Council archive · source document
Cover Letter, DA Form 1, Plans, Owners Consent, Coastal Environment Assessment · OPW21/0049
Attached to the e-mail Operational Works Application OPW21/0049 - Noosa Spit Erosion Protection Works.
Plans and drawings: the text below has words only, no drawings.
BMT Commercial Australia Pty Ltd
Level 5, 348 Edward Street
Brisbane Qld 4000
Australia
PO Box 203, Spring Hill 4004
Our Ref: : L.A10342.001.cover letter.docx Tel: + 61 7 3831 6744
Fax: + 61 7 3832 3627
ABN 54 010 830 421
17 February 2021
www.bmt.org
Noosa Council
Development Assessment Team
9 Pelican St, Tewantin QLD 4565
Attention: To Whom it May Concern
RE: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR OPERATIONAL WORKS: NOOSA SPIT COASTAL
PROCTECTION WORKS
On behalf on Noosa Council, please find attached a Development Application for Operational Works that
is Tidal Works and an Environmentally Relevant Activity. Works involves the dredging of material from the
mouth of the Noosa River, and placement of the material on Noosa Spit to provide protection against
ongoing erosion that is occurring.
The application is accompanied by the following:
• DA Form 1 – Development Application Details
• Owners Consent to undertake the works from the Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy
• An Environmental Assessment which provides details on:
○ Site details
○ Overview of the proposed development
○ Potential environmental impacts
○ An assessment of the impact to marine plants
○ Assessment against relevant state codes
• Concept Design Drawings A10342-01-01A B that show the works to be approved
• Minutes from SARA pre-lodgement meeting.
The relevant referral agencies for the work includes the Department of Environment and Science (tidal
works and ERA 16), the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries (removal of marine plants) and the
Department of Transport and Main Roads (Maritime Safety Queensland – navigational safety).
A pre-lodgement meeting was held with State Agencies in September, 2020 and is attached to this
application.
Yours Faithfully
Lisa McKinnon
Principal Environmental Consultant
BMT
G:\Admin\A10342.g.mpb.NoosaSpitSEMPdesign\03 approvals\L.A10342.001.cover letter.docx
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalFull text of pages 2 to 119 (of 146)
Page 2
2 Attachment 1 – DA Form 1 G:\Admin\A10342.g.mpb.NoosaSpitSEMPdesign\03 approvals\L.A10342.001.cover letter.docx
Page 3
DA Form 1 – Development application details
Approved form (version 1.1 effective 22 JUNE 2018) made under section 282 of the Planning Act 2016.
This form must be used to make a development application involving code assessment or impact assessment,
except when applying for development involving building work.
For a development application involving building work only, use DA Form 2 – Building work details.
For a development application involving building work associated with any other type of assessable development
(i.e. material change of use, operational work or reconfiguring a lot), use this form (DA Form 1) and parts 4 to 6 of
DA Form 2 – Building work details.
Unless stated otherwise, all parts of this form must be completed in full and all required supporting information must
accompany the development application.
One or more additional pages may be attached as a schedule to this development application if there is insufficient
space on the form to include all the necessary information.
This form and any other form relevant to the development application must be used to make a development
application relating to strategic port land and Brisbane core port land under the Transport Infrastructure Act 1994,
and airport land under the Airport Assets (Restructuring and Disposal) Act 2008. For the purpose of assessing a
development application relating to strategic port land and Brisbane core port land, any reference to a planning
scheme is taken to mean a land use plan for the strategic port land, Brisbane port land use plan for Brisbane core
port land, or a land use plan for airport land.
Note: All terms used in this form have the meaning given under the Planning Act 2016, the Planning Regulation 2017, or the Development
Assessment Rules (DA Rules).
PART 1 – APPLICANT DETAILS
1) Applicant details
Applicant name(s) (individual or company full name) Noosa Shire Council
Contact name (only applicable for companies) Daniel Wishaw
Postal address (P.O. Box or street address) Level 1, 9 Pelican Street
Suburb Tewantin
State QLD
Postcode
Country Australia
Contact number 07 5329 6265
Email address (non-mandatory) [email protected]
Mobile number (non-mandatory)
Fax number (non-mandatory)
Applicant’s reference number(s) (if applicable)
2) Owner’s consent
2.1) Is written consent of the owner required for this development application?
Yes – the written consent of the owner(s) is attached to this development application
No – proceed to 3)
Page 4
PART 2 – LOCATION DETAILS
3) Location of the premises (complete 3.1) or 3.2), and 3.3) as applicable)
Note: Provide details below and attach a site plan for any or all premises part of the development application. For further information, see DA
Forms Guide: Relevant plans.
3.1) Street address and lot on plan
Street address AND lot on plan (all lots must be listed), or
Street address AND lot on plan for an adjoining or adjacent property of the premises (appropriate for development in
water but adjoining or adjacent to land e.g. jetty, pontoon; all lots must be listed).
Unit No. Street No. Street Name and Type Suburb
a)
Postcode Lot No. Plan Type and Number (e.g. RP, SP) Local Government Area(s)
Lot 114, MCH839107 Noosa
Unit No. Street No. Street Name and Type Suburb
b)
Postcode Lot No. Plan Type and Number (e.g. RP, SP) Local Government Area(s)
3.2) Coordinates of premises (appropriate for development in remote areas, over part of a lot or in water not adjoining or adjacent to land
e.g. channel dredging in Moreton Bay)
Note: Place each set of coordinates in a separate row. Only one set of coordinates is required for this part.
Coordinates of premises by longitude and latitude
Longitude(s) Latitude(s) Datum Local Government Area(s) (if applicable)
WGS84
GDA94
Other:
Coordinates of premises by easting and northing
Easting(s) Northing(s) Zone Ref. Datum Local Government Area(s) (if applicable)
54 WGS84
55 GDA94
56 Other:
3.3) Additional premises
Additional premises are relevant to this development application and their details have been attached in a
schedule to this application
Not required
4) Identify any of the following that apply to the premises and provide any relevant details
In or adjacent to a water body or watercourse or in or above an aquifer
Name of water body, watercourse or aquifer: Noosa River
On strategic port land under the Transport Infrastructure Act 1994
Lot on plan description of strategic port land:
Name of port authority for the lot:
In a tidal area
Name of local government for the tidal area (if applicable): Noosa
Name of port authority for tidal area (if applicable):
On airport land under the Airport Assets (Restructuring and Disposal) Act 2008
Name of airport:
Page 2
DA Form 1 – Development Application details
Version 1.1— 22 JUNE 2018
Page 5
Listed on the Environmental Management Register (EMR) under the Environmental Protection Act 1994
EMR site identification:
Listed on the Contaminated Land Register (CLR) under the Environmental Protection Act 1994
CLR site identification:
5) Are there any existing easements over the premises?
Note: Easement uses vary throughout Queensland and are to be identified correctly and accurately. For further information on easements and
how they may affect the proposed development, see DA Forms Guide.
Yes – All easement locations, types and dimensions are included in plans submitted with this development
application
No
PART 3 – DEVELOPMENT DETAILS
Section 1 – Aspects of development
6.1) Provide details about the first development aspect
a) What is the type of development? (tick only one box)
Material change of use Reconfiguring a lot Operational work Building work
b) What is the approval type? (tick only one box)
Development permit Preliminary approval Preliminary approval that includes
a variation approval
c) What is the level of assessment?
Code assessment Impact assessment (requires public notification)
d) Provide a brief description of the proposal (e.g. 6 unit apartment building defined as multi-unit dwelling, reconfiguration of 1 lot into 3
lots):
Dredging Sand from the mouth of the Noosa River for nourishment of adjacent Noosa Spit
e) Relevant plans
Note: Relevant plans are required to be submitted for all aspects of this development application. For further information, see DA Forms guide:
Relevant plans.
Relevant plans of the proposed development are attached to the development application
6.2) Provide details about the second development aspect
a) What is the type of development? (tick only one box)
Material change of use Reconfiguring a lot Operational work Building work
b) What is the approval type? (tick only one box)
Development permit Preliminary approval Preliminary approval that includes a variation
approval
c) What is the level of assessment?
Code assessment Impact assessment (requires public notification)
d) Provide a brief description of the proposal (e.g. 6 unit apartment building defined as multi-unit dwelling, reconfiguration of 1 lot into 3
lots):
e) Relevant plans
Note: Relevant plans are required to be submitted for all aspects of this development application. For further information, see DA Forms Guide:
Relevant plans.
Relevant plans of the proposed development are attached to the development application
Page 3
DA Form 1 – Development Application details
Version 1.1— 22 JUNE 2018
Page 6
6.3) Additional aspects of development
Additional aspects of development are relevant to this development application and the details for these aspects
that would be required under Part 3 Section 1 of this form have been attached to this development application
Not required
Section 2 – Further development details
7) Does the proposed development application involve any of the following?
Material change of use Yes – complete division 1 if assessable against a local planning instrument
Reconfiguring a lot Yes – complete division 2
Operational work Yes – complete division 3
Building work Yes – complete DA Form 2 – Building work details
Division 1 – Material change of use
Note: This division is only required to be completed if any part of the development application involves a material change of use assessable against a
local planning instrument.
8.1) Describe the proposed material change of use
Provide a general description of the Provide the planning scheme definition Number of dwelling Gross floor
proposed use (include each definition in a new row) units (if applicable) area (m2)
(if applicable)
Material change of use for undertaking
an Environmentally Relevant Activity and
Tidal Works
8.2) Does the proposed use involve the use of existing buildings on the premises?
Yes
No
Division 2 – Reconfiguring a lot
Note: This division is only required to be completed if any part of the development application involves reconfiguring a lot.
9.1) What is the total number of existing lots making up the premises?
9.2) What is the nature of the lot reconfiguration? (tick all applicable boxes)
Subdivision (complete 10)) Dividing land into parts by agreement (complete 11))
Boundary realignment (complete 12)) Creating or changing an easement giving access to a lot
from a construction road (complete 13))
10) Subdivision
10.1) For this development, how many lots are being created and what is the intended use of those lots:
Intended use of lots created Residential Commercial Industrial Other, please specify:
Number of lots created
10.2) Will the subdivision be staged?
Yes – provide additional details below
No
How many stages will the works include?
What stage(s) will this development application
apply to?
Page 4
DA Form 1 – Development Application details
Version 1.1— 22 JUNE 2018
Page 7
11) Dividing land into parts by agreement – how many parts are being created and what is the intended use of the
parts?
Intended use of parts created Residential Commercial Industrial Other, please specify:
Number of parts created
12) Boundary realignment
12.1) What are the current and proposed areas for each lot comprising the premises?
Current lot Proposed lot
Lot on plan description Area (m2) Lot on plan description Area (m2)
12.2) What is the reason for the boundary realignment?
13) What are the dimensions and nature of any existing easements being changed and/or any proposed easement?
(attach schedule if there are more than two easements)
Existing or Width (m) Length (m) Purpose of the easement? (e.g. Identify the land/lot(s)
proposed? pedestrian access) benefitted by the easement
Division 3 – Operational work
Note: This division is only required to be completed if any part of the development application involves operational work.
14.1) What is the nature of the operational work?
Road work Stormwater Water infrastructure
Drainage work Earthworks Sewage infrastructure
Landscaping Signage Clearing vegetation
Other – please specify: Tidal Works
14.2) Is the operational work necessary to facilitate the creation of new lots? (e.g. subdivision)
Yes – specify number of new lots:
No
14.3) What is the monetary value of the proposed operational work? (include GST, materials and labour)
$
PART 4 – ASSESSMENT MANAGER DETAILS
15) Identify the assessment manager(s) who will be assessing this development application
Noosa Shire council
16) Has the local government agreed to apply a superseded planning scheme for this development application?
Yes – a copy of the decision notice is attached to this development application
Local government is taken to have agreed to the superseded planning scheme request – relevant documents
attached
No
Page 5
DA Form 1 – Development Application details
Version 1.1— 22 JUNE 2018
Page 8
PART 5 – REFERRAL DETAILS
17) Do any aspects of the proposed development require referral for any referral requirements?
Note: A development application will require referral if prescribed by the Planning Regulation 2017.
No, there are no referral requirements relevant to any development aspects identified in this development
application – proceed to Part 6
Matters requiring referral to the Chief Executive of the Planning Regulation 2017:
Clearing native vegetation
Contaminated land (unexploded ordnance)
Environmentally relevant activities (ERA) (only if the ERA have not been devolved to a local government)
Fisheries – aquaculture
Fisheries – declared fish habitat area
Fisheries – marine plants
Fisheries – waterway barrier works
Hazardous chemical facilities
Queensland heritage place (on or near a Queensland heritage place)
Infrastructure – designated premises
Infrastructure – state transport infrastructure
Infrastructure – state transport corridors and future state transport corridors
Infrastructure – state-controlled transport tunnels and future state-controlled transport tunnels
Infrastructure – near a state-controlled road intersection
On Brisbane core port land near a State transport corridor or future State transport corridor
On Brisbane core port land – ERA
On Brisbane core port land – tidal works or work in a coastal management district
On Brisbane core port land – hazardous chemical facility
On Brisbane core port land – taking or interfering with water
On Brisbane core port land – referable dams
On Brisbane core port land - fisheries
Land within Port of Brisbane’s port limits
SEQ development area
SEQ regional landscape and rural production area or SEQ rural living area – tourist activity or sport and
recreation activity
SEQ regional landscape and rural production area or SEQ rural living area – community activity
SEQ regional landscape and rural production area or SEQ rural living area – indoor recreation
SEQ regional landscape and rural production area or SEQ rural living area – urban activity
SEQ regional landscape and rural production area or SEQ rural living area – combined use
Tidal works or works in a coastal management district
Reconfiguring a lot in a coastal management district or for a canal
Erosion prone area in a coastal management district
Urban design
Water-related development – taking or interfering with water
Water-related development – removing quarry material (from a watercourse or lake)
Water-related development – referable dams
Water-related development – construction of new levees or modification of existing levees (category 3 levees only)
Wetland protection area
Matters requiring referral to the local government:
Airport land
Environmentally relevant activities (ERA) (only if the ERA have been devolved to local government)
Local heritage places
Page 6
DA Form 1 – Development Application details
Version 1.1— 22 JUNE 2018
Page 9
Matters requiring referral to the chief executive of the distribution entity or transmission entity:
Electricity infrastructure
Matters requiring referral to:
• The Chief executive of the holder of the licence, if not an individual
• The holder of the licence, if the holder of the licence is an individual
Oil and gas infrastructure
Matters requiring referral to the Brisbane City Council:
Brisbane core port land
Matters requiring referral to the Minister under the Transport Infrastructure Act 1994:
Brisbane core port land (inconsistent with Brisbane port LUP for transport reasons)
Strategic port land
Matters requiring referral to the relevant port operator:
Land within Port of Brisbane’s port limits (below high-water mark)
Matters requiring referral to the Chief Executive of the relevant port authority:
Land within limits of another port (below high-water mark)
Matters requiring referral to the Gold Coast Waterways Authority:
Tidal works, or work in a coastal management district in Gold Coast waters
Matters requiring referral to the Queensland Fire and Emergency Service:
Tidal works marina (more than six vessel berths)
18) Has any referral agency provided a referral response for this development application?
Yes – referral response(s) received and listed below are attached to this development application
No
Referral requirement Referral agency Date of referral response
Identify and describe any changes made to the proposed development application that was the subject of the
referral response and the development application the subject of this form, or include details in a schedule to this
development application (if applicable).
PART 6 – INFORMATION REQUEST
19) Information request under Part 3 of the DA Rules
I agree to receive an information request if determined necessary for this development application
I do not agree to accept an information request for this development application
Note: By not agreeing to accept an information request I, the applicant, acknowledge:
• that this development application will be assessed and decided based on the information provided when making this development application
and the assessment manager and any referral agencies relevant to the development application are not obligated under the DA Rules to
accept any additional information provided by the applicant for the development application unless agreed to by the relevant parties
• Part 3 of the DA Rules will still apply if the application is an application listed under section 11.3 of the DA Rules.
Further advice about information requests is contained in the DA Forms Guide.
Page 7
DA Form 1 – Development Application details
Version 1.1— 22 JUNE 2018
Page 10
PART 7 – FURTHER DETAILS
20) Are there any associated development applications or current approvals? (e.g. a preliminary approval)
Yes – provide details below or include details in a schedule to this development application
No
List of approval/development Reference number Date Assessment
application references manager
Approval
Development application
Approval
Development application
21) Has the portable long service leave levy been paid? (only applicable to development applications involving building work or
operational work)
Yes – a copy of the receipted QLeave form is attached to this development application
No – I, the applicant will provide evidence that the portable long service leave levy has been paid before the
assessment manager decides the development application. I acknowledge that the assessment manager may give
a development approval only if I provide evidence that the portable long service leave levy has been paid
Not applicable (e.g. building and construction work is less than $150,000 excluding GST)
Amount paid Date paid (dd/mm/yy) QLeave levy number
$
22) Is this development application in response to a show cause notice or required as a result of an enforcement
notice?
Yes – show cause or enforcement notice is attached
No
23) Further legislative requirements
Environmentally relevant activities
23.1) Is this development application also taken to be an application for an environmental authority for an
Environmentally Relevant Activity (ERA) under section 115 of the Environmental Protection Act 1994?
Yes – the required attachment (form ESR/2015/1791) for an application for an environmental authority
accompanies this development application, and details are provided in the table below
No
Note: Application for an environmental authority can be found by searching “ESR/2015/1791” as a search term at www.qld.gov.au. An ERA
requires an environmental authority to operate. See www.business.qld.gov.au for further information.
Proposed ERA number: 16 (1) (b) Proposed ERA threshold:
Proposed ERA name: Extractive and Screening
Multiple ERAs are applicable to this development application and the details have been attached in a
schedule to this development application.
Hazardous chemical facilities
23.2) Is this development application for a hazardous chemical facility?
Yes – Form 69: Notification of a facility exceeding 10% of schedule 15 threshold is attached to this development
application
No
Note: See www.business.qld.gov.au for further information about hazardous chemical notifications.
Clearing native vegetation
Page 8
DA Form 1 – Development Application details
Version 1.1— 22 JUNE 2018
Page 11
23.3) Does this development application involve clearing native vegetation that requires written confirmation that
the chief executive of the Vegetation Management Act 1999 is satisfied the clearing is for a relevant purpose under
section 22A of the Vegetation Management Act 1999?
Yes – this development application includes written confirmation from the chief executive of the Vegetation
Management Act 1999 (s22A determination)
No
Note: 1. Where a development application for operational work or material change of use requires a s22A determination and this is not included,
the development application is prohibited development.
2. See https://www.qld.gov.au/environment/land/vegetation/applying for further information on how to obtain a s22A determination.
Environmental offsets
23.4) Is this development application taken to be a prescribed activity that may have a significant residual impact on
a prescribed environmental matter under the Environmental Offsets Act 2014?
Yes – I acknowledge that an environmental offset must be provided for any prescribed activity assessed as
having a significant residual impact on a prescribed environmental matter
No
Note: The environmental offset section of the Queensland Government’s website can be accessed at www.qld.gov.au for further information on
environmental offsets.
Koala conservation
23.5) Does this development application involve a material change of use, reconfiguring a lot or operational work
within an assessable development area under Schedule 10, Part 10 of the Planning Regulation 2017?
Yes
No
Note: See guidance materials at www.des.qld.gov.au for further information.
Water resources
23.6) Does this development application involve taking or interfering with underground water through an
artesian or subartesian bore, taking or interfering with water in a watercourse, lake or spring, or taking
overland flow water under the Water Act 2000?
Yes – the relevant template is completed and attached to this development application and I acknowledge that a
relevant authorisation or licence under the Water Act 2000 may be required prior to commencing development
No
Note: Contact the Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy at www.dnrme.qld.gov.au for further information.
DA templates are available from https://planning.dsdmip.qld.gov.au/. If the development application involves:
• Taking or interfering with underground water through an artesian or subartesian bore: complete DA Form 1 Template 1
• Taking or interfering with water in a watercourse, lake or spring: complete DA Form1 Template 2
• Taking overland flow water: complete DA Form 1 Template 3.
Waterway barrier works
23.7) Does this application involve waterway barrier works?
Yes – the relevant template is completed and attached to this development application
No
DA templates are available from https://planning.dsdmip.qld.gov.au/. For a development application involving waterway barrier works, complete
DA Form 1 Template 4.
Marine activities
23.8) Does this development application involve aquaculture, works within a declared fish habitat area or
removal, disturbance or destruction of marine plants?
