The referral represents a significant impact on an area containing numerous MNES.

The proponent under-represents the footprint as being 14.88ha. Figure 2 shows, the various works are spread over an area encompassing the 285 hectares project area from associated referral 2021/8909. Impacts of 6m wide roading, or 10 x 10m/25 x 25m cleared drill pads represent fragmentation of a relatively intact landscape and increased risks of erosion, drying, fire, disease, weeds, and degradation of values that are to be assessed in referral 2021/8909.

Tasmanian Masked Owl is verified as both present and breeding on the site and it’s surrounds. The mitigation measures proposed by the proponent are inadequate, given that Masked Owls are known to roost in trees of less than 1mDBH, and that there is no evidentiary basis provided for a 15m buffer preventing nest abandonment or physical harm. An operating drill rig may reach 120dB (the equivalent of a jet aircraft) making damage to hearing of owl chicks and nest abandonment a likely impacts at  distances greater than 15m.

A recorded eagle nest within 1km line of sight of proposed tracks and 500m of proposed tracks and works sites highlights the risks to this species. Ground truthing by Bob Brown Foundation has identified a second nest. The proponent’s proposed management plan avoiding works during the breeding season ignores the fact that the roading and tracks created will be used to access the site for this proposal, but also for referral 2021/8909 facilitating long-term unmitigated impacts.

The proponent asserts that habitat is sub-optimal for Tasmanian Devil and Spotted-tailed Quoll despite only four days of surveying, and having identified both scats and tracks on roadways within the site. The proponent seeks to dismiss its own data, asserting that Devils were using the roadway as a dispersal route. As three flanks of this area are bounded by the Pieman and Huskisson River impoundments, it is unlikely that animals were merely passing through. Denning or foraging remain likely reasons for animals identified in the area. The proponent’s recommendation for post-approval surveys should not replace assessment of a complete referral, particularly given that the proponent has had 31 months to conduct such surveys.

The proponent asserts that Swift Parrot will not utilise the site, despite recordings of the species over the summer of 2022/23.

The proponent under-attributes Brooker’s gum by 74%, noting 7.14ha, where ground truthing by Bob Brown Foundation found 12.41ha. The proposed 30m buffer around Brooker’s gum is insufficient and unlikely to protect sites from disease, drying and increased risk of fire.

Despite known locations of proposed works, the proponent has not conducted vegetation surveys of these sites. This demonstrates the same disregard for the EPBC Act that led them to proceed with unapproved works at this same site between May 2021 and July 2022. It is impossible for the Minister to determine the level of impact in the absence of data from the impact zone.

The referral must be considered a controlled action, and in my view rejected as clearly unacceptable.