Creek.•RE 11.3.30 (Least Concern) - Eucalyptus crebra, Corymbia dallachiana woodland on alluvial plains. This remnant

community was located in the eastern portion of the site near Gilligan Creek and a square along the northern boundary.•RE 11.3.35 (Least Concern) - Eucalyptus platyphylla, Corymbia clarksoniana woodland on alluvial plains. This regrowth

community was located in the southeastern portion of the subject site. These communities have been avoided as far aspracticable from the disturbance footprint.

RE 11.3.35a (Least Concern) - Corymbia tessellaris, C. clarksoniana and Eucalyptus platyphylla woodland. This remnantcommunity is located in the northeastern portion of the subject site.


3.6 Describe the gradient (or depth range if action is to be taken in a marine area) relevant to the project area

Surface elevations across the subject site range from approximately 85 m Australian Height Datum (AHD) in the west toapproximately 70 m AHD in the eastern parts of the subject site. Areas of the subject site are low lying including alongwestern and eastern boundaries which is demonstrated by presence of melaleuca woodlands.

3.7 Describe the current condition of the environment relevant to the project area

The majority of the subject site is of lower environmental value, having being historically cleared for grazing activities. Withthe exception of the eastern and western corridors, there is little native vegetation on site. Refer Att E1_QPM TECH_MNESAssessment Report_v6_Part_B_Report_Sections7-11, Section 7.1, pg 57).

Lansdowne Creek is located along the western boundary of the site, and Gilligan Creek located along the eastern portionof the site.

The subject site was noted as being very weed dense during field assessments. Open (non-remnant) areas weredominated by herbaceous weeds and some grasses. Two pest fauna species were observed during surveys being Feral catand Feral pig.

3.8 Describe any Commonwealth Heritage places or other places recognised as having heritage values relevant to the project

A search of Commonwealth, State and local heritage registers did not identify any recorded sites within or adjacent to thesubject site. Within close proximity of the subject site are several historic heritage sites protected under the Townsville CityPlan:

• Lansdown Station Homestead Site (former) and Unmarked Grave - Lot 500 on E12466 (located 2 km from thesubject site);

• Manton Cemetery - Lot 2 on EP1107 (located 3.7 km from the subject site); and• Woodstock CWA Hall - Lot 24 on EP352 (located 1.5 km from the subject site).

3.9 Describe any Indigenous heritage values relevant to the project area

The Bindal People are the Traditional Owners and Custodians of the Lansdown Eco-Industrial Precinct, where the QPMTECH Project will be constructed and operated. QPM has entered into a Cultural Heritage Management Agreement (CHMA)with the Bindal People, and has committed into entering a Heads of Agreement regarding Indigenous employment policy,training, apprenticeships and other opportunities.

Endorsement of the CHMA is an important milestone for the TECH Project as part of its pre-development activities. Afterthe wet season, there has been significant grass and weed regrowth on the site. QPM will clear the regrowth and then workwith the Bindal People to undertake the cultural heritage investigation activities.

A search was undertaken of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Cultural Heritage Database and Register. NoAboriginal or Torres Strait Islander cultural heritage site points are within the subject site.

3.10 Describe the tenure of the action area (e.g. freehold, leasehold) relevant to the project area

The subject site is of freehold tenure. An easement (ASP175357) is located directly adjacent to the subject site on theeastern boundary.

3.11 Describe any existing or any proposed uses relevant to the project area

The Queensland Land Use Mapping Program has mapped the subject site as cropping (majority of site) and grazing nativevegetation. The surrounding area is also characterised by rural land uses, including cropping and grazing native vegetation,as well as small residential areas. Under the Townsville City Plan 2014 (planning scheme), the subject site is zoned as highimpact industry (all of Lot 19 onRP901592 and eastern extent of Lot 20 on E124189) and rural zone (western extent of Lot 20on E124189).The Lansdown Eco-Industrial Precinct was historically used for grazing activities.


Measures to avoid or reduce impacts4.1 Describe the measures you will undertake to avoid or reduce impact from your proposed action

The Project design has adopted the principles of the avoid-minimise-mitigate hierarchy, which is a fundamental tenet ofecologically sustainable development. Through iterative design processes, areas of higher ecological value were preferentiallyavoided. This hierarchy will continue to be followed throughout the design, construction and operation of the Project. Whereimpacts cannot be avoided, mitigation and management measures will be implemented to reduce residual impacts to thelowest extent practicable.