Yes – an associated resource allocation authority is attached to this development application, if required under
the Fisheries Act 1994
No
Note: See guidance materials at www.daf.qld.gov.au for further information.
Quarry materials from a watercourse or lake
23.9) Does this development application involve the removal of quarry materials from a watercourse or lake
under the Water Act 2000?
Page 9
DA Form 1 – Development Application details
Version 1.1— 22 JUNE 2018
Page 12
Yes – I acknowledge that a quarry material allocation notice must be obtained prior to commencing development
No
Note: Contact the Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy at www.dnrme.qld.gov.au and www.business.qld.gov.au for further
information.
Quarry materials from land under tidal waters
23.10) Does this development application involve the removal of quarry materials from land under tidal water
under the Coastal Protection and Management Act 1995?
Yes – I acknowledge that a quarry material allocation notice must be obtained prior to commencing development
No
Note: Contact the Department of Environment and Science at www.des.qld.gov.au for further information.
Referable dams
23.11) Does this development application involve a referable dam required to be failure impact assessed under
section 343 of the Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Act 2008 (the Water Supply Act)?
Yes – the ‘Notice Accepting a Failure Impact Assessment’ from the chief executive administering the Water
Supply Act is attached to this development application
No
Note: See guidance materials at www.dnrme.qld.gov.au for further information.
Tidal work or development within a coastal management district
23.12) Does this development application involve tidal work or development in a coastal management district?
Yes – the following is included with this development application:
Evidence the proposal meets the code for assessable development that is prescribed tidal work (only required
if application involves prescribed tidal work)
A certificate of title
No
Note: See guidance materials at www.des.qld.gov.au for further information.
Queensland and local heritage places
23.13) Does this development application propose development on or adjoining a place entered in the Queensland
heritage register or on a place entered in a local government’s Local Heritage Register?
Yes – details of the heritage place are provided in the table below
No
Note: See guidance materials at www.des.qld.gov.au for information requirements regarding development of Queensland heritage places.
Name of the heritage place: Place ID:
Brothels
23.14) Does this development application involve a material change of use for a brothel?
Yes – this development application demonstrates how the proposal meets the code for a development
application for a brothel under Schedule 3 of the Prostitution Regulation 2014
No
Decision under section 62 of the Transport Infrastructure Act 1994
23.15) Does this development application involve new or changed access to a state-controlled road?
Yes - this application will be taken to be an application for a decision under section 62 of the Transport
Infrastructure Act 1994 (subject to the conditions in section 75 of the Transport Infrastructure Act 1994 being
satisfied)
No
Page 10
DA Form 1 – Development Application details
Version 1.1— 22 JUNE 2018
Page 13
PART 8 – CHECKLIST AND APPLICANT DECLARATION
24) Development application checklist
I have identified the assessment manager in question 15 and all relevant referral
requirement(s) in question 17 Yes
Note: See the Planning Regulation 2017 for referral requirements
If building work is associated with the proposed development, Parts 4 to 6 of DA Form 2 – Yes
Building work details have been completed and attached to this development application Not applicable
Supporting information addressing any applicable assessment benchmarks is with
development application
Note: This is a mandatory requirement and includes any relevant templates under question 23, a planning report Yes
and any technical reports required by the relevant categorising instruments (e.g. local government planning
schemes, State Planning Policy, State Development Assessment Provisions). For further information, see DA
Forms Guide: Planning Report Template.
Relevant plans of the development are attached to this development application
Note: Relevant plans are required to be submitted for all aspects of this development application. For further Yes
information, see DA Forms Guide: Relevant plans.
The portable long service leave levy for QLeave has been paid, or will be paid before a Yes
development permit is issued (see 21)) Not applicable
25) Applicant declaration
By making this development application, I declare that all information in this development application is true and
correct
Where an email address is provided in Part 1 of this form, I consent to receive future electronic communications
from the assessment manager and any referral agency for the development application where written information is
required or permitted pursuant to sections 11 and 12 of the Electronic Transactions Act 2001
Note: It is unlawful to intentionally provide false or misleading information.
Privacy – Personal information collected in this form will be used by the assessment manager and/or chosen
assessment manager, any relevant referral agency and/or building certifier (including any professional advisers
which may be engaged by those entities) while processing, assessing and deciding the development application.
All information relating to this development application may be available for inspection and purchase, and/or
published on the assessment manager’s and/or referral agency’s website.
Personal information will not be disclosed for a purpose unrelated to the Planning Act 2016, Planning Regulation 2017
and the DA Rules except where:
• such disclosure is in accordance with the provisions about public access to documents contained in the Planning
Act 2016 and the Planning Regulation 2017, and the access rules made under the Planning Act 2016 and Planning
Regulation 2017; or
• required by other legislation (including the Right to Information Act 2009); or
• otherwise required by law.
This information may be stored in relevant databases. The information collected will be retained as required by the
Public Records Act 2002.
PART 9 – FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Date received: Reference number(s):
Notification of engagement of alternative assessment manager
Prescribed assessment manager
Name of chosen assessment manager
Date chosen assessment manager engaged
Contact number of chosen assessment manager
Page 11
DA Form 1 – Development Application details
Version 1.1— 22 JUNE 2018
Page 14
Relevant licence number(s) of chosen assessment
manager
QLeave notification and payment
Note: For completion by assessment manager if applicable
Description of the work
QLeave project number
Amount paid ($)
Date paid
Date receipted form sighted by assessment manager
Name of officer who sighted the form
Page 12
DA Form 1 – Development Application details
Version 1.1— 22 JUNE 2018
Page 15
4 Attachment 2 - Owners Consent G:\Admin\A10342.g.mpb.NoosaSpitSEMPdesign\03 approvals\L.A10342.001.cover letter.docx
Page 16
Author: Charmaine Duke
File / Ref number: 2021/000033
Directorate / Unit: Land Administration and Acquisitions
Phone: (07) 5451 2243
9 February 2021
Attn: Lisa McKinnon
BMT Eastern Australia Pty Ltd
Level 5
348 Edward Street
BRISBANE QLD 4000
Dear Ms McKinnon
APPLICATION FOR OWNERS CONSENT – LAND ADJACENT TO LOT 114 ON MCH839107,
LOCALITY OF NOOSA HEADS – YOUR CLIENT NOOSA SHIRE COUNCIL
Reference is made to the request for owners consent required to accompany the development
application for DA Form 1, a material change of use – Operational works.
The department hereby gives owner’s consent as the owner to accompany the development
application for the purpose of section 51(2) of the Planning Act 2016 for a material change of use
– Operational works.
Although owner’s consent to the development or change application has been provided and no
tenure under the Land Act is required, your client is to undertake works on the land only if and
when the development or change application has been approved by the assessment manager or
responsible entity, and in accordance with the conditions of that approval.
A copy of this letter is to be attached to your DA Form 1 as the required evidence of owners
consent.
Your client will also need to comply with all other legislative and regulatory requirements which
may also include approvals that are not part of the assessment of the development application
under the Planning Act 2016 e.g. a marine park permit if in a marine park.
Postal : Telephone : (07)54512215
Resources Nambour Fax: 54512262
PO Box 573
Nambour
4560 QLD
Page 17
Further, please note that the above consent will expire on 10 August 2021. Should the
development application not be lodged with the assessment manager prior to this date, your
client will be required again to lodge the DA Form 1 and any attachments with this Department
with a further request for owner’s consent - any further request will need to be reconsidered by
the Department.
It is also advised that any land use activities must comply with the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage
Act 2003 or the Torres Strait Islander Heritage Act 2003.
Finally, owner’s consent is required under the Planning Act 2016 to enable the application to be
considered properly made for lodging with the assessment manager and is a completely
separate process to assessment of the application under the Planning Act 2016.
Accordingly, the State may act at a later date as responsible entity in the assessment of the
development application - providing owner’s consent will not influence any role the State may
have in this development assessment.
If you wish to discuss this matter please contact Charmaine Duke on (07) 5451 2243.
All future correspondence relative to this matter is to be referred to the contact Officer at the
address above or by email to [email protected]. Any hard copy
correspondence received will be electronically scanned and filed. For this reason, it is
recommended that any attached plans, sketches or maps be no larger than A3-sized.
Please quote reference number 2021/000033 in any future correspondence.
Yours sincerely
Matthew Halls
A/Senior Land Officer
A duly authorised delegate of the Minister
under the current Land Act (Ministerial) Delegation
Page 2 of 2
Page 18
6 Attachment 3 - Environmental Assessment Report G:\Admin\A10342.g.mpb.NoosaSpitSEMPdesign\03 approvals\L.A10342.001.cover letter.docx
Page 19
Noosa Spit Coastal Protection Environmental Assessment Reference: R.A10342.002.00_Environmental Assessment.docx Date: January 2021 Confidential
Page 20
Document Control Sheet
Document: R.A10342.002.00_Environmental
BMT Commercial Australia Pty Ltd Assessment.docx
Level 5, 348 Edward Street
Title: Noosa Spit Coastal Protection Environmental
Brisbane Qld 4000
Australia Assessment
PO Box 203, Spring Hill 4004 Project Manager: Lisa McKinnon
Tel: + 61 7 3831 6744 Author: Lisa McKinnon and Brianna Heeley
Fax: + 61 7 3832 3627
Client: Noosa Council
ABN 54 010 830 421
Client Contact: Daniel Wishaw
www.bmt.org
Client Reference:
Synopsis:
REVISION/CHECKING HISTORY
Revision Number Date Checked by Issued by
0 6th January 2021 LCM LCM
DISTRIBUTION
Destination Revision
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Noosa Council PDF
BMT File PDF
BMT Library PDF
Copyright and non-disclosure notice
The contents and layout of this report are subject to copyright owned by BMT Commercial Australia Pty Ltd (BMT CA) save to the extent
that copyright has been legally assigned by us to another party or is used by BMT CA under licence. To the extent that we own the
copyright in this report, it may not be copied or used without our prior written agreement for any purpose other than the purpose
indicated in this report.
The methodology (if any) contained in this report is provided to you in confidence and must not be disclosed or copied to third parties
without the prior written agreement of BMT CA. Disclosure of that information may constitute an actionable breach of confidence or may
otherwise prejudice our commercial interests. Any third party who obtains access to this report by any means will, in any event, be
subject to the Third Party Disclaimer set out below.
Third Party Disclaimer
Any disclosure of this report to a third party is subject to this disclaimer. The report was prepared by BMT CA at the instruction of, and
for use by, our client named on this Document Control Sheet. It does not in any way constitute advice to any third party who is able to
access it by any means. BMT CA excludes to the fullest extent lawfully permitted all liability whatsoever for any loss or damage
howsoever arising from reliance on the contents of this report.
Commercial terms
BMT requests the ability to discuss and negotiate in good faith the terms and conditions of the proposed terms of engagement, to
facilitate successful project outcomes, to adequately protect both parties and to accord with normal contracting practice for
engagements of this type.
G:\Admin\A10342.g.mpb.NoosaSpitSEMPdesign\03
approvals\R.A10342.002.00_Environmental Assessment.docx`
Page 21
Noosa Spit Coastal Protection Environmental Assessment i
Contents
Contents
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Project Description 1
1.2 Existing Environment 2
1.3 Alternative Options 3
2 Study Approach 6
2.1 Overview 6
2.2 Key Data Sources 6
2.2.1 Impact Assessment 6
3 Matters of State Environmental Significance 7
3.1 Fish Habitat Area 7
3.2 Marine Plants 9
3.2.1 Existing Habitats 9
3.3 Protected Wildlife Habitat 11
3.3.1.1 Birds 11
3.3.1.2 Marine Turtles 12
4 Approvals 15
5 Potential Impacts 16
5.1 Direct Modifications to Marine and Intertidal Habitat 16
5.2 Water Quality 16
5.3 Disturbance of acid sulfate soils 17
5.4 Changes to Coastal Processes 17
5.5 Noise and Interference from Physical Presence of Plant/Personnel 17
5.6 Lighting Impacts 18
5.7 Interactions between Dredge Plant and Marine Fauna 18
5.8 Introduced Pests 18
5.9 Maritime Safety 18
6 Environmental Management Controls 19
7 Offsets 20
8 Conclusion 21
9 References 22
Appendix A Pre-Lodgement Meeting Minutes A-1
Appendix B State Codes B-1
G:\Admin\A10342.g.mpb.NoosaSpitSEMPdesign\03
approvals\R.A10342.002.00_Environmental Assessment.docx`
Page 22
Noosa Spit Coastal Protection Environmental Assessment ii
Contents
Appendix C Marine Plant Assessment C-1
Appendix D Bird Survey D-1
List of Figures
Figure 1-1 Nearmap imagery of Noosa Spit 3
Figure 1-2 Noosa Spit Beach Nourishment Project 5
Figure 3-1 Matters of State Environmental Significance 8
Figure 3-2 Vegetation Communities and Habitat Features of the Study Site 10
List of Tables
Table 3-1 Shorebird abundance for species with NC Act conservation value (NICAI
2020) 12
Table 3-2 Likelihood of MSES Species Occurrence Within the Dredge Footprint and
Nourishment Area 13
Table B-1 State Code 7: Maritime Safety B-2
Table B-2 State 8: Coastal development and tidal works B-6
Table B-3 State Code 11: Removal, destruction or damage of marine plants B-12
Table B-4 State Code 22: Environmentally relevant activities B-24
G:\Admin\A10342.g.mpb.NoosaSpitSEMPdesign\03
approvals\R.A10342.002.00_Environmental Assessment.docx`
Page 23
Noosa Spit Coastal Protection Environmental Assessment 1
Introduction
1 Introduction
The Noosa Spit at Dog Beach is narrowing and is at risk of a breakthrough, primarily driven by
channel migration processes. Works completed in 2013 have only stabilised the western extent of
Dog Beach. The rate of shoreline recession through the middle section has increased and the
channel adjacent to Dog Beach is now commonly used by recreational and commercial vessels.
The importance of maintaining The Spit and avoiding a breakthrough is primarily related to protecting
existing development within Noosa Sound and the back of Hastings Street. The consequence of a
breakthrough includes:
• Reduced attenuation of the ocean tide and increases to peak high tide water levels in the lower
Noosa River. This reduces the freeboard for waterfront development and therefore increases the
likelihood of flooding driven by coastal and/or fluvial processes.
• Rapid and unpredictable morphological change following a breakthrough and further loss of
coastal land and open space that shelters existing development.
A Shoreline Erosion Management Plan (SEMP) was developed to quantify the combined dynamics
of the river entrance and Noosa Main Beach investigate impacts of various river mouth alignments,
simulate the impacts of a breakthrough event, and propose erosion mitigation options for Dog Beach
(BMT, 2019).
A number of design options were investigated as part of the SEMP; however it was determined that
the preferred design involved placing sand plugs at either end of Dog Beach. This involves using a
small cutter suction dredge and slurry pipeline to relocate sand from the adjacent Noosa River
estuary to the two locations. Approximately 85,000m3 of sand would be needed to form the two plugs
and nourish the shoreline.
Over time the plugs will be gradually modified by the flood tide currents with sediment eroded from
the crest and likely deposited in the adjacent channel area. This could be described as a gradual
‘smoothing’ of the constructed sand plugs.
This will relieve erosion pressure at the Dog Beach shoreline and will promote the development of a
central channel. The project will restore and maintain the existing recreational beach and redirect
boat traffic away from the Dog Beach Channel, providing a safer environment for swimmers.
This document supports a development approval application for owners consent and subsequent
operational works (also encompassing a number of other approvals) and examines the Matters of
State Environmental Significance (MSES) that may potentially be impacted by the project, the
significance of that impact, the controls and/or mitigation framework to be applied and finally, the
residual effects relevant to the Environmental Offsets Act 2014.
A pre-lodgement meeting was held with state agencies in September, 2020; a formal pre-lodgement
response is attached in Appendix A.
1.1 Project Description
The project will involve the following activities:
G:\Admin\A10342.g.mpb.NoosaSpitSEMPdesign\03
approvals\R.A10342.002.00_Environmental Assessment.docx
Page 24
Noosa Spit Coastal Protection Environmental Assessment 2
Introduction
• Dredging of up to approximately 85,000m3 of sand material from the area identified in Figure 1-2,
by Cutter Suction Dredge
• The sand extraction zone spans approximately 187,000m2
• The estimated volume required to fill the sand plugs is 14,000m 3 and 17,000m3 for the northern
and southern plugs respectively
• The depth of dredge extraction is to approximately -3m AHD
• Delivery of the sand to Dog Beach for nourishment purposes will be via a slurry pipeline.
1.2 Existing Environment
The lower Noosa River and river entrance are highly modified and dynamic environments influenced
by the prevailing fluvial and coastal processes. The observed trend of shoreline recession at the
north-facing beach of Noosa Spit, known locally as Dog or ‘Doggie’ Beach, is impacting the social
and recreational values attributed to the area. Importantly, this beach also forms part of an artificially
constructed river training/coastal defence strategy that protects property in Noosa Sound and the
back of Hastings Street.
Recently, erosion and shoreline recession has resulted in a narrowing of Noosa Spit. Consequently,
there is concern that the river may eventually break through Noosa Spit at Dog Beach resulting direct
impact to the adjacent urban areas.
The area from which sand is to be sourced, sits at the mouth of the Noosa River estuary, and consists
of ever moving alluvium sand shoals, adjacent to the trained river entrance. Historical images (refer
to Figure 1-1), shows the dynamic nature of the river mouth. Geotechnical surveys undertaken to
support previous dredge campaigns (Coffey Geotechnics, 2011) indicate that soils are predominantly
clean, sands with limited presence of fine materials or ASS. Alluvial sediments are underlain by
residual soils (consisting of sands, clayey sands and clays) at a depth of approximately 15m below
the bed level. Based on this previous geotechnical data, Coffey have concluded that ‘dredging of the
material from the Noosa River can be expected to have relatively quick settlement times’.
G:\Admin\A10342.g.mpb.NoosaSpitSEMPdesign\03
approvals\R.A10342.002.00_Environmental Assessment.docx
Page 25
Noosa Spit Coastal Protection Environmental Assessment 3
Introduction
July 1982 July 2010 June 2020
Figure 1-1 Nearmap imagery of Noosa Spit
Because of the shifting nature of the sands and tidal currents, seagrass or other marine vegetation
is not present. A Fish Habitat Area is declared to the north-west of the area to be dredged, as shown
in Figure 3-1. The Noosa River system, including the area to be dredged, are listed as a Nationally
Important Wetland. The sand shoals at the river mouth are also known to support a number of
shorebird species (Noosa Integrated Catchment Association Inc, 2020).
The Noosa Spit Recreation Reserve (the Spit) is a reclaimed sand dune system near the mouth of
the Noosa River. The northern half of the Spit adjacent to Dog Beach has an actively eroding
foreshore bounded by dune woodland. A geotextile groyne has been constructed at the western end
of the beach for sand nourishment and a rock wall has been constructed at the eastern end for
foreshore protection. This highly dynamic foreshore zone is dominated by woodland species with
sparse marine plants along the foreshore. The southern half of the Spit fronting lower energy
estuarine waters supports intertidal wetlands comprising mangroves and saltmarsh, however this
area is not expected to be impacted by works.
A search of the riverbed did not identify any benthic habitats i.e. seagrass beds.
The sand banks within the Noosa River are also known to provide habitat for several species of
migratory shorebirds.
Sand taking and placement will occur on Unallocated State Land (USL), adjacent to Lot 114,
MCH839107, which is a reserve for park and recreation purposes.
1.3 Alternative Options
A Shoreline Erosion Management Plan (SEMP) was prepared to identify design options to achieve
the project objectives. The following options were proposed to mitigate erosion issues at Dog Beach
(BMT, 2019):
• Option 1a – Sand plug at either end of Dog Beach and shoreline nourishment
• Option 1b – Sand plug at the southern end of Dog Beach and shoreline nourishment
G:\Admin\A10342.g.mpb.NoosaSpitSEMPdesign\03
approvals\R.A10342.002.00_Environmental Assessment.docx
Page 26
Noosa Spit Coastal Protection Environmental Assessment 4
Introduction
• Option 2 – Extension of the existing training wall/groyne at western end of Dog Beach
• Option 3 – Extension of submerged breakwater and two new groynes
• Option 4 – Three new groynes at Dog Beach
• Option 5 – Shore parallel seawall
• Option 6 – Do nothing (allow Dog Beach to recede without intervention).
The options were examined based on numerical modelling and a multi-criteria analysis, which looked
at the effectiveness, whole of life costs, environmental/social values and risk associated with each
option. The Department of Environment and Science (DES) were involved in the development of
options and have reviewed the SEMP. Option 1a was preferred, due to its effectiveness in relieving
erosion pressure and the social benefits for users of Dog Beach and the redirection of boating traffic
away from the Dog Beach channel.
G:\Admin\A10342.g.mpb.NoosaSpitSEMPdesign\03
approvals\R.A10342.002.00_Environmental Assessment.docx
Page 27
-3,0m AHD Vo Elevation im AHD) hoe hoe . (CHAINAGE SECTION ay SRS” SEALE VERTICAL: Fis TYPICAL INDICATIVE DREDGE CHANNEL SECTION Re NOTES 1. NEARMAP PHOTOGRAPHY FROM 08/08/2020 2. CONTOURS FROM PROVIDED DEM (1410520%9) FILE NAME: DEM 003 190814 08m Noosartver BTM 50cm INTERPOLATION? timgrd | 22109%70 | VOLUMES AND DESIGNS AVENDED. "A 92100720 [ INITIAL ISSUE REV [ oATe | AMENOWENT oseotondn o Cae DISPERSIVE L-PLUG (EAST) a & SCALE 1: 1500 DATUM VERTICAL AHO. HORIZONTAL MAP GRID OF AUSTRALIA BASED ON GDA 84, ZONE 56 Elevation (m AHO) PROIEET oR: CHAINAGE SECTION (BY SQALE HORIZONTAL 7300 SCALE VERTICAL. 150. TYPICAL BEACH NOURISHMENT SECTION Elevation (m AHD) Elevation (on AHD) S ‘CHAINAGE SECTION SCALE HORIZONTAL. 3300 SEALE VERTICAL” 80 TYPICAL DISPERSIVE SAND PLUG (WEST) SECTION 2.41 eH & CCHAINAGE SECTION (D> SAE VSR a TYPICAL DISPERSIVE SAND PLUG (EAST) SECTION VOLUMES ITEM VOLUME (m*) "TYPICAL INDIGATIVE DREDGE CHANNEL 20,000 DISPERSIVE SAND PLUG (WEST) 150, DISPERSIVE SAND PLUG (EAST) 10.850) BEACH NOURISHMENT 2,650 FILL TOTAL 4950 NOTE: MINIMUM REQUIRED TYPICAL CHANNEL DIMENSIONS SHOWN, ADDITIONAL VOLUME TO ACHIEVE PLACEMENT PROFILES TO BE SOURCED BY WIDENING OF CHANNEL. NOOSA SHIRE COUNCIL NOOSA SPIT BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECT GENERAL ARRANGEMEN CONCEPT PLAN LAP y ~ 7 kes hig? Ise m=" A10342-01-01A / y
Page 28
Noosa Spit Coastal Protection Environmental Assessment 6
Study Approach
2 Study Approach
2.1 Overview
This assessment was largely based on a desk-top assessment of the existing information
available for the project area. Site inspections and field surveys have been previously
conducted for ecological and geological components.
2.2 Key Data Sources
This assessment was based on an analysis of the following information:
• The State Mapping Layers were used (search undertaken on the 13th November 2020 to
identify Matters of State Environmental Significance)
• Current aerial photography (Nearmap and Google Earth 2020)
• Species profiles (for threatened and migratory species)
• Highest Astronomical Tide (HAT) data (Queensland Department of Natural Resources and
Mines, 2016) noting traditional mapping of marine plants uses HAT as a surrogate for the
extent to which marine plants could occur
• Queensland's Fish Habitat Area (FHA) network
• 2017 Pre-Clearing and Remnant Regional Ecosystem Mapping (Queensland Herbarium
v11)
• Australian Wetlands Database
• Marine plant surveys for above subtidal vegetation (both desktop and field survey
(28/09/2020))
• Marine plant surveys for subtidal vegetation (seagrass) within the area to be dredged
(23/11/2020).
2.2.1 Impact Assessment
The impact assessment approach is consistent with the Queensland Significant Residual
Impact Guideline (Queensland Government, 2014), which sets out criteria for determining the
significance of an impact to a MSES. These significance criteria have been used to determine
whether the project is likely to have a significant impact on key environmental values.
G:\Admin\A10342.g.mpb.NoosaSpitSEMPdesign\03 approvals\R.A10342.002.00_Environmental
Assessment.docx
Page 29
Noosa Spit Coastal Protection Environmental Assessment 7
Matters of State Environmental Significance
3 Matters of State Environmental Significance
Matters of State Environmental Significance (MSES) are a component of the biodiversity state
interest that is defined under the State Planning Policy (SPP) and the Environmental Offsets
Regulation 2014 (Offset Regulation). These comprise:
• Protected areas i.e. marine parks, FHAs that are Management A areas
• Wetlands that are ‘wetlands of high ecological significance’
• Legally secured offset areas as defined under the Environmental Offsets Act 2014
• Threatened wildlife under the Nature Conservation Act 1992 and special least concern
animals under the Nature Conservation (Wildlife) Regulation 2006
• Marine plants under the Fisheries Act 1994 (excluding marine plants in an urban area)
• Waterways that provide for fish passage under the Fisheries Act 1994 (excluding
waterways providing for fish passage in an urban area)
• High risk area on the flora survey trigger map as described in the Offset Regulation
• Regulated vegetation under the Vegetation Management Act 1999.
Figure 3-1 shows where MSES are mapped in relation to works.
3.1 Fish Habitat Area
The works are not located within a FHA however, a 50m buffer between the works and the
adjacent FHA (Figure 3-1) has been allowed.
G:\Admin\A10342.g.mpb.NoosaSpitSEMPdesign\03 approvals\R.A10342.002.00_Environmental
Assessment.docx
Page 30
LEGEND
, XY Water intake
|__| Typical indicative dredge channel
] —— Sand extraction zone
| () Beach nourishment and sand plugs
|) Regulated Vegetation - Intersecting a Watercourse
[) HES Wetlands and Marine Park HPZ
| (] Wildlife Habitat - Special Least Concern
\ (00) High Ecological Value Waters - Wetlands
: Marine Park - Highly Protected Zones
|, MM Protected Area - Estates
Wildlife Habitat - Endangered or Vulnerable Wildlife
Regulated Vegetation - Category B Endangered or Of Concern
Fish Habitat Area
Regulated Vegetation - Essential Habitat
yy
§ Bing Satellite Imagery
eu
WITH Till
WN Mh I i }
een
SN an
LEGEND Title: Figure: Rev:
Matters of State Environmental Significance 3-4 A
— = es se
BMT endeavours to ensure that the information provided in this map | N 0 10@00 m (tase
Feerortan ale reesgoerialine faonsdeu to osreroy ra / he BMT
Soouracy of wfonnaton contained iis ep , / = Ss
www.bmt.org
Page 31
Noosa Spit Coastal Protection Environmental Assessment 9
Matters of State Environmental Significance
3.2 Marine Plants
The Significant Residual Impact Guidelines (Queensland Government, 2014), states the
following impacts to marine plants are considered significant:
• More than 50m2 of marine plants above tidal limits will be permanently removed as a result
of the project; AND
• Onsite rehabilitation or restoration will not result in an equal or larger area of marine plants,
providing equal or better fisheries values, within 5 years of clearing.
Notwithstanding the above, an action is unlikely to have a SRI on marine plants if:
(a) the removal or destruction of marine plants is within an additional 25% of an area or linear
width of clearing that would otherwise be exempt from code assessment;
(b) the area impacted is expected to return to its pre disturbance condition within 5 years;
(c) the removal of marine plants is associated with coastal protection work or other approved
marine development and will disturb less than 50m2 of marine plants, and the marine
plants being removed are above tidal limits (HAT) or bankfull width;
(d) the removal of marine plants does not exceed 25m2; OR
(e) onsite rehabilitation or restoration results in at least an equal area of marine plants,
providing similar or better fisheries values, within 5 years of clearing.
3.2.1 Existing Habitats
The Spit currently supports the following vegetation communities as described below and
mapped in Figure 3-2:
• Dune Woodland;
• Foredune;
• Saltmarsh; and
• Mangroves.
G:\Admin\A10342.g.mpb.NoosaSpitSEMPdesign\03 approvals\R.A10342.002.00_Environmental Assessment.docx
Page 32
LEGEND Highest astronomical tide line (2013, DNRME) Mean high water springs tidal line (but more like lowest astronomical tide line at seaward edge of mangroves) (2010, DNRME) Aerial image: 6 August 2020 © Nearmap Vegetation Communities and Habitat Features of the Study Site — ea) Mangroves al Saltmarsh and mangroves = Foredune Dune woodland Title: Vegetation Communities and Habitat Features of the Study Site BMT endeavours to ensure that the information provided in this map is correct at the time of publication. BMT does not warrant, guarantee or make representations regarding the currency and accuracy of information contained in this map. Filepat ‘\A10342.i.mpb.NoosaSEMPimplem: 0 80 ——_— Metres
Page 33
Noosa Spit Coastal Protection Environmental Assessment 11
Matters of State Environmental Significance
3.3 Protected Wildlife Habitat
Wildlife habitat is defined in the Offset Regulation as: ‘an area of habitat (e.g. foraging,
roosting, nesting or breeding habitat) for an animal that is endangered, vulnerable or a special
least concern animal (s6(4)).
Table 3-2 identifies potential threatened species that may occur within the dredge footprint
and pipeline corridor.
Should endangered or vulnerable wildlife habitat be present, the following actions are
considered a significant residual impact:
• Lead to a long-term decrease in the size of a local population; or
• Reduce the extent of occurrence of the species; or
• Fragment an existing population; or
• Result in genetically distinct populations forming as a result of habitat isolation; or
• Result in invasive species that are harmful to an endangered or vulnerable species
becoming established in the endangered or vulnerable species’ habitat; or
• Introduce disease that may cause the population to decline, or
• Interfere with the recovery of the species; or
• Cause disruption to ecologically significant locations (breeding, feeding, nesting, migration
or resting sites) of a species. Isolation.
3.3.1.1 Birds
Several wader species are present or likely to occur in the estuarine wetlands of the project
area.
Waders share similar habitat including intertidal mudflats, sandflats and sandy beaches of
sheltered coasts, in estuaries, bays, inlets, lagoons and harbours. The marine component of
the project site is not known as an important site for these wader birds however it does provide
potential habitat that could be used for feeding purposes.
Recent surveys conducted by the Noosa Integrated Catchment Association Incorporated
(NICAI 2020) detail shorebird abundance within the study area. Table 3-1 provides the most
recent abundance counts for these present conservation value species.
G:\Admin\A10342.g.mpb.NoosaSpitSEMPdesign\03
approvals\R.A10342.002.00_Environmental Assessment.docx
Page 34
Noosa Spit Coastal Protection Environmental Assessment 12
Matters of State Environmental Significance
Table 3-1 Shorebird abundance for species with NC Act conservation value (NICAI
2020)
Species Status Recent peak Count trend
(most observed
NC Act EPBC
within the last 2
Act
years)
Beach stone-curlew 2 Stable
Lesser sand plover E 2 -
Curlew sandpiper E 1 Declining
Western Alaskan bar- V 43 Declining
tailed godwit
Eastern curlew E 1 Declining
Red knot 1 -
E=Endangered, V=Vulnerable
The general trend of declining abundance of shorebird and waders is also observed more
broadly at the Eastern Asian-Australasian level. This declining trend is attributed to changing
climates resulting in altered habitats and food sources. Although the lower Noosa River habitat
remains largely unchanged the local level the impacts of predation, urbanisation and declines
in benthic biodiversity may have contributed the local shorebird decline.
3.3.1.2 Marine Turtles
Marine turtles would occasionally utilise the area however the lack of seagrass would mean
that their occurrence is irregular. No nesting sites are known in the area proposed for beach
nourishment.
G:\Admin\A10342.g.mpb.NoosaSpitSEMPdesign\03
approvals\R.A10342.002.00_Environmental Assessment.docx
Page 35
Noosa Spit Coastal Protection Environmental Assessment 13
Matters of State Environmental Significance
Table 3-2 Likelihood of MSES Species Occurrence Within the Dredge Footprint and Nourishment Area
Common Name Scientific Name Status Likelihood of Occurrence
Waders and/or Wetland Birds
Beach stone-curlew Esacus magnirostris Vulnerable Habitats within the impact area include sand banks in estuaries and adjacent
habitats include mangroves, islands, banks and scrub which provide
potentially suitable habitat for this species.
Present, and habitat present - based on available habitat and known
distribution and/or historical records, MSES value does occur and may
migrate/transit between the area and another habitat zone beyond.
Curlew sandpiper Calidris ferruginea Critically endangered Habitats within the impact area include beaches, estuaries and sandflats.
Present, and habitat present - based on available habitat and known
distribution and/or historical records, MSES value does occur and may
migrate/transit between the area and another habitat zone beyond.
Lesser sand plover Charadrius mongolus Endangered Habitats within the impact area include beaches, estuaries and sandflats.
Present, and habitat present - based on available habitat and known
distribution and/or historical records, MSES value does occur and may
migrate/transit between the area and another habitat zone beyond.
Western Alaskan bar-tailed Limosa lapponica baueri Vulnerable Habitats within the impact area include beaches, estuaries and sandflats.
godwit Present, and habitat present - based on available habitat and known
distribution and/or historical records, MSES value does occur and may
migrate/transit between the area and another habitat zone beyond.
Eastern curlew Numenius madagascariensis Endangered Habitats within the pipeline corridor are dominated by estuarine wetlands
(mangroves, intertidal mudflats, sandflats, sandy beaches) which provide
potentially suitable habitat for this species.
Present, and habitat present – based on available habitat and known
distribution and/or historical records, MSES value does occur and may
migrate/transit between the area and another habitat zone beyond.
Red knot Calidris canutus Endangered Habitats within the impact area include sandy estuaries.
Present, and habitat present - based on available habitat and known
distribution and/or historical records, MSES value does occur and may
migrate/transit between the area and another habitat zone beyond.
Terrestrial Mammals
Water mouse Xeromys myoides Vulnerable Habitat occurs adjacent to the area including mangroves and grassland.
G:\Admin\A10342.g.mpb.NoosaSpitSEMPdesign\03 approvals\R.A10342.002.00_Environmental
Assessment.docx
Page 36
Noosa Spit Coastal Protection Environmental Assessment 14
Matters of State Environmental Significance
Common Name Scientific Name Status Likelihood of Occurrence
Likely to occur – habitat present in adjacent areas and known distribution
nearby. MSES may occur in adjacent areas.
Koala Phascolarctos cinereus Vulnerable Habitats occur adjacent to the area including woodland and forests.
Likely to occur – habitat type occurs in adjacent areas and is within known
distribution.
G:\Admin\A10342.g.mpb.NoosaSpitSEMPdesign\03 approvals\R.A10342.002.00_Environmental
Assessment.docx
Page 37
Noosa Spit Coastal Protection Environmental Assessment 15
Approvals
4 Approvals
Queensland State Government will require approvals under the Planning Act 2016 and the
Environmental Protection Act 1994 for this project.
The approvals sought for this project include:
• A Development Application for:
○ Environmental Authority for operational works approval for an Environmentally Relevant
Activity (ERA) 16 - Extractive and Screening Activities
○ Operational works for tidal works and works within the Coastal Management District
○ Operational works that is the removal, destruction, or damage of marine plants.
Whilst the two sand plugs will partially bund the navigational channel, they are designed such that
the crest of the bund is submerged at high tide, and any fish would not be trapped. Therefore, a
Waterway Barrier Permit under the Fisheries Act 1994 is not required.
This report has been prepared for the purposes of supporting each of these applications.
A development application requires relevant State Codes to be addressed. For this application, those
codes are:
• State Code 7: Maritime Safety
• State Code 11: Removal, Destruction or Damage of Marine Plants
• State Code 8: Coastal Development and Tidal Works
• State Code 22: Environmentally Relevant Activities.
These are addressed in Appendix C; works comply with the relevant state codes.
G:\Admin\A10342.g.mpb.NoosaSpitSEMPdesign\03 approvals\R.A10342.002.00_Environmental
Assessment.docx
Page 38
Noosa Spit Coastal Protection Environmental Assessment 16
Potential Impacts
5 Potential Impacts
5.1 Direct Modifications to Marine and Intertidal Habitat
The beach nourishment zone occurs on land mapped below HAT and MHWS. There may be some
removal of dune woodland vegetation associated with beach nourishment. Whilst this area supports
sparse Cynodon dactylon, a marine plant listed under the policy, and sparse Melaleuca
quinquenervia, this elevated dune scarp is not considered to support fisheries values.
The western dispersive sand plug also occurs on land mapped below MHWS, which is unvegetated.
Nourishment can be undertaken so that sand is placed around marine plants and should not impact
on any living dunal vegetation. Around 46 fallen tree stumps (Melaleuca quinquenervia) that have
remained on the beach following erosive events will be buried however. We understand these are
considered fish habitat as they provide shelter for juvenile fish and are classified as marine plants.
A survey of the subsurface to be disturbed during dredging has been undertaken; the disturbance
footprint does not contain any marine plants (i.e. seagrass/macroalgae).
The works will have the benefit of minimising further erosion and protecting marine plants associated
with dunal vegetation being further eroded. Overall, the project is expected to have a positive
outcome for marine plants over the longer term. Refer to Appendix C for further information.
It has been identified that migratory wader birds may occasionally use intertidal flats to feed that
would be disturbed during dredging. The migratory period for shorebirds peaks between October-
November (arrivals) and March-April (departure); bird counts have significantly declined over the last
five years or so, believed due mostly to disturbances to breeding areas internationally. During the
survey period (2005-2019), breeding behaviour amongst shorebirds was limited to pairs of three
resident species only; the Beach Stone Curlew, Australian Pied Oystercatcher and Red Capped
Plover. Sand will be extracted from open channel areas, rather than stabilised sand banks where
shorebirds are more likely to utilise, limiting disturbance to habitat or nests. Dredging will be confined
to the winter months, when shorebirds numbers are lowest. Any areas to be dredged or nourished
will be checked for nests prior to placement to further limit disturbances to shorebirds.
5.2 Water Quality
This area predominantly consists of fine to medium grain quartz sand (Coffey 2011). Due to the
sediment characteristics. it is expected that disturbed material will settle relatively quickly. The natural
salinity levels will also likely result in the settlement of finer silts and clays.
While the exact details of the dredging equipment will be determined by the appointed dredging
contractor, a well-operated CSD will generate small turbidity plumes in comparison to other dredging
methods. Most of the turbidity plume is caused by the rotating cutter head and is hydraulically
removed from the receiving marine environment through the suction line and centrifugal pumps.
Propeller-induced suspension of bed sediments during dredging or transiting in shallow water may
also generate small and temporary turbidity plumes.
G:\Admin\A10342.g.mpb.NoosaSpitSEMPdesign\03 approvals\R.A10342.002.00_Environmental
Assessment.docx
Page 39
Noosa Spit Coastal Protection Environmental Assessment 17
Potential Impacts
5.3 Disturbance of acid sulfate soils
Acid sulfate soil testing was undertaken of sand in proximity to Dogs Beach prior to the 2013 dredging
campaign (Coffey, 2011). This identified that Actual Acid Sulfate Soils (AASS) and Potential Acid
Sulfate Soils) were present in some boreholes at lower depths (i.e. From -3.5m AHD) at very low
levels. As dredge material will only be taken to -3.0m AHD, it is considered unlikely that any AASS
or PASS will be encountered. Nevertheless, testing of material will be undertaken during dredging.
If acidic material is encountered, dredging of that area will cease and sand will be taken from
elsewhere.
5.4 Changes to Coastal Processes
The material that is dredged is being placed nearby therefore it is not removing the sediment from
this system, and is acting to stabilise an eroding shoreline.
The modelled impacts as part of the SEMP for this project design include:
• A minor reduction (~0.1 to 0.2m/s) in peak flood current magnitude within the Dog Beach channel.
This is balanced by increases to current magnitude at the edges and over the crest of each sand
plug. This suggests that over the time the plugs will be gradually modified by the flood tide currents
with sediment eroded from the crest and likely deposited in the adjacent channel area. This could
be described as a gradual ‘smoothing’ of the constructed sand plugs.
• During peak ebb conditions the impact to currents is widespread with a significant reduction in
magnitude at the Dog Beach channel and shoreline, and an increase in magnitude through the
central channel.