Further, early in project design, no-go areas were established around the riparian corridors of Lansdowne Creek andGilligan Creek, where the ecological assessments identified ecological features that would be avoided if practicable (remnantvegetation and threatened species habitat). These areas are shown in MNES Assessment Report (Att E1_QPM TECH_MNESAssessment Report_v6_Part_A_Report_Sections1-6, Figure 4.2, pg 19) - Figure 4.2 as “Rehabilitation Areas” and have beenavoided by Project design. It should be noted that avoidance of these areas of habitat, which include potential Black-throatedFinch habitat are consistent with the Significant Impact Guidelines for the endangered Black-throated Finch (southern)(Commonwealth of Australia, 2009) which seek to avoid impacts by designing actions to avoid loss of habitat, and maximiseon-site retention of habitat.

Further to the avoidance measures, the following general measures will be implemented to avoid and minimiseenvironmental impacts to the greatest practical extent:

• Riparian corridors are recognised as some of the more ecologically sensitive locations within the subject site.Consequently, Project design has sought to avoid these areas and there will be no requirement for waterway crossings andbuffers to watercourses are being retained (at least 120 m).

• Vegetation clearing will be limited to those areas required for earthworks and construction of the Project. Thoseareas which are not required for the ongoing operation and maintenance of the Project will be rehabilitated to as soon aspracticable following construction. Rehabilitation will also occur in retained areas of habitat adjacent to the Projectinfrastructure. Rehabilitation will be detailed in a Vegetation Management Plan to be prepared prior to commissioning of theProject.

• The approved disturbance area will be clearly demarcated prior to clearing to avoid unnecessary clearing ofvegetation and to ensure personnel and vehicles stay within the approved footprint. Measures to ensure clearing limits areadhered to will be documented in the CEMP and addressed in site inductions.

• Clearing limits will be clearly demarcated on site, including through use of temporary fencing (e.g flagging tape tomark out areas or plastic mesh fencing installed with star pickets) to avoid unintentional access to retained sensitiveenvironmental areas.

• Sequential clearing will occur to minimise impacts on native fauna, particularly arboreal fauna which may be usingtree hollows.

• Access will be limited to approved access routes and tracks.Mitigation measures to reduce other potential impacts during construction (e.g. fragmentation, erosion and sedimentation,

biosecurity, etc.) will include, but not be limited to:• weed hygiene protocols to minimise introduction and/or spread of weeds during construction;• fire management procedures and protocols during construction and operation;• pest animal management on the site;• vehicle speed limits throughout the site to minimise any wildlife strikes; and• adherence to appropriate waste management practices.

A number of mitigation and management measures will be carried out to reduce any potential impacts associated with theoperation of the Project. These will address collision risk, bushfire risk, noise and lighting impacts, biosecurity and speciesmortality. Further detail regarding avoidance and mitigation measures to reduce direct and indirect impacts on MNES (andmore generally, the environmental values of the study area) during construction and operation are provided in Section 9 of theMNES Assessment Report (Att E1_QPM TECH_MNES Assessment Report_v6_Part_B_Report_Sections7-11, Section 9, pg110-120).

4.2 For matters protected by the EPBC Act that may be affected by the proposed action, describe the proposed environmentaloutcomes to be achieved

The Project has sought to ensure that no significant impact will occur on MNES protected under the EPBC Act. This is to beachieved through the implementation of the avoid-minimise-mitigate hierarchy described in the MNES Assessment Report.

For each MNES relevant to the Project area, a significant impact assessment is provided in Section 10 of the MNESAssessment Report (Att E1_QPM TECH_MNES Assessment Report_v6_Part_B_Report_Sections7-11, Section 10, pg 120-213).

Section 4


Conclusion on the likelihood of significant impacts5.1 You indicated the below ticked items to be of significant impact and therefore you consider the action to be a controlledaction

5.2 If no significant matters are identified, provide the key reasons why you think the proposed action is not likely to have asignificant impact on a matter protected under the EPBC Act and therefore not a controlled action

Following an assessment against the Commonwealth Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1, it has been determined there areno significant residual impacts on any matter protected under the EPBC Act and would not be a controlled action. Significantimpact assessments for each MNES listed in Section 2 (confirmed present or likely to occur in the subject site) have beenundertaken and are provided in Att E2_QPM TECH_MNES Assessment Report_v6_Part_B_Report_Sections7-11, Section 10,pg 120-212.

The subject site is cleared in the centre of the site and this area is dominated by a weedy ground cover. QPM has prioritisedthis central area of the site as the “development envelope”. Early in the project design, no-go areas were established aroundthe riparian corridors of Lansdowne Creek and Gilligan Creek (in the western and eastern boundaries of the site respectively),where the ecological assessments identified ecological features that would be avoided if practicable (remnant vegetation andthreatened species habitat). These areas have been avoided by Project design. These areas are the majority of potential,known and likely habitat for MNES species.