5.5 Noise and Interference from Physical Presence of
Plant/Personnel
It has been identified dredging activities will generate a level of activity and disturbance (e.g. vessel
movements, machinery noise and human movement). Noosa River is already subject to frequent
disturbance from recreational users.
Dredging will form an intermittent source of underwater noise. Such noise may be generated by
mechanical means (vessels engines, propellers and other machinery), or by water movements on
the vessel hull. While dredging machinery-generated noise is normally unlikely to occur at levels
which cause acute hearing damage to marine fauna, it may cause subtle but possibly more
widespread increases to ambient noise levels. This may include for example, masking of biologically
important sounds (e.g. vocalisations), which may lead to some temporary avoidance of an area by
marine species whilst machinery is in operation.
Specific knowledge on the relative contributions of various noise sources to ambient noise levels is
limited, as is information on the effects of noise on marine megafauna in an Australian context.
Marine megafauna will avoid areas where noise levels are high. However, the zone of noise impact
is expected to be small. Additionally, the project area and surrounds already receive recreational
boat traffic and the dredging is not likely to significantly increase background underwater noise levels
already experienced. Nevertheless, vessel staff will be trained in spotting marine fauna, and
observations zones will be put in place during dredging (Refer to Section 6).
G:\Admin\A10342.g.mpb.NoosaSpitSEMPdesign\03 approvals\R.A10342.002.00_Environmental
Assessment.docx
Page 40
Noosa Spit Coastal Protection Environmental Assessment 18
Potential Impacts
It is intended that dredging will occur between 7am and 10pm; if nuisance noise is recorded by
residents, the complaint will be investigated and mitigation measures, such as changed hours of
operation will be put in place.
5.6 Lighting Impacts
Marine turtles are particularly sensitive to artificial lighting during nesting and hatching (which occurs
in November to March). The activity of the CSD (and light created) is minor in nature when
considering existing light sources (boats, waterfront properties), and would not be expected to impact
on marine fauna.
5.7 Interactions between Dredge Plant and Marine Fauna
Marine animals that swim near the water surface, such as turtles, could interact with the marine
dredge plant. Large vessels/plant such as the dredger are slow-moving, which would provide marine
fauna time to evade the moving vessel. Smaller, higher speed vessels (e.g. tenders) represent a
higher risk of vessel strike. However, support vessels would represent a small proportion of the total
number of local boat movements compared with recreational vessels and represent a comparatively
low risk on this basis. In addition, speed limits will be placed on quicker moving support vessels.
Entrainment within a CSD can also be a potential impact on turtles. This occurs when animals
become drawn into the dredge as a result of the suction applied through the process of removing
sediments from the sea floor (entrainment). The adoption of soft start guidelines for dredge
operations should reduce this risk. Entrainment should be considered as unlikely due to the suction
field of influence being less than one metre (during dredging) and protocols in place to only activate
the drag heads when near the seabed.
It is not considered that vessel strike or entrainment as a result of the project will pose a significant
risk to marine fauna, particularly as the dredge area is not considered significant habitat for any
marine fauna of concern.
5.8 Introduced Pests
It is expected that the dredge plant will be locally sourced/based (from within Queensland or the
eastern coast) and will not be a vessel that undergoes regular movements to other ports containing
marine pests. On this basis, the project represents minimal risk from the perspective of introduced
marine pests.
5.9 Maritime Safety
Because of the shifting nature of the sands at the mouth of the river, no navigational beacons have
been installed. The dredging contractor will put temporary measures in place during dredging (i.e.
hazard lights at night) to reduce the risk of vessel collision; a maritime navigation safety plan will be
prepared for the construction phase. There is no intention at present to provide any additional
navigational markers following completion of works.
G:\Admin\A10342.g.mpb.NoosaSpitSEMPdesign\03 approvals\R.A10342.002.00_Environmental
Assessment.docx
Page 41
Noosa Spit Coastal Protection Environmental Assessment 19
Environmental Management Controls
6 Environmental Management Controls
The following specific environmental management controls relevant to MSES values which the
appointed dredge contractor will be contractually required to comply with:
• Preparing a detailed Environmental Management Plan for works.
• Minimising construction lighting, noise and other direct disturbance (e.g. presence of construction
plant and personnel), based on best practice standards, particularly during installation/removal of
the temporary delivery pipeline.
• Stop works procedures will be applied if there is a wildlife incident e.g. specific interaction between
contractors and animals until a suitable corrective measure can be applied, such as additional
training for construction staff in procedures.
• Undertaking water quality monitoring during dredging and beach nourishment and implementing
stop works procedures if targets exceeded.
• Setting water quality limits and requiring either stop works or corrective actions in the event of an
exceedance.
• Limiting dredging to above -3m AHD, where the risk of encountering acid sulfate soil material is
low. Regular testing of material to be dredged will also be undertaken to ensure that no acidic
material is disturbed.
• Contamination testing of material to be dredged prior to the commencement of works to ensure
material is suitable for placement.
• Dredging will be undertaken during winter months, when there are reduced numbers of shorebirds
present.
• Areas to be dredged and nourished will be checked for breeding birds prior to the commencement
of works by a qualified spotter/catcher. Should breeding birds be present, works will be moved
elsewhere until they move on, or the nest moved.
• On-board staff will undertake regular visual checks for marine fauna e.g. turtles; should they be
observed, dredging will slow or cease until the fauna has moved on.
• Any areas of marine plants and dunal vegetation will be clearly marked prior to nourishment, so
that placement over marine plants will be avoided.
• Dredge protocol to reduce the likelihood of entrainment including dredge vessels not turning
suction head on until device lowered to the sea floor.
• Dunal vegetation containing marine plants will be clearly marked, so that nourishment can be
placed around these areas and not directly on dunes or marine plants.
G:\Admin\A10342.g.mpb.NoosaSpitSEMPdesign\03 approvals\R.A10342.002.00_Environmental
Assessment.docx
Page 42
Noosa Spit Coastal Protection Environmental Assessment 20
Offsets
7 Offsets
With management measures in place, the impact of works will result in some disturbance of dead
trees that have fallen from erosive events. Overall however, the purpose of the project is to avoid
further erosion of Dog Beach, providing long term protection to dunal vegetation and associated
marine plants. As there is expected to be an overall positive impact to marine plants, no offsets are
required under the Act.
G:\Admin\A10342.g.mpb.NoosaSpitSEMPdesign\03 approvals\R.A10342.002.00_Environmental
Assessment.docx
Page 43
Noosa Spit Coastal Protection Environmental Assessment 21
Conclusion
8 Conclusion
Dogs Beach is a highly dynamic foreshore zone dominated by dune woodland. The eroding dune
scarp along most of the study site is not considered to support high fisheries values. Whilst there are
some marine plants within the dune vegetation along the beach, this will be flagged and placement
will be avoided over those areas. Overall, the project will have a positive impact on marine plants,
through minimising erosion and preventing the further loss of marine plants.
Because the material to be dredged is sandy in nature, it is unlikely to cause any significant impacts
to water quality; nevertheless, water quality monitoring will be undertaken. Further testing to ensure
there are no contaminants or acid sulfate soils present will also be undertaken prior to the
commencement of works; if any contaminated or acidic material is identified, the dredger will avoid
taking material from that location. A 50m buffer has also been provided to the Fish Habitat Area to
reduce the potential for any disturbance of fish habitat either directly or indirectly.
It is also proposed to undertake dredging during winter months, when it is less likely that shorebirds
will be present in the area; additionally, a search for any nesting/breeding birds will be undertaken
prior to disturbance.
With these mitigation measures in place, the works are expected to reduce erosion of Dog Beach,
providing protection for habitat and recreational values of the Noosa Spit.
With the proposed mitigation measures in place and adherence to future approval conditions, it is
concluded that the dredging works are unlikely to have a significant impact on any MSES.
G:\Admin\A10342.g.mpb.NoosaSpitSEMPdesign\03 approvals\R.A10342.002.00_Environmental
Assessment.docx
Page 44
Noosa Spit Coastal Protection Environmental Assessment 22
References
9 References
BMT (2019) Noosa Spit Shoreline Erosion Management Plan: Final Report. Prepared for Noosa
Shire Council.
Coffey (2011) Acid sulfate soils and dredging assessment: Noosa River. Prepared for the Sunshine
Coast Regional Council.
Department of Environment (2013) Matters of National Environmental Significance – Significant
Impact Guidelines 1.1 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.
Commonwealth of Australia Department of Environment, Canberra.
Department of Environment (2019) Species Profile and Threats Database. Department of the
Environment, Canberra. Available from http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat.
Noosa Integrated Catchment Association Inc (NICAI) 2020 An analysis of migratory and resident
shorebird diversity and abundance in the Noosa River estuary 2005 – 2019.
G:\Admin\A10342.g.mpb.NoosaSpitSEMPdesign\03 approvals\R.A10342.002.00_Environmental
Assessment.docx
Page 45
Noosa Spit Coastal Protection Environmental Assessment A-1 Pre-Lodgement Meeting Minutes Appendix A Pre-Lodgement Meeting Minutes G:\Admin\A10342.g.mpb.NoosaSpitSEMPdesign\03 approvals\R.A10342.002.00_Environmental Assessment.docx
Page 46
PA6-L
Our reference: 2008-18430 SPL
13 October 2020
Noosa Shire Council
C/- BMT Global
Level 8, 200 Creek St
SPRING HILL QLD 4004
[email protected]
Attention: Ms Lisa McKinnon
Dear Ms McKinnon
Pre-lodgement advice
Thank you for your correspondence received on 25 August 2020 in which you sought pre-lodgement
advice from the State Assessment and Referral Agency (SARA) regarding the proposed development
described below.
Reference information
Departmental role: Assessment manager
Departmental jurisdiction: Schedule 10, Part 5, Division 3, Table 1 – Environmentally relevant
activities (Schedule 8, Table 4, Item 1)
Schedule 10, Part 6, Division 3, Subdivision 3, Table 1 – Marine
plants
Schedule 10, Part 17, Division 2, Table 1 – Tidal works or works in a
coastal management district (Schedule 8, Table 4, Item 3(l)(ii))
Schedule 10, Part 17, Division 3, Table 2 – Tidal works or work in a
coastal management district
Location details
Street address: Claude Batten Drive, Noosa Heads
Real property description: Lot 114 on MCH839107
Local government area: Noosa Shire Council (the council)
Pre-lodgement advice The council are proposing to undertake remediation and rehabilitation
request: of erosion that is occurring at the Noosa Spit (along the beach area
known as 'Dog Beach'). The works will involve dredging of sand
South East Queensland (North) regional
office
Mike Ahern Building, Level 3, 12 First
Avenue, Maroochydore
Page 1 of 10 PO Box 1129, Maroochydore QLD 4558
Page 47
2008-18430 SPL
material from the Noosa River (unallocated state land), beach
nourishment and installation of two 'sand plugs' to divert flows into the
central channel at the river mouth. Seeking advice about the relevant
State triggers and application requirements.
Details of proposal
Development type: Material change of use AND Operational work
Development description: Environmentally relevant activity – 16(1)(b) and Tidal works involving
beach nourishment
Supporting information
Drawing/report title Prepared by Date Reference no. Version/issue
Noosa Spit Shoreline BMT 31/10/2019 R.B23636.001. 2
Erosion Management Plan 02.SEMP_final
.docx
General Arrangement BMT 02/09/2020 A10342-01- B
Concept Plan 01A
Acid Sulfate Soils and Coffey Geotechnics 17/03/2011 GEOTKPAR01 2
Dredging Assessment Pty Ltd 783AA/A
SARA has carried out a review of the information provided and the impacts of the proposal. The following
advice outlines the matters of interest to the department and matters that should be addressed if you
lodge your development application with the department as the assessment manager.
SARA jurisdiction and fees
1. Based on the information provided, a future development application will require assessment by the
Chief Executive of the Planning Act 2016 (Planning Act), through SARA, under the following
provisions of the Planning Regulation 2017 (Planning Regulation):
Schedule 10, Part 5, Division 3, Table 1 – Environmentally relevant activities (Schedule 8, table
4, Item 1). The applicable fee to be paid in accordance with Schedule 10, Part 5, Division 3,
Table 1, Item 5(b)(i).
Schedule 10, Part 6, Division 3, Subdivision 2, Table 1 – Operational work involving marine
plants. The applicable referral fee to be paid in accordance with Schedule 10, Part 6, Division 3,
Subdivision 2, Table 1, Item 5.
Schedule 10, Part 17, Division 3, Table 1 – Tidal works or work in a coastal management
district. The applicable referral fee to be paid in accordance with Schedule 10, Part 17, Division
3, Table 1, Item 8(a)(i).
Schedule 10, Part 17, Division 3, Table 2 – Tidal works or work in a coastal management
district. The applicable referral fee to be paid in accordance with Schedule 10, Part 17, Division
3, Table 2, Item 8(c).
A formal development application should demonstrate compliance with the performance outcomes
(PO) and acceptable outcomes (AO) of the relevant modules of the State Development Assessment
Provisions (SDAP). SARA recommends the following be submitted with the application at formal
lodgement:
An assessment against the latest version of SDAP:
o State code 7: Maritime safety (State code 7)
o State code 8: Coastal development and tidal works (State code 8)
o State code 11: Removal, destruction or damage of marine plants (State code 11), and
State Assessment and Referral Agency Page 2 of 10
Page 48
2008-18430 SPL
o State code 22: Environmentally relevant activities (State code 22).
A Shoreline Erosion Management Plan.
The State Development Assessment Provisions are available at:
https://planning.dsdmip.qld.gov.au/planning/better-development/the-development-assessment-
process/the-states-role/state-development-assessment-provisions
Further guidance on what information needs to be supplied with a formal development application can
be obtained from the Department of Transport and Main Roads’ State Development Assessment
Provisions (SDAP) Supporting Information available at
https://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/Community-and-environment/Planning-and-development/Planning-and-
development-assessment-under-the-Planning-Act/Assessable-development
Environmentally Relevant Activity (ERA) 16
1. Based on the information provided, it is advised that the proposed development constitutes:
• ERA 16(1)(b) dredging more than 10,000t but not more than 100,000t in a year.
Based on the information provided, the proposed dredging activity will include both the removal of
dredge spoil and land/sea based disposal of dredge spoil.
This ERA threshold is classified as a concurrence ERA under the Environmental Protection
Regulation 2019 (EP Reg) and therefore will trigger a material change of use (MCU), which also
requires a development approval under the Planning Act 2016.
2. The development application will also be taken as an Environmental Authority (EA) application under
section 115 of the Environmental Protection Act 1994.
Please refer to https://www.business.qld.gov.au/running-business/environment/licences-
permits/applying/technical for a number of technical guidelines, which outline the technical
information requirements for applications for an environmental authority.
It should be noted, multiple Environmental Authorities (EAs) can exist over the one site, as long as
they are different operators, i.e. the same operator cannot hold multiple EAs for the same ERA.
For further information on combining or amalgamating environmental authorities, please refer to the
following website:
https://www.business.qld.gov.au/running-business/environment/licences-permits/change-
combine/combine
3. In the EA application please provide information on, but not limited to, the following:
Operational plans for the removal of dredge spoil including:
o the proposed footprint of the dredge area
o the method by which the dredge spoil will be removed
o the volume of dredge spoil to be removed
o the proposed depth of extraction, and
o physical and chemical characteristics of the dredge spoil including potential
contaminants in accordance with the National Assessment Guidelines for Dredging
2009.
Operational plans for the disposal of dredge spoil including:
o the proposed location for disposal of dredge spoil
o the method by which the dredge spoil will be transported and placed in the area
o the method by which the spoil is to be contained within the area
o the method by which the spoil will be dewatered
State Assessment and Referral Agency Page 3 of 10
Page 49
2008-18430 SPL
o expected water quality parameters for the discharge
o the current and intended land use of the proposed disposal site, and
o detail on how the dredge spoil disposal area will be made fit for future land use.
An acid sulfate soil management plan detailing how any acid sulfate soils are to be managed.
An ecological report identifying any significant ecological values (particularly matters of State
environmental significance) within or adjacent to the proposed dredge footprint and disposal area
that could be impacted as a result of the activity.
4. The application must address the PO’s for the environmental objectives of the operational
assessment prescribed in Schedule 8, Part 3, Division 1 of the EP Reg.
The application must include a technical assessment of the environmental risks to the receiving
environment in relation to air, water, noise, land and waste associated with the activity/ies. The
application must show how the PO’s for each environmental objective are met. Technical guidelines
detailing the minimum information that should be supplied to support an application are available on
the Business and Industry Portal:
• Air: https://environment.des.qld.gov.au/assets/documents/regulation/era-gl-air-impacts.pdf
• Land: https://environment.des.qld.gov.au/assets/documents/regulation/era-gl-land-impacts.pdf
• Noise: https://environment.des.qld.gov.au/assets/documents/regulation/era-gl-noise-impacts.pdf
• Water: https://environment.des.qld.gov.au/assets/documents/regulation/era-gl-water-impacts.pdf
• Waste: https://environment.des.qld.gov.au/assets/documents/regulation/era-gl-waste-impacts.pdf
5. Please address the standard criteria as defined in Schedule 4 Dictionary of the Environmental
Protection Act 1994 in regards to the proposed activity (including the dredging aspects and disposal
of dredge spoil aspects).
6. The diagnostic tool function (link below) can be used to generate a report that will include how and
where to apply, the application and annual fees that apply, how to determine environmental
impacts/relevant Environmental Protection Policies, guidance materials to assist in the preparation of
supporting information and additional resources.
https://www.business.qld.gov.au/business/running/environment/licences-permits/form-fees-finder
7. Concurrence ERA
Any development application made should provide a response to the latest version of the SDAP
State code 22, in its entirety, identifying how the proposed development meets each PO by
addressing all applicable AO’s.
8. As part of the application supporting documentation, a Shoreline Erosion Management Plan (SEMP)
that has been reviewed and supported by the Department of Environment and Science (DES) will
need to be provided. Please ensure the SEMP has been sent to [email protected] for
technical review.
Please note, DES does not endorse SEMPs, however it is critical to have it reviewed and supported
by DES as it will be a key document to support any future development applications.
Tidal works or work is a coastal management district
9. State code 8
Please provide a response to the latest version of the SDAP State code 8, in its entirety, identifying
how the proposed development meets each PO.
10. Matters of State environmental significance (MSES)
Following a preliminary investigation, the proposed works are within the following MSES:
• Regulated Vegetation (defined watercourse).
State Assessment and Referral Agency Page 4 of 10
Page 50
2008-18430 SPL
The proposed works are adjacent to the following MSES:
• Regulated Vegetation (essential habitat)
• Wildlife Habitat (special least concern animal)
• Wildlife Habitat (endangered or vulnerable)
• Declared High Ecological Value Waters (wetland)
• Declared Fish Habitat area (A and B areas)
• Protected Area (estates)
• High Ecological Significance Wetlands
11. To address PO16 of State code 8, it will be required to determine if there are any MSES on or
adjacent to the proposed development site. A definition of MSES is available in Schedule 2 of the
Environmental Offsets Regulation.
12. Environmental Reports Online (https://apps.des.qld.gov.au/report-request/environment/) can be used
to conduct a desktop analysis to identify any mapped MSES that exists on (using the lot on plan
option to search) and near the proposed site/s (using the central coordinates option to search).
Where MSES are identified:
Provide a targeted assessment to ground truth any MSES identified.
Demonstrate how the development avoids adverse impacts on each MSES to the greatest extent
practicable.
Where the above is not reasonably possible, demonstrate how impacts on MSES have or will be
minimised and/or mitigated to the greatest extent practicable.
Demonstrate whether the development will have a Significant Residual Impact (SRI) on any
identified MSES using the Queensland Treasury’s Significant Residual Impact Guideline
(http://www.dlgrma.qld.gov.au/resources/guideline/planning/dsdip-significant-residual-impact-
guideline.pdf). An assessment will need to be undertaken for each MSES to determine whether
the proposed development will result in a SRI.
Identify any potential offset obligation as per PO16 (3) of State code 8. For further advice on
environmental offsets please visit the following website
http://www.qld.gov.au/environment/pollution/management/offsets/ or contact DES to organise a
meeting to discuss this.
Please refer to the Guideline: State Development Assessment Provisions, State code 8: Coastal
development and tidal works (https://environment.des.qld.gov.au/coastal/development/pdf/state-
code8-coastal-development-tidal-works.pdf) in responding to State code 8.
The guideline contains information on how to respond to particular PO’s and outlines specific
information requirements. It should be noted that if the PO has no relevance to the proposed
development a response of “not applicable” and a statement as to why it is not relevant is required.
For this application, the following PO’s will require a detailed response: PO2 – PO5, PO8, PO11,
PO13, PO16 and PO19- PO21.
The following tools may be helpful for a desktop analysis and assessment:
DES Environmental Reports Online
https://apps.des.qld.gov.au/report-request/environment/
DNRME Regulated Vegetation Mapping
https://www.qld.gov.au/environment/land/management/vegetation/maps/map-request
DES Map of Referable Wetlands
https://environment.des.qld.gov.au/ecosystems/wetlands/referable-wetlands-form.php
DES WetlandInfo
https://wetlandinfo.des.qld.gov.au/wetlands/
State Assessment and Referral Agency Page 5 of 10
Page 51
2008-18430 SPL
DES Protected Plants Flora Survey Trigger Map
https://environment.des.qld.gov.au/licences-permits/plants-animals/protected-plants/map-request.php
DES Species List
https://apps.des.qld.gov.au/report-request/species-list/
Queensland Wetland Buffer Guideline
https://wetlandinfo.des.qld.gov.au/resources/static/pdf/resources/reports/buffer-guide/wetland-buffer-
guideline-14-04-13.pdf
Queensland Treasury SPP Interactive Mapping
https://planning.dsdmip.qld.gov.au/planning/spa-system/plan-making-under-spa/state-planning-
under-spa/state-planning-policy
13. Acid Sulfate Soils
It is likely that acid sulfate soils will be present at this location. An application must also consider the
risk of disturbing acid sulfate soils, as well as providing a statement about how the risk is intended to
be managed. Issues regarding acid sulfate soils should be addressed when responding to SDAP
State code 8, especially with regard to PO11.
The Queensland Acid Sulfate Soil Technical Manual outlines relevant scientific information and
guidelines for Acid Sulfate Soil Management (https://publications.qld.gov.au/dataset/acid-sulfate-soil-
management-guidelines).
14. Development Description
Any application made should include a detailed description of the proposed development and a
description of the existing site conditions of the proposed development location. In particular, the
following documentation should be provided:
Description of the land intended to be developed, including:
o the property address, tenure and real property description of the land, and
Description of the development, including:
o location of all built structures, or structures to be modified or demolished, as a result of the
proposed development
o description of any operational works occurring on site including expected timeframes;
o any machinery to be used or stored on the site
o staging of the development if applicable, and
Detailed and appropriately scaled drawings and/or plans which clearly identify the location of
proposed development, including:
o adjacent real property boundaries
o adjacent riverbanks, walls, sandbanks, structures, the limit of vegetation, and/or other
principal features of the immediate area
o relevant tidal planes (e.g. Highest Astronomical Tide (HAT), Mean High Water Springs)
o the location and setting out details for cross-sections, and
o any other information required to accurately define the area and to allow the site to be
readily identified from the plan.
All plans/drawings should include title, date and numbering suitable to identify the plan and should be
mapped to GDA94 projection.
Removal destruction or damage of marine plants
15. The proposed works are likely to involve the removal, destruction or damage of marine plants.
Marine plants include:
o any plant (a tidal plant (including marine algae) that usually grows on or adjacent to tidal
lands whether it is living, dead, standing or fallen, or
o any plant material on tidal land (up to the level of HAT).
Plants such as mangroves, mangrove fern, saltcouch or samphire species are considered marine
plants regardless of whether or not they are above or below the level of HAT.
State Assessment and Referral Agency Page 6 of 10
Page 52
2008-18430 SPL
- Marine plants do not include:
a plant that is prohibited matter or restricted matter under the Biosecurity Act 2014,
or
a plant that is controlled biosecurity matter or regulated biosecurity matter under the
Biosecurity Act 2014.
Marine plant protection applies irrespective of the tenure (e.g. unallocated state land and all state
tenured lands, including private freehold and leasehold lands) of the land on which the plant occurs,
the time the plant has been growing at the location, or the degree of or purpose of the disturbance.
Under the Planning Regulation 2017, works involving the removal, destruction or damage of marine
plants must be undertaken in accordance with the relevant accepted development requirements
(ADR) or under a development approval (assessable development).
The proposed works will not comply with the ADR as the proposal does not constitute any of the
prescribed work types. A development approval will be required for assessable development that is
the removal, destruction or damage of marine plants.
If possible, avoiding marine plant disturbance would remove the need for an approval and potential
fees for this component of the works.
If the works require marine plant disturbance but cannot comply with the ADR, the applicant will need
to provide the following in an application for a development approval:
- Completed copy of DA form 1
- A full response to the relevant sections of State code 11 of SDAP. Particular attention should
be paid to the following POs:
All development – PO1 to PO15 and PO31
Erosion control structures and beach replenishment – PO17 to PO22
Dredging – PO23 to PO25
Temporary works – PO26 to PO28, and
- Relevant plans as per SARA’s DA Forms guide: Relevant plans, including:
the total amount of marine plants that will be disturbed, identifying portion of
permanent and/or temporary disturbance (in square meters or hectares)
the location of the marine plants to be disturbed in relation to the development works
the level of HAT, mean high water spring tide, and low water spring tide, and
location and extent of fish habitat within the development area, including creeks,
sand and/or yabby banks, drainage lines, lagoons and marshes.
Note: All plans should be able to be read to scale at A3 size.
16. PO1 to PO25 of State code 11, address critical issues relating to coastal development proposals
which create the need to remove, destroy or damage marine plants. The applicant will need to
respond to all relevant PO’s. Particular attention should be paid to the following PO’s.
PO1 - The proposal must be justified in terms of need and alternative designs or locations that avoid
or have a lesser impact on marine plants. Within an application it is recommended to provide
evidence that demonstrates the utility of the dog beach is threatened and alternative solutions have
been considered. Where an options analysis is used, provide a discussion detailing why the
proposed works are the preferred solution.
PO4 – the spatial extent of disturbance to marine plants is minimised. To meet this PO provide
evidence that demonstrates the dredging and nourishment works have been designed to minimise
the spatial extent of marine plant disturbance. Provide a marine plant disturbance plan that clearly
shows all marine plant communities in the vicinity of all aspect of the works, the extent and area of
permanent and temporary marine plant disturbance in relation to the construction footprint, and the
level of HAT.
State Assessment and Referral Agency Page 7 of 10
Page 53
2008-18430 SPL
PO5 The timing of works avoids marine plant flowering, fish spawning and fish migration periods.
The proposed works will need to be scheduled to avoid the peak spawning and migration times
for common recreational and commercial fish species (incl. Whiting, flathead, sea mullet and
some prawn species) that are known to spawn in / migrate through, estuarine waters.
PO6 – To meet this PO provide evidence that demonstrates the impacts arising from the dredging
and nourishment works have been considered and will be managed to avoid the unnecessary loss,
degradation or fragmentation of marine plants, fish and fish habitats in the vicinity of the works.
An application should discuss buffer zones and the proximity of the declared Noosa River Fish
Habitat Area to the dredge channel; beach replenishment and sand plug design; and the
management of dredge plumes and water quality.
PO7 – Development does not increase the risk of mortality, disease or injury, or compromise the
health, productivity, marketability or suitability for human consumption of fisheries resources, having
regard to (but not limited to):
a) biotic and abiotic conditions, such as water and sediment quality
b) substances that are toxic to plants or toxic to or cumulative within fish
c) design of structures
d) impacts on reproductive success
e) effect on fish energy reserves
f) whether fish may be physically damaged, killed, trapped or stranded
g) fish passage and access to habitats generally, and
h) the impacts of pest fish and other relevant pest species.
Given the proximity of the proposed dredge extraction area to a declared FHA, management ‘A’ area,
information must be provided detailing how the proposed dredge and beach nourishment operations
will be managed to avoid impacts in relation to items 1, 2, 4 and 6 in particular (ties in with PO’s 5, 6 &
9).
PO9 – If acid sulfate soils are present within the proposed dredge footprint provide evidence that
demonstrates they will be managed according to current best practice. If necessary, discuss soil
transfer and treatment locations.
PO10 and PO11 – The proposed works will modify tidal and freshwater inundation patterns and the
natural processes of accretion and erosion. To meet these PO’s it will be necessary to provide a
performance solution that demonstrates the proposed works are:
justifiable in terms of project outcomes
the least impact option with respect to fish habitats
are designed to minimise construction and future impacts on marine plant and fish habitats, and
include a post-works monitoring plan that provides for marine plants in the vicinity of the works
demonstrate that the proposed sand extraction and beach nourishment will not result in the
transfer of severe erosive conditions to a new part of the estuary, and
demonstrate that the proposed design is sustainable i.e. will result in the least frequent
maintenance requirements of all considered options.
In accordance with PO12 the proposed works will need to be designed, sited and constructed to
ensure its long-term use and operability will not result in on-going (or new) adverse impacts or
additional development including dredging to maintain access.
Dredging and beach nourishment works should not cause or require further works to be conducted
that will have adverse ongoing or additional impacts on marine plants. An application is required to
demonstrate that the proposed works have considered and avoided / mitigated ongoing impacts to
marine plants and fish habitat post construction, e.g. Via ongoing maintenance to ensure works
achieve the required need. A post-works monitoring plan with an alert/action commitment should be
discussed here.
State Assessment and Referral Agency Page 8 of 10
Page 54
2008-18430 SPL
PO13, PO14 and PO15 – The works have the potential to affect the community accessing fisheries
resources. To meet these PO’s, provide evidence that demonstrates that safe access to fisheries
resources will be maintained for the duration of the works.
PO17 – An application is required to provide evidence that demonstrates the dog beach is
undergoing significant erosion. Further response to this PO should discuss the value of the beach to
the community, the loss of utility, infrastructure and any safety issues arising from the proximity of
motorised vessels to beachgoers.
PO18 – Provide evidence that demonstrates the proposed beach replenishment works are on a high
energy sandy sediment shoreline and the biological communities are adapted to mobile sediments.
PO20 – Show that the proposed works preclude the need for other erosion control activities or works.
See also PO1, PO7 and PO12.
PO21 – Discuss the design of the proposed works and the duration of the replenishment cycle, see
PO12.
PO23 – The works constitute capital dredging as the works will result in a new boat channel. Provide
a discussion detailing why the current access to the river bar or public infrastructure is not suitable.
PO25 – To meet this PO show that the placement of sand will avoid adverse impacts on marine
plants.
PO26 - PO28 – If temporary works are needed, it is necessary to show that any such works:
will be in place for a specified period and as short a time as possible,
will be completely removed once they are no longer required, and
the area impacted by temporary works will be restored to at least pre-works condition.
Matters of state environmental significance (MSES) – PO31. Marine plants are a MSES under the
Environment Offsets Act 2014. All applications impacting MSES must comply with PO31, which
outlines the ‘avoid, minimise (mitigate), offset’ framework.
This framework requires in the first instance that impacts to marine plants are avoided. Where
avoidance cannot be achieved, it must be demonstrated that impacts have been carefully managed
and minimised. Notwithstanding any measures to avoid or mitigate impacts to marine plants, the
works may still result in a SRI, in which case an offset will be required. Offsets will not be considered
until it has been demonstrated that all reasonable measures to firstly avoid and/or mitigate impacts to
marine plants have been taken. Any rehabilitation of marine plants on site may help to reduce the
scale of the SRI. Options to mitigate the SRI to marine plants must be pursued before an offset can
be considered. In accordance with the Significant Residual Impact Guideline, removal, destruction or
damage to marine plants may result in a Significant Residual Impact (SRI) if the marine plants will not
return to their pre-disturbed extent and condition within 5 years of the impact (this includes impacts to
marine plants that are permanent and those that may be temporary and meet this criterion (see
Section 3.9).
Maritime Safety
17. The works will require a Marine Execution Plan and Vessel Traffic Management Plan to ensure
the safety of mariners during the period of works. This should outline what vessels are being
used, mooring arrangement, periods of work and so on.
Repair or replace of any navigational aid that are damaged due to the construction, operation or
maintenance of the approved development will be required. Any replacement or repair of aids to
navigation must be carried out at no cost to the Department of Transport and Main Roads and to the
satisfaction of the Harbour Master.
The dredging operations are to be conducted in a manner that ensures a suitable navigation channel
is open to vessel traffic at all time.
State Assessment and Referral Agency Page 9 of 10
Page 55
2008-18430 SPL
All navigation lights, buoys, marks or signs associated with the development must be supplied,
installed and maintained in accordance with The Department of Transport and Main Roads through
Maritime Safety Queensland ’s requirements.
Any ships, plant or equipment that deploy anchors in open waters, and in and near shipping channels
must have the anchors marked with yellow buoys and fitted with FI lights.
All floating plant, equipment and pipelines shall be appropriately lit and/or marked to the satisfaction
of the Harbour Master. Any anchors deployed to be marked with yellow buoys and fitted with FI
Yellow lights.
Owner’s consent
18. An application for a development permit for MCU on premises below high-water mark and outside a
canal under the Planning Act 2016 will require owner’s consent from the Department of Natural
Resource, Mines and Energy (DNRME) to lodge a properly made application. Find out more
information including how to apply here: https://www.qld.gov.au/environment/land/state/owner-
consent.
19. Owner’s consent cannot be granted until the appropriate tenure or interest in state land that supports
the proposed development is secured by the applicant under the Land Act 1994. More information is
available at https://www.qld.gov.au/environment/land/state. Please contact the State Land Asset
Management Team Senior Land Officer Matthew Halls on [email protected] or Ph.
(07) 5352 4209 to discuss options and to begin proceedings under the Land Act 1994.
This pre-lodgement advice is valid for a period of 9 months from the date on this letter. This pre-
lodgement advice does not constitute an approval or an endorsement that SARA supports the
development proposal. Additional information may be required to allow SARA to properly assess the
development proposal when a formal application has been lodged.
For further information please contact Danika Cowie, Principal Planning Officer, on (07) 5352 9776 or via
email [email protected] who will be pleased to assist.
Yours sincerely
Garth Nolan
Manager (Planning)
State Assessment and Referral Agency Page 10 of 10
Page 56
Noosa Spit Coastal Protection Environmental Assessment B-1 State Codes Appendix B State Codes G:\Admin\A10342.g.mpb.NoosaSpitSEMPdesign\03 approvals\R.A10342.002.00_Environmental Assessment.docx
Page 57
Noosa Spit Coastal Protection Environmental Assessment B-2
State Codes
Table B-1 State Code 7: Maritime Safety
State Code 7: Navigational Safety
Performance Outcomes Acceptable Outcomes Code Compliance
Lighting
PO1 Development avoids lighting that has the AO1.1 Development ensures that at all times, all NA. No navigational aides are within proximity of
potential to interfere with aids to navigation. lights on or above the development site do not the proposed works. If night work is undertaken, the
interfere with safe navigation in surrounding vessel will be appropriately lit.
waterways by:
1. shielding lights to prevent glare or reflection
2. avoiding flood lighting which may reduce the
visibility of aids to navigation
3. avoiding flashing or flickering lights which may be
confused with aids to navigation4. avoiding
coloured lights such as green, blue or red lights,
which may be confused with aids to navigation.
AND
AO1.2 Lighting complies with section 3 of AS 4282–
1997 Control of the obtrusive effects of outdoor
lighting.
Aids to Navigation
PO2 Development does not interfere with aids to AO2.1 Development does not remove any material There are no permanent navigational markers at
navigation. that may destabilise an aid to navigation, including the mouth of the river. Council(and the appointed
ground tackle. dredger) will work with TMR to provide any signage
or temporary markers required.
AND
AO2.2 Development does not create any temporary
or permanent obstruction of aids to navigation.
Note: Where development has the potential to
obstruct the line of sight to aids to navigation or
G:\Admin\A10342.g.mpb.NoosaSpitSEMPdesign\03 approvals\R.A10342.002.00_Environmental Assessment.docx
Page 58
Noosa Spit Coastal Protection Environmental Assessment B-3
State Codes
State Code 7: Navigational Safety
interfere with the functioning of aids to navigation,
an aid to navigation management plan is required.
AND
AO2.3 Development keeps sight lines of any aids to
navigation which cross the land clear of
obstructions.
Note: Where development has the potential to
obstruct the line of sight to aids to navigation or
interfere with the functioning of aids to navigation,
an aid to navigation management plan is required.
AND
AO2.4 Development ensures ongoing access to
aids to navigation for maintenance purposes.
AND
AO2.5 Development does not result in electrical or
electro-magnetic emissions which may impede the
operation of aids to navigation.
Protection of Navigable Waterways
PO3 Development does not impede the safe AO3.1 Development ensures navigable waterways The central channel where dredging is proposed
movement of vessels in a navigable waterway. are open to vessel traffic at all times. will likely be closed to traffic for a period during
dredging; alternative passage exists however. Dog
Beach will also be blocked to through boat traffic
AND
following works. A vessel traffic plan will be
prepared and submitted to TMR for approval prior
AO3.2 Development, including structures and any to works commencing.
vessel berthed at the structures:
G:\Admin\A10342.g.mpb.NoosaSpitSEMPdesign\03 approvals\R.A10342.002.00_Environmental Assessment.docx
Page 59
Noosa Spit Coastal Protection Environmental Assessment B-4
State Codes
State Code 7: Navigational Safety
1. does not encroach into, pass over or under a
navigation corridor; or
2. is not located in a high risk maritime
development zone.
Note:Navigation corridor and high risk maritime
development zone layers are currently unavailable
for Gold Coast waters.
AND
AO3.3 Development does not limit either the depth
of a navigable waterway or the size of vessels
which can safely navigate the waterway.
Note: Where development proposes to temporarily
or permanently limit the depth of a navigable
waterway or the size of vessels which can navigate
a waterway, it is recommended that a vessel traffic
management plan be provided. It is also
recommended a marine execution plan be
submitted to the regional harbour master 30 days
prior to the commencement of works.
AND
AO3.4 Development involving the demolition of
structures in a navigable waterway, including piling,
ensures the entire structure is removed.
AND
AO3.5 Structures, including all freestanding piles,
must be appropriately lit and clearly visible to
approaching vessels, and reflective tape must be
G:\Admin\A10342.g.mpb.NoosaSpitSEMPdesign\03 approvals\R.A10342.002.00_Environmental Assessment.docx
Page 60
Noosa Spit Coastal Protection Environmental Assessment B-5
State Codes
State Code 7: Navigational Safety
fitted to all structures to enhance visibility during the
hours of darkness.
Note: Where necessary, the regional harbour
master may require the installation of aids to
navigation n structures.
G:\Admin\A10342.g.mpb.NoosaSpitSEMPdesign\03 approvals\R.A10342.002.00_Environmental Assessment.docx
Page 61
Noosa Spit Coastal Protection Environmental Assessment B-6
State Codes
Table B-2 State 8: Coastal development and tidal works
State Code 8: Coastal Development
Performance Outcomes Acceptable Outcomes Code Compliance
Development in the Erosion Prone Area
PO1 Development does not occur in the erosion No acceptable outcome is prescribed. Complies - dredging works are considered to be
prone area unless the development: coastal dependent development that cannot be
1.is one of the following types of development: located elsewhere.
a. coastal-dependent development; or
b. temporary, readily relocatable or able to be
abandoned; or
c. essential community infrastructure; or
d. redevelopment of an existing permanent building
or structure that cannot be relocated or abandoned;
and
2.cannot feasibly be located elsewhere.
PO2 Development other than coastal protection No acceptable outcome is prescribed. Complies – the purpose of the dredging is to
work: minimise erosion currently occurring at Dog Beach.
1.avoids impacting on coastal processes; and
2.ensures that the protective function of landforms Whilst there may be an initial burying of some dead
and vegetation is maintained. trees at Dog Beach, the works will prevent long
term erosion of Noosa Spit and the marine plants it
supports, having a positive overall impact.
Note: In considering reconfiguring lot applications,
the state may require land in the erosion prone area
to be surrendered to the State for coastal
management purposes under the Coastal
Protection and Management Act 1995. Where the
planning chief executive receives a copy of a land
surrender requirement or proposed land surrender
notice under the Coastal Protection and
Management Act 1995, this must be considered in
assessing the application.
G:\Admin\A10342.g.mpb.NoosaSpitSEMPdesign\03 approvals\R.A10342.002.00_Environmental Assessment.docx
Page 62
Noosa Spit Coastal Protection Environmental Assessment B-7
State Codes
State Code 8: Coastal Development
PO3 Development is located, designed and No acceptable outcome is prescribed. Complies - the nourishment is designed to reduce
constructed to minimise the impacts from coastal coastal erosion impacts.
erosion by:
1. locating the development as far landward as
practicable; or
2. where it is demonstrated that 1 is not feasible,
mitigate or otherwise accommodate the risks posed
by coastal erosion.