Att E2_QPM TECH_MNES Assessment Report_v6_Part_B_Report_Sections7-11, Section 7.6, pg 81 provides habitatmapping for the species that were known, likely and potential to occur in the subject site. QPM is committed to the ongoingmanagement and enhancement of these areas over the life of the Project, and to the ongoing avoidance, minimisation andmanagement of potential impacts. These management measures have been summarised in Section 4.1 of this referral form,and are described in detail in Att E2_QPM TECH_MNES Assessment Report_v6_Part_B_Report_Sections7-11, Section 9, pg110-120.

The detailed assessments contained in Sections 8, 9 and 10 of Att E2_QPM TECH_MNES AssessmentReport_v6_Part_B_Report_Sections7-11 determine that significant residual impacts are unlikely to occur for any MNES andtherefore would not constitute a controlled action determination.

N World Heritage properties

N National Heritage places

N Wetlands of international importance (declared Ramsar wetlands)

N Listed threatened species or any threatened ecological community

N Listed migratory species

N Marine environment outside Commonwealth marine areas

N Protection of the environment from actions involving Commonwealth land

N Great Barrier Reef Marine Park

N A water resource, in relation to coal seam gas development and large coal mining development

N Protection of the environment from nuclear actions

N Protection of the environment from Commonwealth actions

N Commonwealth Heritage places overseas

N Commonwealth marine areas

Section 5


Environmental record of the person proposing to take the action6.1 Does the person taking the action have a satisfactory record of responsible environmental management? Explain in furtherdetail

Yes - The proponent is a 'suitable operator' for Environmentally Relevant Activities beneath the Queensland EnvironmentalProtection Act 1994.

6.2 Provide details of any past or present proceedings under a Commonwealth, State or Territory law for the protection of theenvironment or the conservation and sustainable use of natural resources against either (a) the person proposing to take theaction or, (b) if a permit has been applied for in relation to the action – the person making the application

No past or present proceedings for environmental offences have been applied to QPM.

6.3 If it is a corporation undertaking the action will the action be taken in accordance with the corporation’s environmental policyand framework?

Y Yes N No

6.3.1 If the person taking the action is a corporation, provide details of the corporation's environmental policy and planningframework

Queensland Pacific Metals (QPM) is the 100% owner of the Townsville Energy Chemicals Hub Project (the Project). Usingclean technology and an innovative Australian-developed process, the Project will produce high technology materials for usein batteries and electric vehicles.

QPM promotes sustainable environmental practices and transparent communication with our stakeholders. This Policyapplies to all personnel involved in QPM activities including employees, consultants, contractors and visitors. QPMmanagement are committed to the following throughout design, construction and operation:

• Managing adverse environmental impacts though identification, setting objectives and targets and implementing mitigationprograms;

• Employing new technologies at the design phase and during our operations to reduce wastes and minimise carbonemissions;

• Ensuring our operations will comply with environmental laws, regulations and codes of practice;• Fostering continuous improvement of our environmental management systems and practices to meet ISO140001;• Engaging with our employees, customers and investors on environmental issues and report on our environmental

performance;• Respecting individuals and their cultures;• Supporting local and Indigenous businesses and create lasting opportunities for the development of local and Indigenous

workers;• Working with our stakeholders to develop genuine relationships, through open and transparent communication, and

reporting.This policy reinforces our commitments to environmental sustainability and to creating value to the local community.

Refer Att F QPM_Environmental Policy.

6.4 Has the person taking the action previously referred an action under the EPBC Act, or been responsible for undertaking anaction referred under the EPBC Act?

N Yes Y No

Section 6


Information sourcesReference source

Refer Att E2_QPM TECH_MNES Assessment Report_v5_Part_B_Report_Sections7-11_September 2021, pg 215 for a fullreference list used in the MNES Assessment Report.

Reliability

High

Uncertainties

None

Reference source

Commonwealth of Australia (2018). Reef 2050 Long-Term Sustainability Plan. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/35e55187-b76e-4aaf-a2fa-376a65c89810/files/reef-2050-long-term-sustainability-plan-2018.pdf.

Reliability

High

Uncertainties

None

Reference source

Commonwealth of Australia (2009). Significant impact guidelines for the endangered black-throated finch (southern)(Poephila cincta cincta) - EPBC Act policy statement 3.13 (Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts(DEWHA), 2009)

Reliability

High

Uncertainties

None

Reference source

Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEHWA) (2009) Significant impact guidelines for theendangered black-throated finch (southern) (Poephila cincta cincta). Commonwealth of Australia.