PO4 Development does not significantly increase No acceptable outcome is prescribed. Complies – the purpose of the works is to improve
the risk or impacts to people and property from recreational access to Dog Beach and prevent
coastal erosion. further erosion of Noosa Spit and the potential of a
‘breakthrough’
PO5 Development other than coastal protection No acceptable outcome is prescribed. NA
work avoids directly or indirectly increasing the
severity of coastal erosion either on or off the site.
PO6 In areas where a coastal building line is No acceptable outcome is prescribed. N/A – works will not occur in an area where a
present, building work is located landward of the coastal building line is present.
coastal building line unless coastal protection work
has been constructed to protect the development.
Artificial Waterways
PO7 Development of artificial waterways, canals No acceptable outcome is prescribed. N/A – works are not related to an artificial
and dry-land marinas minimises impacts on coastal waterway.
resources by:
1. maintaining the tidal prism volume of the natural
waterway to which it is connected
2. demonstrating a whole-of-life strategy for the
disposal of dredged material.
Coastal Protection Work
G:\Admin\A10342.g.mpb.NoosaSpitSEMPdesign\03 approvals\R.A10342.002.00_Environmental Assessment.docx
Page 63
Noosa Spit Coastal Protection Environmental Assessment B-8 State Codes State Code 8: Coastal Development PO8 Works for beach nourishment minimise No acceptable outcome is prescribed. Complies – sand sourcing is not expected to adverse impacts on coastal processes and avoid adversely affect the adjacent beach systems and any increase in the severity of erosion on adjacent will be sourced from the same environment. land by: 1. sourcing sand from an area that does not adversely impact on the active beach system 2. ensuring imported sand is compatible with natural beach sediments and coastal processes of the receiving beach. PO9 Erosion control structures are only constructed No acceptable outcome is prescribed. N/A – works does not involve construction of where there is an imminent threat to buildings or erosion control structures. infrastructure of value, and there is no feasible option for either: 1. beach nourishment; or 2. relocation or abandonment of structures. Note: The monetary value of buildings or infrastructure should be more than the cost of associated erosion control structures. PO10 Erosion control structures minimise No acceptable outcome is prescribed. N/A – works does not involve construction of interference with coastal processes, or any increase erosion control structures. to the severity of erosion on adjacent land by: 1. locating the erosion control structure as far landward as practicable and directly adjacent to the structure it is intended to protect 2. where required and feasible, importing sand to the site to mitigate any increase in the severity of erosion 3. the design of the structure. Water Quality G:\Admin\A10342.g.mpb.NoosaSpitSEMPdesign\03 approvals\R.A10342.002.00_Environmental Assessment.docx
Page 64
Noosa Spit Coastal Protection Environmental Assessment B-9
State Codes
State Code 8: Coastal Development
PO11 Development: No acceptable outcome is prescribed. Whilst some minor sediment plumes are expected
1. maintains or enhances environmental values of during dredging activity, due to the nature of the
receiving waters material and the dredging methodology, these are
expected to be localised and short term only. Water
2. achieves the water quality objectives of
quality monitoring will be undertaken during
Queensland waters
dredging so that water quality objectives are met.
3. avoids the release of prescribed water
contaminants to tidal waters.
The dredging Contractor will be required to prepare
an EMP which sets out water quality monitoring
Note: See Environmental Protection (Water) Policy requirements as well as general waste and spill
2009 for the relevant water quality objectives. management procedures to avoid the release of
contaminants.
Category C and R Areas of Vegetation
PO12 Development: No acceptable outcome is prescribed. Complies – no category C/R vegetation will be
1. avoids impacts on category C areas of vegetation impacted.
and category R areas of vegetation; or
2. minimises and mitigates impacts on category C
areas of vegetation and category R areas of
vegetation after demonstrating avoidance is not
reasonably possible.
Public Use and Access to State Coastal Land
PO13 Development maintains or enhances public No acceptable outcome is prescribed. Complies – there will may be some temporary
use of and access to and along state coastal land restrictions to vessel movements in proximity to
(except where this is contrary to the protection of dredge equipment, however other navigable
coastal resources or public safety). channels will be available as an alternative.
Development will reduce public use and access of
Dog Beach for a short period while there are public
safety risks but will enhance public use and access
long-term.
PO14 Private marine development ensures that No acceptable outcome is prescribed. N/A – works are for a public purpose
works:
G:\Admin\A10342.g.mpb.NoosaSpitSEMPdesign\03 approvals\R.A10342.002.00_Environmental Assessment.docx
Page 65
Noosa Spit Coastal Protection Environmental Assessment B-10
State Codes
State Code 8: Coastal Development
1. are used for marine access purposes only
2. minimise the use of state coastal land
3. do not interfere with access between navigable
waterways and adjacent properties.
PO15 Development ensures erosion control No acceptable outcome is prescribed. N/A – no erosion control structures proposed
structures are located within the premises they are
intended to protect unless there is no feasible
alternative.
Matters of State Environmental Significance
PO16 Development: No acceptable outcome is prescribed. Works impact on a number of MSES, as detailed in
1. avoids impacts on matters of state environmental the assessment report. These impacts are
significance; or generally minor in nature, and are not assessed to
have a significant impact as defined by the
2. minimises and mitigates impacts on matters of
Significant Residual Impact Guidelines. A number
state environmental significance after
of management measures have been put in place
demonstrating avoidance is not reasonably
to minimise these short term temporary impacts, as
possible; and
described in the assessment report.
3. provides an offset if, after demonstrating all
reasonable avoidance, minimisation and mitigation
measures are undertaken, the development results In the long term, the works will have a positive
in an acceptable significant residual impact on a impact on MSES by stabilising Dog Beach and
matter of state environmental significance. protecting marine vegetation on the Noosa Spit
from further erosion.
Statutory note: (3) only applies to development on
Brisbane core port land within the area identified as
E1 Conservation/Buffer, E2 Open Space or
Buffer/Investigation in the Brisbane Port LUP
precinct plan. For the Brisbane Port LUP, see
www.portbris.com.au.
Note: Guidance for determining if the development
will have a significant residual impact on the matter
of state environmental significance is provided in
G:\Admin\A10342.g.mpb.NoosaSpitSEMPdesign\03 approvals\R.A10342.002.00_Environmental Assessment.docx
Page 66
Noosa Spit Coastal Protection Environmental Assessment B-11 State Codes State Code 8: Coastal Development the Significant Residual Impact Guideline, Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning, 2014. Where the significant residual impact is considered an acceptable impact on the matter of state environmental significance and an offset is considered appropriate, the offset should be delivered in accordance with the Environmental Offsets Act 2004. G:\Admin\A10342.g.mpb.NoosaSpitSEMPdesign\03 approvals\R.A10342.002.00_Environmental Assessment.docx
Page 67
Noosa Spit Coastal Protection Environmental Assessment B-12
State Codes
Table B-3 State Code 11: Removal, destruction or damage of marine plants
Performance outcomes Acceptable outcomes Code compliance
All development
PO1 There is a demonstrated need for the For development associated with a public health Complies - The works are required to reduce erosion on
development, and alternatives (locations and or safety Dog Beach while maintaining navigational access.
designs) which do not involve removal, purpose:
destruction or damage of marine plants and A number of alternative designs were considered: the
impacts to fisheries resources and fish habitats AO1.1 Development is for: option chosen was preferred as it minimises ongoing
are not viable. maintenance requirements and disturbance to the marine
1. signage or aids to warn the public of a safety environment.
hazard
(for example, within a waterway to warn of
submerged rocks, crocodiles, marine stingers);
or
2. prevention of an impending public safety
issue; or
3. the mitigation of a hazard to public safety that
has
resulted from a specific unforeseen event (for
example, a fallen tree that is a danger to safe
navigation); or
4. placement of a cyclone mooring identified
under a
cyclone contingency plan by the harbour master
or
controlling port authority, and is located in
accordance with the plan; or
5. a public health purpose that has been
endorsed in
writing by Queensland Health or the relevant
local
government.
For any other development, no acceptable
outcome is
prescribed.
Note: The application should identify and
document the impacts of alternative proposals.
G:\Admin\A10342.g.mpb.NoosaSpitSEMPdesign\03 approvals\R.A10342.002.00_Environmental Assessment.docx
Page 68
Noosa Spit Coastal Protection Environmental Assessment B-13
State Codes
Performance outcomes Acceptable outcomes Code compliance
PO2 Only those aspects of a development that No acceptable outcome is prescribed. Complies - Dredging works is necessarily tidal works and
have a functional requirement to be located on cannot be located elsewhere. The full extent of
tidal land create the requirement to remove, disturbance is descibed in Sections 6 and 7 of the main
destroy or damage marine plants. Ancillary assessment report.
elements (for example: car and trailer parks, rest
rooms, offices) occur outside of tidal land.
Note: Tidal land within the development site
should be accurately identified on plans provided
with the application, together with the location of
highest astronomical tide, mean high water
spring and mean low water spring tide heights.
The extent, location, species and condition of
marine plants that are proposed for removal,
damage or destruction and retained have been
clearly and accurately identified and mapped to
enable risks and impacts to be properly
assessed.
PO3 Development impacting marine plants: No acceptable outcome is prescribed. Complies - Dredging is to provide improved amenity of
Dog Beach while maintaining navigation.
1. directly abuts land that has full riparian
access rights; or
2. provides a public facility.
Note: Further guidance on rights in context of
fisheries resources and fish habitats is provided
in the operational policy provisions of
Management and protection of marine plants
and other tidal fish habitats (FHMOP 001),
Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries,
2007.
The provision of owners consent to lodge the
development application does not confer rights.
G:\Admin\A10342.g.mpb.NoosaSpitSEMPdesign\03 approvals\R.A10342.002.00_Environmental Assessment.docx
Page 69
Noosa Spit Coastal Protection Environmental Assessment B-14
State Codes
Performance outcomes Acceptable outcomes Code compliance
PO4 The spatial extent of disturbance to marine For work associated with private development Complies – whilst the initial capital dredging does require
plants is that is a some marine plant disturbance, it will assist in preventing
minimised. jetty, pontoon or boat ramp only: future loss of marine plants due to erosion.
Note: For more information, refer to relevant fish AO4.1 Only one structure adjoins the property.
habitat management operational policies and fish Note: A structure includes boat ramps, jetties Dunal vegetation will be protected from disturbance by
habitat guidelines: and pontoons marking ‘no-go zones’ where nourishment will not occur.
1. Management and protection of marine plants AND
and other tidal fish habitats (FHMOP 001), AO4.2 The extent of marine plants removed,
Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, damaged
2007 or destroyed does not exceed 2 metres along the
2. Tidal fish habitats, erosion control and beach waterway frontage (width).
replenishment (FHMOP 010), Department of AND
Primary Industries and Fisheries, 2007 AO4.3 The long-term use and and operability of
3. Dredging, extraction and spoil disposal the
activities (FHMOP 004), Department of Primary development will not result in ongoing adverse
Industries, 1998 impacts or
4. Departmental procedures for permit new adverse impacts or additional development.
applications assessment and approvals for For
insect pest control in wetlands (FHMOP 003), example, a proposed jetty will not result in the
Department of Primary Industries, 1996 need to future.
5. Fisheries guidelines for fish-friendly structures AND one of the following acceptable outcomes
(FHG 006), Department of Primary Industries apply
and Fisheries, 2006. AO4.4 The extent of marine plant removal,
damage or
destruction for a jetty or pontoon development
has a
maximum:
1. area of 30 square metres; and
2. width of 2 metres along the shoreline (highest
astronomical tide); and
3. length of 15 metres from highest astronomical
tide
(measured perpendicular to the shore).
OR
AO4.5 The boat ramp development has a
maximum
development footprint of 45 square metres.
G:\Admin\A10342.g.mpb.NoosaSpitSEMPdesign\03 approvals\R.A10342.002.00_Environmental Assessment.docx
Page 70
Noosa Spit Coastal Protection Environmental Assessment B-15
State Codes
Performance outcomes Acceptable outcomes Code compliance
For any other development, no acceptable
outcome is
prescribed.
PO5 The timing of works avoids marine plant No acceptable outcome is prescribed. Works will be timed to avoid times when migratory
flowering, fish spawning and fish migration shorebirds are most likely to be present (i.e. winter
periods. months)
PO6 Development of or adjacent to, fish habitats No acceptable outcome is prescribed. A 50m buffer to the nearby FHA has been set, to avoid
avoids the unnecessary loss, degradation or direct or indirect disturbance of this area.
fragmentation of fish habitats and their values
and the loss of fish movement.
Note: For more information, refer to relevant fish
habitat management operational policies and fish
habitat guidelines:
1. Management and protection of marine
plants and other tidal fish habitats
(FHMOP 001), Department of Primary
Industries and Fisheries, 2007
2. Tidal fish habitats, erosion control and
beach replenishment (FHMOP 010),
Department of Primary Industries and
Fisheries, 2007
3. Dredging, extraction and spoil disposal
activities (FHMOP 004), Department of
Primary Industries, 1998
4. Departmental procedures for permit
applications assessment and approvals
for insect pest control in wetlands
(FHMOP 003), Department of Primary
Industries, 1996
G:\Admin\A10342.g.mpb.NoosaSpitSEMPdesign\03 approvals\R.A10342.002.00_Environmental Assessment.docx
Page 71
Noosa Spit Coastal Protection Environmental Assessment B-16
State Codes
Performance outcomes Acceptable outcomes Code compliance
5. Fisheries guidelines for fish-friendly
structures (FHG 006), Department of
Primary Industries and Fisheries, 2006.
PO7 Development does not increase the risk of No acceptable outcome is prescribed. Complies – no impacts to recreation or commercial
mortality, disease or injury, or compromise the fishing resources is anticipated.
health, productivity, marketability or suitability for
human consumption of fisheries resources,
having regard to (but not limited to):
1. biotic and abiotic conditions, such as
water and sediment quality
2. substances that are toxic to plants or
toxic to or cumulative within fish
3. design of structures
4. impacts on reproductive success
5. effect on fish energy reserves
6. whether fish may be physically
damaged, killed, trapped or stranded
7. fish passage and access to habitats
generally; and
8. the impacts of pest fish and other
relevant pest species.
Note: A fish salvage plan may be required to
demonstrate compliance with the performance
outcome and may form a condition of any
approval.
Permits or other authorities may be required
under the Fisheries Act 1994 for the use of
regulated fishing apparatus and to possess
fisheries resources.
G:\Admin\A10342.g.mpb.NoosaSpitSEMPdesign\03 approvals\R.A10342.002.00_Environmental Assessment.docx
Page 72
Noosa Spit Coastal Protection Environmental Assessment B-17
State Codes
Performance outcomes Acceptable outcomes Code compliance
PO8 Works are undertaken to encourage fish No acceptable outcome is prescribed. NA
habitats and fisheries resource values to
naturally regenerate.
Note: Substitution of fish habitats is not
supported.
A condition of approval for any marine plant
restoration is likely to require a post-works
monitoring and maintenance program
appropriate for the scale of the restoration works.
PO9 Development likely to cause drainage or No acceptable outcome is prescribed. Dredging will only be undertaken to approximately -3m
disturbance to acid sulfate soils, prevents the AHD; previous testing has identified that acidic material is
release of contaminants and impacts on fisheries unlikely above this level. Additionally, regular testing of
resources and fish habitats. dredge material will be undertaken and material avoided
Note: Management of acid sulfate soil is where acidic material is present (i.e. material taken from
consistent with the current Queensland acid another location).
sulfate soil technical manual: Soil Management
Guidelines v4.0, Department of Science,
Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts,
2014
PO10 Tidal and freshwater inundation and For bridges: Beach nourishment will be below MHWS, and is not
drainage patterns, extent and timing are expected to prevent or change existing drainage to
maintained or restored such that ecological AO10.1 Bridges are designed with abutments marine plants present at the Spit (most inundation occurs
processes continue and associated fish habitat above the highest astronomical tide. from the south – from Noosa Sound, rather than from
values and condition are maintained. AND Noosa River).
For water, sewer or stormwater infrastructure:
AO10.2 Infrastructure is placed below the
existing natural substrate surface level, and
natural substrate, surface levels and habitat
condition and values are reinstated.
For any other development, no acceptable
outcome is prescribed.
G:\Admin\A10342.g.mpb.NoosaSpitSEMPdesign\03 approvals\R.A10342.002.00_Environmental Assessment.docx
Page 73
Noosa Spit Coastal Protection Environmental Assessment B-18
State Codes
Performance outcomes Acceptable outcomes Code compliance
PO11 Development: No acceptable outcome is prescribed. Complies – the works are designed to reduce erosion on
1. maintains natural processes of erosion and Dog Beach to preserve natural and community values.
accretion unless
there is an immediate and significant threat; and
2. does not result in increased risk of waterway
bed or bank
scour or erosion or shoreline or foreshore
erosion.
PO12 The development is designed, sited and No acceptable outcome is prescribed. Complies – whilst material will be dredged from the
constructed to ensure its long-term use and Noosa River and will reinstate a navigable channel, this
operability will not result in ongoing adverse is not the purpose of the works, and ongoing dredging to
impacts or new adverse impacts or additional main access to the Noosa River mouth will not occur.
development including:
1. dredging to maintain access
2. trimming of marine plants
3. warning signs or protective structures.
PO13 Development does not restrict or reduce For development for a material change of use or Complies – there may be some short term loss of access
public use of or access to tidal land and reconfiguration of a lot: to Dog Beach during nourishment, however this will be
waterways (areas host to fisheries resources). AO13.1 Tidal land and fish habitats are temporary only.
separated from
development and are available for public use.
For any other development, no acceptable
outcome is
prescribed
PO14 Development does not adversely impact AO14.1 The development does not alter existing Complies – works will not restrict access to the FHA or
on community access to fisheries resources and infrastructure or existing community access the Noosa River (with the exception of possible
fish habitats including recreational and arrangements. temporary restrictions around dredging works)
indigenous fishing access.
Note: In some cases, compensation for impact
on fisheries access, operations and/or
productivity may be necessary. The Guideline on
fisheries adjustment provides advice for
proponents on relevant fisheries adjustment
processes and is available by request from the
Department of Agriculture and Fisheries
G:\Admin\A10342.g.mpb.NoosaSpitSEMPdesign\03 approvals\R.A10342.002.00_Environmental Assessment.docx
Page 74
Noosa Spit Coastal Protection Environmental Assessment B-19 State Codes Performance outcomes Acceptable outcomes Code compliance PO15 Development does not adversely impact No acceptable outcome is prescribed. Complies – works will not restrict commercial fishing on commercial fishing access and linkages activity between a commercial fishery and infrastructure, services and facilities. Note: In some cases, compensation for impact on fisheries access, operations and/or productivity may be necessary. The Guideline on fisheries adjustment provides advice for proponents on relevant fisheries adjustment processes and is available by request from the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries Private marine infrastructure PO16 Evidence of a relevant development No acceptable outcome is prescribed. N/A approval for the removal, damage or destruction or marine plants is required if a material change of use or reconfiguration of a lot occurred since 1 March 2005. Erosion control structures and beach replenishment PO17 Removal, destruction or damage to marine No acceptable outcome is prescribed. Complies – erosion is currently impacting beach plants as a result of erosion control structures or ammenity and vegetation. beach replenishment only occurs where there is an immediate and significant threat of erosion to: 1. the use of the land for its existing or approved purpose; and 2. infrastructure, structures or buildings are not expendable or not able to be relocated. Note: Further detail on erosion control is provided in Tidal fish habitats, erosion control and beach replenishment (FHMOP 010), Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, 2007. PO18 The area that the beach replenishment is No acceptable outcome is prescribed. Complies – the Noosa River mouth in it’s entirety is a to be carried out on is a high-energy, sandy dynamic environment that experiences frequent sand sediment shoreline with biological communities movement. adapted to mobile sediments. G:\Admin\A10342.g.mpb.NoosaSpitSEMPdesign\03 approvals\R.A10342.002.00_Environmental Assessment.docx
Page 75
Noosa Spit Coastal Protection Environmental Assessment B-20
State Codes
Performance outcomes Acceptable outcomes Code compliance
PO19 Erosion control structures including beach No acceptable outcome is prescribed. Complies – nourishment is to control erosion to Noosa
replenishment does not create terrestrial land, Spit, not create terrestrial land.
unless it is a sacrificial dune or beach which
forms an integral part of the erosion control
design.
PO20 The beach replenishment work is No acceptable outcome is prescribed. Complies – a thorough options analysis was undertaken
undertaken in a way that minimises the need for prior to works. The preferred option minimises the need
other erosion control activities or works. for further erosion control structures or activities.
PO21 The beach replenishment work is AO21.1 Beach replenishment will not require Complies – it is likely that some further replenishment is
undertaken in a way that minimises the maintenance more often than every two years. required in the future, however the frequency will be
frequency of any ongoing replenishment significantly greater than every two years.
requirements. AND
AO21.2 A source of replenishment material for
future maintenance is identified and secured.
PO22 Erosion control structures are located No acceptable outcome is prescribed. N/A – no erosion structures will be built for this project.
parallel to the shoreline and as far landward as
possible to avoid impacts to tidal land and
marine plants.
Dredging
PO23 Capital dredging is to create or provide No acceptable outcome is prescribed. Complies – dredging is to increas public beach
access to public infrastructure. ammenity.
Note:
1. Privately owned marina facilities or maritime
infrastructure development that is open to the
general public and facilitates unrestricted public
use for fishing purposes may be considered
public infrastructure.
2. Dredging for access to private structures that
do not provide unrestricted public use is not
supported.
PO24 Maintenance dredging is consistent with No acceptable outcome is prescribed. Complies – works are not for the purpose of maintaining
an existing development approval for dredging; navigational access.
and within approved profiles for navigational
purposes.
G:\Admin\A10342.g.mpb.NoosaSpitSEMPdesign\03 approvals\R.A10342.002.00_Environmental Assessment.docx
Page 76
Noosa Spit Coastal Protection Environmental Assessment B-21
State Codes
Performance outcomes Acceptable outcomes Code compliance
PO25 Disposal of dredge spoil avoids adverse AO25.1 Dredge spoil is not deposited on tidal Complies – beach nourishment is designed to impact
impacts on marine plants. land. minimal marine plants.
Temporary works
PO26 Fish habitats and the fisheries resources No acceptable outcome is prescribed. N/A – no fish habitat area within works extent.
they support are restored to pre-existing or
improved condition and extent when the
temporary works has ceased.
PO27 Temporary works will be in place or are No acceptable outcome is prescribed. N/A
undertaken for a specified period and for the
shortest possible time.
PO28 A temporary structure is in place for a No acceptable outcome is prescribed. N/A
specified period and is designed to be
completely removed
Restoration
PO29 Restoration does not: No acceptable outcome is prescribed. Complies – works is not within a fish habitat area.
1. compromise condition of fish habitats or
fisheries productivity; or
2. substitute a particular fish habitat for another
type of habitat, for example, creation of
mangrove communities from other tidal fish
habitats; or
3. substitute a natural fish habitat for artificial
fish habitat; or
4. deliver fish habitats that are likely to be
regularly disturbed, such as through
predictable sediment removal or
maintenance dredging; or
5. deliver fish habitats that will predictably be at
a high risk of contamination and/or further
disturbance.
G:\Admin\A10342.g.mpb.NoosaSpitSEMPdesign\03 approvals\R.A10342.002.00_Environmental Assessment.docx
Page 77
Noosa Spit Coastal Protection Environmental Assessment B-22
State Codes
Performance outcomes Acceptable outcomes Code compliance
Note: For further guidance refer to Restoration of
fish habitats: Fisheries guidelines for marine
areas (FHG 002), Department of Primary
Industries, 1998.
Restoration works authorised through an
endorsed restoration plan under the code for
self- assessable development MP06 – Minor
impact works in a declared fish habitat area or
involving the removal, destruction or damage of
marine plants, Department of Agriculture,
Fisheries and Forestry, 2013, do not require a
development permit.
PO30 Marine plants to be used for revegetation PO30.1 Marine plants used in restoration works Complies – any restoration works will source vegetation
purposes have local provenance. are collected within a 100 kilometre radius of the from local areas (no restoration works planned at
site. present).
Matters of state environmental significance
PO31 Development: No acceptable outcome is prescribed. Complies – design minimises significant impacts on
MSES.
1. avoids impacts on matters of state
environmental significance; or
2. minimises and mitigates impacts on matters
of state environmental significance after
demonstrating avoidance is not reasonably
possible; and
3. provides an offset if, after demonstrating all
reasonable avoidance, minimisation and
mitigation measures are undertaken, the
development results in an acceptable
significant residual impact on a matter of
state environmental significance.
Statutory note: For Brisbane core port land, an
offset may only be applied to development on
G:\Admin\A10342.g.mpb.NoosaSpitSEMPdesign\03 approvals\R.A10342.002.00_Environmental Assessment.docx
Page 78
Noosa Spit Coastal Protection Environmental Assessment B-23 State Codes Performance outcomes Acceptable outcomes Code compliance land identified as E1 Conservation/Buffer, E2 Open Space or Buffer/Investigation in the Brisbane Port LUP precinct plan. For the Brisbane Port LUP, see www.portbris.com.au. Note: For the purpose of this code, the matter of state environmental significance assessed is marine plants under the Fisheries Act 1994. Guidance for determining if the development will have a significant residual impact on the matter of state environmental significance is provided in the Significant Residual Impact Guideline, Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning, 2014. Where the significant residual impact is considered an acceptable impact on the matter of state environmental significance under the Environmental Offsets framework and an offset is considered appropriate, the offset should be delivered in accordance with the Environmental Offsets Act 2014. G:\Admin\A10342.g.mpb.NoosaSpitSEMPdesign\03 approvals\R.A10342.002.00_Environmental Assessment.docx
Page 79
Noosa Spit Coastal Protection Environmental Assessment B-24
State Codes
Table B-4 State Code 22: Environmentally relevant activities
State Code 11: ERA’s
Performance Outcomes Acceptable Outcomes Code Compliance
Development in the Erosion Prone Area
PO1 Development is suitably located and AO1.1 Development meets the acoustic quality Complies – no sensitive receptors are located nearby.
designed to avoid or mitigate environmental objectives for sensitive receptors identified in the
harm to the acoustic environment. Environmental Protection (Noise) Policy 2008.
The Dredge Contractor will be required to meet the
objectives of the Noise Policy during dredging activity.
PO2 Development is suitably located and AO2.1 Development meets the air quality Complies - Dredging activity is not expected to generate
designed to avoid or mitigate environmental objectives of the Environmental Protection (Air) significant air pollutants.
harm to the air environment. Policy 2008.
PO3 Development, other than intensive animal No acceptable outcome is prescribed Complies –. No odours are anticipated during dredging
industry for poultry farming, is suitably located and nourishment activity (material is mostly fine sands).
and designed to avoid or mitigate environmental
harm on adjacent sensitive land uses caused by
odour.
PO4 Development is suitably located and AO4.1 Development meets the management Complies – the sandy nature of the material to be
designed to avoid or mitigate environmental intent, water quality guidelines and objectives of dredged will minimise sediment plumes. Water quality
harm to the receiving waters environment. the Environmental Protection (Water) Policy monitoring will also be undertaken during works.
2009.
G:\Admin\A10342.g.mpb.NoosaSpitSEMPdesign\03 approvals\R.A10342.002.00_Environmental Assessment.docx
Page 80
Noosa Spit Coastal Protection Environmental Assessment B-25
State Codes
State Code 11: ERA’s
PO5 Development is designed to include No acceptable outcome is prescribed. Complies – the Dredge Management Plan will contain
elements which: management measures for containing any waste
prevent or minimise the production of hazardous products on the dredge vessel in suitable receptacles.
contaminants and waste as by-products; or
contain and treat hazardous contaminants on-
site rather than releasing them into the
environment; and
provide secondary containment to prevent the
accidental release of hazardous contaminants to
the environment from spillage or leaks.
PO6 Environmentally hazardous materials No acceptable outcome is prescribed. Any hazardous substances on board dredge vessels will
located on site are stored to avoid or minimise be contained appropriately. Spill equipment will also be
their release into the environment due to kept on board in the event of an unplanned event.
inundation during flood events.
All development – matters of environmental significance
PO7 Development: No acceptable outcome is prescribed. Works impact on a number of MSES, as detailed in the
avoids impacts on matters of state environmental assessment report. These impacts are generally minor in
significance; or nature, and are not assessed to have a significant impact
as defined by the Significant Residual Impact Guidelines
minimises and mitigates impacts on matters of
with the exception of impacts to marine plants. A number
state environmental significance after
of management measures have been put in place to
demonstrating avoidance is not reasonably
minimise these impacts, as described in the assessment
possible; and
report.
provides an offset if, after demonstrating all
reasonable avoidance, minimisation and
mitigation measures are undertaken, the
development results in an acceptable significant
residual impact on a matter of state
environmental significance.
Statutory note: For Brisbane core port land, an offset may
only be applied to development on land identified as E1
Conservation/Buffer, E2 Open Space or Buffer/Investigation
G:\Admin\A10342.g.mpb.NoosaSpitSEMPdesign\03 approvals\R.A10342.002.00_Environmental Assessment.docx
Page 81
Noosa Spit Coastal Protection Environmental Assessment B-26
State Codes
State Code 11: ERA’s
in the Brisbane Port LUP precinct plan. For the Brisbane Port
LUP, see www.portbris.com.au.
Note: Guidance for determining if the development will have
a significant residual impact on a matter of state
environmental significance is provided in the Significant
Residual Impact Guideline, Department of State
Development, Infrastructure and Planning, 2014. Where the
significant residual impact is considered an acceptable
impact on the matter of state environmental significance and
an offset is considered appropriate, the offset should be
delivered in accordance with the Environmental Offsets
Category C and Category R areas of vegetation
PO8 Development: No acceptable outcome is prescribed. Complies – no vegetation category C/R will be impacted.
• avoids impacts on category C areas of
vegetation and category R areas of
vegetation; or
minimises and mitigates impacts on category C
areas and category R areas of vegetation after
demonstrating avoidance is not reasonably
possible.
Intensive animal industry – poultry farming (ERA 4(2))
PO9 Poultry farming development (where AO9.1 For poultry farming involving 300,000 N/A
farming more than 200,000 birds) is suitably birds or less, development meets the separation
located and designed to avoid or mitigate distances as determined using the S-factor
environmental harm on adjacent sensitive land methodology to:
uses caused by odour. a sensitive land use in a rural zone; and
boundary of a non-rural zone.
OR
AO9.2 Development meets the separation
distances as determined by odour modelling
using the following criteria:
2.5 odour units, 99.5 percent, 1 hour average for
a sensitive land use in a rural zone; or
G:\Admin\A10342.g.mpb.NoosaSpitSEMPdesign\03 approvals\R.A10342.002.00_Environmental Assessment.docx
Page 82
Noosa Spit Coastal Protection Environmental Assessment B-27
State Codes
State Code 11: ERA’s
1.0 odour units, 99.5 percent, 1 hour average for
the boundary of a non-rural zone.
Statutory note: Guidance for determining if the development
will cause environmental harm caused by odour is provided
in the Development of Meat Chicken Farms in Queensland,
Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, 2016 and the
Guideline – Odour Impact Assessment from Developments,
Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, 2013.
G:\Admin\A10342.g.mpb.NoosaSpitSEMPdesign\03 approvals\R.A10342.002.00_Environmental Assessment.docx
Page 83
Noosa Spit Coastal Protection Environmental Assessment C-1 Marine Plant Assessment Appendix C Marine Plant Assessment G:\Admin\A10342.g.mpb.NoosaSpitSEMPdesign\03 approvals\R.A10342.002.00_Environmental Assessment.docx
Page 84
Marine Plant Assessment Dogs Beach, Noosa Spit Recreation Reserve Reference: R.A10342.001.00.marine plants.docx Date: October 2020 Confidential
Page 85
Document Control Sheet
Document: R.A10342.001.00.marine plants.docx
BMT Commercial Australia Pty Ltd
Level 8, 200 Creek Street Title: Marine Plant Assessment Dogs Beach,
Brisbane Qld 4000 Noosa Spit Recreation Reserve
Australia
PO Box 203, Spring Hill 4004 Project Manager: Matt Barnes
Tel: +61 7 3831 6744 Author: Suanne Richards
Fax: + 61 7 3832 3627
Client: Noosa Shire Council
ABN 54 010 830 421
Client Contact: Daniel Wishaw
www.bmt.org
Client Reference:
Synopsis This Technical Memorandum has been prepared for Noosa Shire Council to
document the results of a land-based marine plant assessment at Dogs Beach,
Noosa Spit Recreation Reserve.
REVISION/CHECKING HISTORY
Revision Number Date Checked by Issued by
00 8th October 2020 LCM LCM
DISTRIBUTION
Destination Revision
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
NSC PDF
BMT File PDF
BMT Library PDF
Copyright and non-disclosure notice
The contents and layout of this report are subject to copyright owned by BMT Commercial Australia Pty Ltd (BMT CA) save to the extent
that copyright has been legally assigned by us to another party or is used by BMT CA under licence. To the extent that we own the
copyright in this report, it may not be copied or used without our prior written agreement for any purpose other than the purpose
indicated in this report.
The methodology (if any) contained in this report is provided to you in confidence and must not be disclosed or copied to third parties
without the prior written agreement of BMT CA. Disclosure of that information may constitute an actionable breach of confidence or may
otherwise prejudice our commercial interests. Any third party who obtains access to this report by any means will, in any event, be
subject to the Third Party Disclaimer set out below.
Third Party Disclaimer
Any disclosure of this report to a third party is subject to this disclaimer. The report was prepared by BMT CA at the instruction of, and
for use by, our client named on this Document Control Sheet. It does not in any way constitute advice to any third party who is able to
access it by any means. BMT CA excludes to the fullest extent lawfully permitted all liability whatsoever for any loss or damage
howsoever arising from reliance on the contents of this report.
Commercial terms
BMT requests the ability to discuss and negotiate in good faith the terms and conditions of the proposed terms of engagement, to
facilitate successful project outcomes, to adequately protect both parties and to accord with normal contracting practice for
engagements of this type.
G:\Admin\A10342.g.mpb.NoosaSpitSEMPdesign\R.A10342.001.00.marine plants.docx
Page 86
Marine Plant Assessment Dogs Beach, Noosa Spit Recreation Reserve i
Contents
Contents
1 Introduction 1
2 Methodology 3
2.1 Data Review 3
2.2 Field Survey 4
3 Results 5
3.1 Overview 5
3.2 Habitats 5
3.2.1 Dune Woodland 7
3.2.2 Foredune 8
3.2.3 Mangroves and Saltmarsh 8
4 Discussion 10
4.2 Potential Impacts 10
4.2.1 Assessable Development 11
4.2.1.1 Significant Residual Impact Assessment 11
4.2.1.2 Vegetation and Substrate Disturbance 12
4.2.1.3 Restoration 12
4.2.1.4 Signage and Access 12
4.2.1.5 Maintenance and Monitoring 12
5 Conclusion 13
List of Figures
Figure 1-1 Noosa Spit Beach Nourishment Project 2
Figure 3-1 Vegetation Communities and Habitat Features of the Study Site 6
Figure 3-2 Dune Woodlands and Eroding Foreshore Along Dogs Beach 7
Figure 3-3 Seawall and Beach Replenishment at Western End of Dog Beach 8
Figure 3-4 Mangroves and Saltmarsh at Eastern End of Dog Beach Adjacent to Eastern
Dispersive Sand Plug 9
Figure 3-5 Extensive Estuarine Wetlands Within Southern Zone of Noosa Spit 9
G:\Admin\A10342.g.mpb.NoosaSpitSEMPdesign\R.A10342.001.00.marine plants.docx
Page 87
Marine Plant Assessment Dogs Beach, Noosa Spit Recreation Reserve 1
Introduction
1 Introduction
This Technical Memorandum has been prepared for Noosa Shire Council (NSC) to document the
results of a land-based marine plant assessment at Dogs Beach, Noosa Spit Recreation Reserve
(the study site). This assessment applies to land-based marine plants only and does not address
impacts to potential sub-tidal marine plants, such as seagrass or macroalgae.
The aim of the assessment was to:
(i) Describe marine plant and fisheries habitat values within the study site;
(ii) Assess potential impacts to these values associated with the proposed Beach Nourishment
Project (refer Figure 1-1); and
(iii) Recommend management measures to mitigate significant impacts to marine plant and
fisheries habitat values.
This Technical Memorandum does not include approval documentation.
G:\Admin\A10342.g.mpb.NoosaSpitSEMPdesign\R.A10342.001.00.marine plants.docx
Page 88
Marine Plant Assessment Dogs Beach, Noosa Spit Recreation Reserve 2
Introduction
Figure 1-1 Noosa Spit Beach Nourishment Project
G:\Admin\A10342.g.mpb.NoosaSpitSEMPdesign\R.A10342.001.00.marine plants.docx
Page 89
Marine Plant Assessment Dogs Beach, Noosa Spit Recreation Reserve 3
Methodology
2 Methodology
The scope of this assessment included the following:
• A desktop review to broadly characterise the currently recognised marine plant and tidal features
of the study site in terms of potential fisheries habitat values;
• A field survey to ground-truth current environmental data and mapping;
• An assessment of marine plant communities and associated fisheries habitat values;
• Preparation of an assessment report.
2.1 Data Review
The desktop review comprised a search of online mapping and spatial data and an analysis of
information for marine plant communities and fisheries habitat values with reference to the study site.
Information reviewed included:
• Current (2020) and historical aerial imagery;
• 2017 Pre-Clearing and Remnant Regional Ecosystem and Land Zone spatial data;
• Highest Astronomical Tide (HAT) and Mean High Water Springs (MHWS) spatial data; and
• Online mapping for relevant matters of state environmental significance (MSES) currently
recognised as occurring within or adjacent to the study site, namely areas within declared fish
habitat areas that are management A areas or management B areas under the Fisheries
Regulation 2008.
For the purposes of this assessment, the definition of marine plant refers to the Fisheries Act 1994
where:
(1) Marine plant includes the following--
(a) A plant (a tidal plant) that usually grows on, or adjacent to, tidal land, whether it is living,
dead, standing or fallen;
(b) Material of a tidal plant, or other plant material on tidal land; or
(c) A plant, or material of a plant, prescribed under a regulation or management plan to be
a marine plant.
(2) Marine plant does not include a plant that is—
(a) Prohibited matter or restricted matter under the Biosecurity Act 2014; or
(b) Controlled biosecurity matter or regulated biosecurity matter under the Biosecurity Act
2014.
G:\Admin\A10342.g.mpb.NoosaSpitSEMPdesign\R.A10342.001.00.marine plants.docx
Page 90
Marine Plant Assessment Dogs Beach, Noosa Spit Recreation Reserve 4
Methodology
2.2 Field Survey
The field survey involved traverses of the study site undertaken by Suanne Richards of BMT on 28th
September 2020. Suanne has nearly 20 years’ experience undertaking ecological impact
assessments in the coastal zone of south-east Qld.
The aim of the field survey was to verify the presence of land-based marine plant communities and
evidence of associated fisheries habitat values. The study site was traversed on foot to survey
representative areas of habitat. Site data was recorded at representative locations including
dominant plant species present in each stratum of each vegetation community, including native and
exotic species. Any significant values identified within the study site were recorded by handheld GPS
for subsequent mapping purposes.
All survey work was performed in accordance with BMT’s Scientific Purposes Permit and Animal
Ethics Approval.
Flora nomenclature follows the Census of the Queensland Flora 2019 and exotic species are
denoted with an asterisk (*).
G:\Admin\A10342.g.mpb.NoosaSpitSEMPdesign\R.A10342.001.00.marine plants.docx
Page 91
Marine Plant Assessment Dogs Beach, Noosa Spit Recreation Reserve 5
Results
3 Results
3.1 Overview
The Noosa Spit Recreation Reserve (the Spit) is a reclaimed sand dune system near the mouth of
the Noosa River. The northern half of the Spit adjacent to Dogs Beach has an actively eroding
foreshore bounded by dune woodland. A geotextile groyne has been constructed at the western end
of the beach for sand nourishment and a rock wall has been constructed at the eastern end for
foreshore protection. This highly dynamic foreshore zone is dominated by woodland species with
sparse marine plants. The southern half of the Spit fronting lower energy estuarine waters supports
intertidal wetlands comprising mangroves and saltmarsh.
3.2 Habitats
The Spit currently supports the following vegetation communities as described below and mapped in
Figure 3-1:
• Dune Woodland;
• Foredune;
• Saltmarsh; and
• Mangroves.