Reliability

High

Uncertainties

None

Reference source

Department of the Environment (DoE) (2014). EBPC Act referral guidelines for the vulnerable koala (combined populationsof Queensland, New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory). Commonwealth of Australia.

Reliability

High

Uncertainties

None

Section 7


Reference source

DoE (2015). Draft referral guideline for 14 birds listed as migratory species under the EPBC Act. Commonwealth ofAustralia.

Reliability

High

Uncertainties

None

Reference source

Queensland Government (2021). Queensland Globe - Geology.

Reliability

High

Uncertainties

None


Proposed alternativesDo you have any feasible alternatives to taking the proposed action?

Yes Y No

Section 8


Job title Senior Environmental Scientist

First name AnnaLast name Hertle

Phone 0422266554MobileFaxEmail [email protected]

Address

Primary address Level 1, 87 Wickham Terrace, Spring Hill, 4000, QLD,Australia

9.3.2 Contact (for an organisation - the contact details of the person authorised to sign on behalf of the organisation)

Organisation name (as registered for ABN/ACN) EMM CONSULTING PTY LIMITEDBusiness name EMM ConsultingABN 28141736558

Business address Ground Floor, 20 Chandos St, St Leonards, 2065, NSW,Australia

Postal address

FaxPrimary email address [email protected] email address

ACN

Main Phone number (02) 9493 9500

Organisation

Referring party (person preparing the information)9.3.1 Is the referring party an organisation or a business?

Y Yes N No

Declaration: Referring party (person preparing the information)I, _________________________________________________________________________________________________, declare thatto the best of my knowledge the information I have given on, or attached to this EPBC Act Referral is complete, current andcorrect. I understand that giving false or misleading information is a serious offence.

Signature: ................................................................ Date: .......................................03/09/2021

Anna Hertle


Attachment

Att A QPM TECH Project_Site layout.pdfaction_area_imagesAtt B QPM TECH Project_Site layout.kmzaction_area_imagesAtt C QPM TECH Project_Refinery design.pdfaction_area_imagesAtt D QPM TECH Project Consultation Summary Report_v.1.pdf

public_consultation_reports

Att G CHMA_Not for public.pdfpublic_consultation_reportsAtt D QPM TECH Project Consultation Summary Report_v2.pdf

public_consultation_reports

Att E1_QPM TECH_MNES AssessmentReport_v5_Part_A_Report_Sections1-6.pdf

supporting_tech_reports

Att E2_QPM TECH_MNES AssessmentReport_v5_Part_B_Report_Sections7-11.pdf


Att E3_QPM TECH_MNES AssessmentReport_v5_Part_C_Appendices.pdf


Att E1_QPM TECH_MNES AssessmentReport_v6_Part_A_Report_Sections1-6.pdf


Att E2_QPM TECH_MNES AssessmentReport_v6_Part_B_Report_Sections7-11.pdf






Att F QPM_Environmental Policy.pdfcorp_env_policy_docs

Document Type File Name

Appendix A

CoordinatesArea 1

-19.607816882,146.817061163-19.608446926,146.823885754-19.607914478,146.824132308-19.608909383,146.834890626-19.618601538,146.834885404-19.617512099,146.823136941-19.617494576,146.822945975-19.616014175,146.806828342-19.615902588,146.806870997-19.615456171,146.806941338-19.614852555,146.806924604-19.614530057,146.80689881-19.614356436,146.806907751-19.614042431,146.807091363-19.613885485,146.807231165-19.613604717,146.807571784-19.61333213,146.807825156-19.613109022,146.807956301-19.612885825,146.808000192-19.612580039,146.808148891-19.612191625,146.808332585-19.611753553,146.80848144-19.611290641,146.808595426-19.610869013,146.808656983-19.610405952,146.808622643-19.610066861,146.808544517-19.6097361,146.808527455-19.609421864,146.808484197-19.609173797,146.808475763-19.608991802,146.808397457-19.608809836,146.808336593-19.608578354,146.808363043

Appendix B

**

*

*

*

*

*

* NOT PUBLISHED - SUPERSEDED** NOT PUBLISHED - SENSITIVE


-19.608330444,146.808494218-19.608115703,146.808721326-19.607818328,146.808992162-19.607595392,146.809289075-19.607465625,146.809455991-19.607279778,146.809657224-19.607143871,146.80977419-19.607790105,146.81677109-19.607816882,146.817061163

epbc act referral

Documents