G:\Admin\A10342.g.mpb.NoosaSpitSEMPdesign\R.A10342.001.00.marine plants.docx
Page 92
= Ss Vegetation Communities and Habitat F = ‘eatures of the Study Site ; | Mangroves i a Foredune ez Saltmarsh and mangroves Dune woodland Title Figure. Vegetation Communities and Habitat Features of the Study Site LEGEND Highest astronomical tide line (2013, DNRME) Mean high water springs tidal line (but more like lowest astronomical tide line at seaward edge BMT endeavours to ensure that the information provided in this of mangroves) (2040, DNRME) map is correct at the time of publication. BMT does not warrant, guarantee or make representations regarding the currency and accuracy of information contained in this map www bmt org Aerial image: 6 August 2020 © Nearmap Filepath’ —_|:\A10342.i.mpb.NoosaSEMPimplementation\DRG\ENV_001_200929_MarinePlants. WOR
Page 93
Marine Plant Assessment Dogs Beach, Noosa Spit Recreation Reserve 7
Results
3.2.1 Dune Woodland
The northern half of the Spit adjacent to Dogs Beach supports dune woodland which is actively
eroding along the foreshore.
Dominant canopy and shrub species include Cupaniopsis anacardioides, Alphitonia excelsa,
Banksia integrifolia subsp. integrifolia, Leptospermum laevigatum, Eucalyptus tereticornis, Acacia
sophorae, Corymbia intermedia, Polyscias elegans, Lophostemon confertus, Elaeocarpus obovatus,
Macaranga tanarius, Casuarina equisetifolia, Exocarpos latifolius, Acacia suaveolens, Austromyrtus
dulcis, Pandanus tectorius, Acronychia imperforata, Callitris columellaris, Schinus terebinthifolius*
and Melaleuca quinquenervia.
The ground layer comprises Zoysia macrantha, Cynodon dactylon, Eragrostis interrupta, Cenchrus
spp., Asparagus aethiopicus*, Hibbertia scandens, Imperata cylindrica, Euphorbia cyathophora*,
Passiflora suberosa*, Macroptilium atropurpureum*, Geitonoplesium cymosum, Gloriosa superba
and Stephania japonica.
Figure 3-2 Dune Woodlands and Eroding Foreshore Along Dogs Beach
G:\Admin\A10342.g.mpb.NoosaSpitSEMPdesign\R.A10342.001.00.marine plants.docx
Page 94
Marine Plant Assessment Dogs Beach, Noosa Spit Recreation Reserve 8
Results
3.2.2 Foredune
Dogs Beach has an extensively eroded foreshore with a relatively steep dune scarp in places and
has limited foredune vegetation. Sand accumulation as a result of the groyne at the western end of
the beach has been colonised by foredune species including a groundcover of Spinifex sericeus,
Zoysia macrantha and Ipomoea pes-caprae bounded by Acacia sophorae shrubland.
Foredune Vegetation Foredune Vegetation
Groyne Potential subtidal plants fronting the groyne
Figure 3-3 Seawall and Beach Replenishment at Western End of Dog Beach
3.2.3 Mangroves and Saltmarsh
Sparse Avicennia marina and Excoecaria agallocha mangroves and saltmarsh dominated by
Sporobolus virginicus and Sesuvium portulacastrum occur at the eastern end of Dogs Beach.
The southern half of the Spit fronting lower energy estuarine waters supports extensive mangroves
comprising Avicennia marina, Bruguiera gymnorhiza, Aegiceras corniculatum, Rhizophora stylosa
and Excoecaria agallocha. Saltmarsh occurs at the upper tidal range dominated by Sporobolus
virginicus, Juncus kraussii, Clerodendrum inerme, Carpobrotus glaucescens and Sesuvium
portulacastrum.
G:\Admin\A10342.g.mpb.NoosaSpitSEMPdesign\R.A10342.001.00.marine plants.docx
Page 95
Marine Plant Assessment Dogs Beach, Noosa Spit Recreation Reserve 9
Results
Figure 3-4 Mangroves and Saltmarsh at Eastern End of Dog Beach Adjacent to Eastern
Dispersive Sand Plug
Figure 3-5 Extensive Estuarine Wetlands Within Southern Zone of Noosa Spit
G:\Admin\A10342.g.mpb.NoosaSpitSEMPdesign\R.A10342.001.00.marine plants.docx
Page 96
Marine Plant Assessment Dogs Beach, Noosa Spit Recreation Reserve 10
Discussion
4 Discussion
4.1 Marine Plants and Fisheries Habitat
4.1.1 Marine Plants
The following marine plants as listed under the Fish Habitat Management Operational Policy1 (the
policy) were identified at Dog’s Beach and are protected marine plants regardless of their location
and whether or not they are on tidal lands:
• Mangroves: Avicennia marina and Excoecaria agallocha;
• Saltcouch: Sporobolus virginicus;
• Saltmarsh plants and other tidal plants growing adjacent to the tidal zone: Cynodon dactylon and
Sesuvium portulacastrum.
Sparse Melaleuca quinquenervia were noted on the eroding dune scarp at the eastern end of Dogs
Beach. Under the policy, M. quinquenervia are of value to fisheries productivity where Melaleuca
swamps adjacent to tidal areas are either permanently or periodically tidally connected. The M.
quinquenervia on the eroding dune scarp at the eastern end of Dogs Beach would not typically be
tidally connected to the Noosa River. This elevated dune scarp is not considered to support fisheries
values.
4.1.2 Fish Habitat Area
The study site lies approximately 300m to the east of Fish Habitat Area (FHA) FHA-051 Noosa River.
The proposal will not directly impact on the FHA.
4.1.3 Highest Astronomical Tide and Mean High Water Spring
Sections of the eroding foreshore of Dogs Beach lie below mapped HAT and the sparse mangroves
along the eastern foreshore lie below mapped MHWS (refer to Figure 3-1).
4.2 Potential Impacts
Construction of the eastern dispersive sand plug at the eastern end of Dogs Beach may result in the
removal of individual mangroves and saltmarsh and will occur on lands mapped below HAT and
MHWS.
The beach nourishment zone occurs on land mapped below HAT and MHWS. There may be some
removal of dune woodland vegetation associated with beach nourishment. Whilst this area supports
sparse Cynodon dactylon, a marine plant listed under the policy, and sparse Melaleuca
quinquenervia, this elevated dune scarp is not considered to support fisheries values.
The western dispersive sand plug occurs on land mapped below MHWS. Further investigation may
be required to assess potential impacts on sub-tidal marine plants associated with the groyne.
The FHA will not be directly impacted by the proposed works.
1
Couchman, D and Beumer, J 2007, Management and protection of marine plants and other tidal fish habitats, Queensland Department
of Primary Industries and Fisheries, Fish Habitat Management Operational Policy FHMOP 001, 60pp.
G:\Admin\A10342.g.mpb.NoosaSpitSEMPdesign\R.A10342.001.00.marine plants.docx
Page 97
Marine Plant Assessment Dogs Beach, Noosa Spit Recreation Reserve 11
Discussion
4.2.1 Assessable Development
Any proposed removal of marine plants/fisheries habitat associated with the project would be
assessable development requiring fisheries approval.
4.2.1.1 Significant Residual Impact Assessment
Under the Significant Residual Impact Guidelines:
An action is likely to have a significant residual impact on marine plants where the
impacts of the development shall result in:
• public infrastructure works impacting more than 25m2 of fish habitat; and
○ temporary impacts are expected to take 5 years or more for the impact area to
be restored to its predevelopment condition; or
○ a proposed reduction in the extent of marine plants through removal, destruction
or damage of marine plants; or
○ fragmentation or increased fragmentation of a marine ecological community; or
○ adverse changes affecting survival of marine plants through modifying or
destroying abiotic (non-living) factors (such as water, nutrients, or soil)
necessary for a marine plant’s survival; or
○ alteration in the species composition of marine plants in an ecological
community, that causes a decline or loss of functionally important species; or
○ interference with the natural recovery of marine plant communities.
Depending on the final design and construction activities, the proposal may result in the removal of
more than 25m2 of marine plants.
It is anticipated it will take 5 years or more for mangrove individuals to be restored to their pre-
development condition. Saltmarsh species may restore to pre-disturbance conditions within 5 years.
Provided the following recommended environmental controls are implemented, it is anticipated the
proposal will not:
• result in a permanent reduction in the extent of marine plants;
• result in fragmentation of a marine ecological community;
• adversely modify or destroy water, nutrients, or soil conditions necessary for marine plants;
• alter the species composition or functionality of marine plant communities;
• interfere with the natural recovery of marine plant communities.
The following environmental controls will help minimise impacts to marine plants during construction
and promote restoration of impacted habitats to pre-disturbance conditions or similar.
G:\Admin\A10342.g.mpb.NoosaSpitSEMPdesign\R.A10342.001.00.marine plants.docx
Page 98
Marine Plant Assessment Dogs Beach, Noosa Spit Recreation Reserve 12
Discussion
4.2.1.2 Vegetation and Substrate Disturbance
Vegetation clearing limits should be detailed in site drawings and pegged out on site prior to
construction. This should include locations of vegetation protection zones, side-tracks and, if
required, locations for the stockpiling of site materials. No activities should occur within the
vegetation protection zones. Techniques for substrate handling and storage should be detailed in a
Construction Management Plan.
4.2.1.3 Restoration
Natural recruitment is the preferred and most cost-effective method of revegetating zones. On
completion of construction, substrate should be reprofiled where feasible to create conditions suitable
for natural recruitment of the dominant mangrove and saltmarsh species.
4.2.1.4 Signage and Access
Interpretive signage should be installed at the location of works to inform the public of construction
and to discourage access during restoration.
4.2.1.5 Maintenance and Monitoring
Maintenance and monitoring will be required to enhance restoration following construction. Regular
monitoring should be undertaken to assess the following:
• Restoration progress, assessment of substrate profile and marine plant recruitment; and
• Identify site management issues, such as low natural recruitment and weed invasion.
Site record sheets and permanent photo monitoring points should be used for recording and
monitoring restoration progress. Depending on the level of site disturbance, the monitoring schedule
may consist of weekly site visits for the first month, fortnightly visits for months 2-4, and monthly visits
thereafter.
G:\Admin\A10342.g.mpb.NoosaSpitSEMPdesign\R.A10342.001.00.marine plants.docx
Page 99
Marine Plant Assessment Dogs Beach, Noosa Spit Recreation Reserve 13
Conclusion
5 Conclusion
Dogs Beach is a highly dynamic foreshore zone dominated by dune woodland. The eroding dune
scarp along most of the study site is not considered to support high fisheries values. However, the
works may impact on sparse marine plants, including, mangroves, saltcouch and saltmarsh and may
occur on lands mapped below HAT and MHWS. The proposal will not directly impact on the Noosa
River FHA. Further investigation may be required to assess potential impacts on sub-tidal marine
plants associated with the western groyne. Provided environmental controls addressing vegetation
protection, restoration and monitoring are implemented, it is anticipated direct impacts on marine
plants can be minimised and habitats similar to pre-disturbance conditions can be restored.
G:\Admin\A10342.g.mpb.NoosaSpitSEMPdesign\R.A10342.001.00.marine plants.docx
Page 100
BMT has a proven record in addressing today’s engineering and
environmental issues.
Our dedication to developing innovative approaches and solutions
enhances our ability to meet our client’s most challenging needs.
1
BMT in Environment Other BMT offices
Brisbane Northern Rivers Leeds
Level 8, 200 Creek Street Suite 5 Platform
Brisbane Queensland 4000 20 Byron Street New Station Street
PO Box 203 Spring Hill Queensland 4004 Bangalow New South Wales 2479 Leeds, LS1 4JB
Australia Australia UK
Tel +61 7 3831 6744 Tel +61 2 6687 0466 Tel: +44 (0) 113 328 2366
Fax +61 7 3832 3627 Fax +61 2 6687 0422 Email [email protected]
Email [email protected] Email [email protected]
Aberdeen
Melbourne Sydney 11 Bon Accord Crescent
Level 5, 99 King Street Suite G2, 13-15 Smail Street Aberdeen, AB11 6DE
Melbourne Victoria 3000 Ultimo Sydney New South Wales 2007 UK
Australia Australia Tel: +44 (0) 1224 414 200
Tel +61 3 8620 6100 Tel +61 2 8960 7755 Email [email protected]
Fax +61 3 8620 6105 Fax +61 2 8960 7745
Email [email protected] Email [email protected] Asia Pacific
Indonesia Office
Newcastle Perth Perkantoran Hijau Arkadia
126 Belford Street Level 4 Tower C, P Floor
Broadmeadow New South Wales 2292 20 Parkland Road Jl: T.B. Simatupang Kav.88
PO Box 266 Broadmeadow Osborne Park Western Australia 6017 Jakarta, 12520
New South Wales 2292 PO Box 2305 Churchlands Western Australia 6018 Indonesia
Australia Australia Tel: +62 21 782 7639
Tel +61 2 4940 8882 Tel +61 8 6163 4900 Email [email protected]
Fax +61 2 4940 8887 Email [email protected]
Email [email protected] Alexandria
London 4401 Ford Avenue, Suite 1000
Adelaide Zig Zag Building, 70 Victoria Street Alexandria, VA 22302
5 Hackney Road Westminster USA
Hackney Adelaide South Australia 5069 London, SW1E 6SQ Tel: +1 703 920 7070
Australia UK Email [email protected]
Tel +61 8 8614 3400 Tel +44 (0) 20 8090 1566
Email [email protected] Email [email protected]
www.bmt.org
Page 101
Noosa Spit Coastal Protection Environmental Assessment D-1 Bird Survey Appendix D Bird Survey G:\Admin\A10342.g.mpb.NoosaSpitSEMPdesign\03 approvals\R.A10342.002.00_Environmental Assessment.docx
Page 102
An analysis of migratory and resident shorebird diversity and abundance in the Noosa River estuary 2005 – 2019 July 2020 Prepared by the Noosa Integrated Catchment Association Inc. Shorebird Survey Group with the support of Noosa Shire Council under the Community Environment Grants Program 2019.
Page 103
Table of contents Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………………………………3 Background ………………………………………………………………………………………………………3 Survey outcomes ... ................................................................................................................................. 4 Survey area ............................................................................................................................................. 6 Survey methodology. ............................................................................................................................... 8 Survey results…………………………………………………………………………………………………….9 Conservation.......................................................................................................................................... 18 Appendices ............................................................................................................................................ 19 Cover photo of a critically endangered Far Eastern Curlew (Numenius madagascariensis) at rest in the Noosa River estuary. The total population of the species traversing the EAAF is estimated at around 35,000 individuals. A previously abundant migrant - it was last observed in the Noosa River in October, 2017. Credit Bob Inglis. Noosa River – Shorebird Survey Report 2019 Page 2
Page 104
1. Introduction
The purpose of this report is to summarise the results to date of the first known longitudinal survey of
shorebirds in the Noosa River estuary. The survey has been conducted by the Noosa Integrated
Catchment Association Shorebird Survey Group (“SSG”) over a 14 year period commencing in October
2005 through October 2019 with funding and technical support provided by the Noosa Shire Council under
the Community Environment Grants Program 2019.
The report provides a basis to better understand the long-term trends in shorebird biodiversity and
abundance in the Noosa River estuary and for comparison against trends observed elsewhere in Australia
and across the East Asian - Australasian Flyway (“EAAF”). All survey data compiled by the SSG has been
contributed contemporaneously to the Queensland Wader Study Group database as part of the national
Shorebirds 2020 program 1 and these surveys continue monthly.
Shorebirds or “waders” are those birds commonly found on coastal shores,
including beaches, rocky shores, mudflats, tidal wetlands and lagoons. These
include the many plovers and sandpipers in the families Charadriidae and
Scolopacidae, as well as the stone-curlews, snipes, pratincoles,
oystercatchers, stilts, avocets and the Plains-wanderer. 2
The information in this report is intended to assist the Noosa Shire Council and other relevant stakeholders
in developing appropriate policy settings for the ongoing sustainable use and conservation of the Noosa
River estuary and surrounding shorebird habitat. The report is also intended to inform and engage the
local community regarding the presence of resident and migratory shorebirds, some critically endangered,
in the Noosa River estuary and to highlight the community’s role in their conservation. To illustrate the
biodiversity of the estuary and its high conservation value, survey results for the many other species of
water birds observed has been included. A primer on shorebird taxonomy is provided in Appendix 1 to
assist in interpreting this report.
In addition to this report, NICA has also prepared a 6-part brochure entitled “Migratory and Resident
Shorebirds and Terns” for distribution in the community detailing key species observed, population trends
and information on how to assist in conserving shorebirds in the Noosa River estuary. Distribution of the
brochure will be followed by an information workshop hosted by NICA.
2. Background
The Noosa River estuary lies toward the southern end of the EAAF, one of nine major flyways for migratory
birds around the globe. Originating within the arctic habitat of Siberia and Alaska, the EAAF traces its way
through East and South East Asia to Australia and New Zealand at its southern extremity and is home to
over 8 million migratory shorebirds plus numerous more resident species.
Diagram 1: Global migration flyways 3
1
National Shorebird Monitoring program established in 2007 and coordinated by Birdlife Australia (www.birdlife.org.au)
2
Birds in backyards
3
EAAF Flyways Partnership (www.eaafflyway.net)
Noosa River – Shorebird Survey Report 2019 Page 3
Page 105
Australia has long played a crucial role in protecting these shorebird species and habitat as a founding
signatory of the RAMSAR Convention in 1971 4 and numerous bilateral conservation agreements aligned
to the EAAF since. Australia is home to 65 Wetlands of International Importance under the RAMSAR
convention covering over 8.3 million hectares. Five of these sites are in Queensland including the Great
Sandy Straits (93,160ha, listed 2006) and Moreton Bay (113,314ha, listed 1996) located immediately to
the north and south of the Noosa River estuary. A further 65 sites in Australia are listed under the EAAF
Partnership Network 5, a regional initiative of RAMSAR.
Whilst the Noosa River system and separately, Lake Weyba, are recognised as DIWA Nationally Important
Wetlands 6, neither has met the thresholds established internationally by the RAMSAR Convention or
nationally by the Wildlife Conservation Plan for Migratory Shorebirds to warrant protected status as
important habitat for threatened shorebird species.
The Noosa River estuary is one of around 150 sites located through Australia that comprise the National
Shorebird Monitoring Program. The program is coordinated by Bird Life Australia (www.birdlife.org.au) in
association with the Australasian Wader Studies Group and includes adjacent monitoring sites at the
Maroochy River, Caloundra, Toorbul and Bribie Island. The aim of this program, initiated in 2007, is to
understand and detect national population trends and discover what is driving population changes in
Australia and elsewhere. Surveys and data collection are conducted by entirely by volunteers.
Results from the program are used to inform the Wildlife Conservation Plan for Migratory Shorebirds
coordinated by the Federal Government (www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/publications) and aligned
to similar initiatives elsewhere along the EAAF. This plan sets out national activities to support migratory
shorebird conservation initiatives and provides a strategic framework to ensure these activities plus future
research and management actions are integrated and remain focused on the long-term survival of
migratory shorebird populations and their habitats. The Plan will be reviewed every 5 years from 2020.
3. Survey outcomes
A total of 151 surveys from October 2005 through October 2019 were conducted by the SSG in the Lower
Noosa River survey area and form the baseline for this report. Prior to this period, no known systematic
survey of shorebirds in the Noosa River had taken place. Surveys continue to this day.
Records were maintained for all species of birds observed within the survey area including shorebirds
(waders), water birds, gulls, terns and raptors, but excluding terrestrial species (so called “bush birds”).
Results of the surveys detailed herein highlight the unique biodiversity and high conservation value of the
Noosa River estuary despite its modest size and its location as a staging area to nearby RAMSAR sites.
A summary of the survey results to date include:
• A total of 59 distinct bird species, including 27 shorebird species, were observed in the estuary;
• Of the 27 shorebird species observed, 18 are considered migratory, whilst the remaining 9 are
considered resident (or endemic to Australia). Together they represent around half of the known
species of shorebirds that regularly visit or reside in Australia;
• The 18 migratory shorebird species observed in the survey represent half of the 37 species of
migratory shorebirds identified as following the trans-hemisphere EAAF and regularly visiting
Australia. They also include the Double Banded Plover, the only specie known to migrate along
an east-west axis;
• Witness to the estuary’s critical conservation value, 8 shorebird species are listed as threatened
under Australia’s EPBC legislation including 7 migrants 8. Of those, 3 are critically endangered
(the Far Eastern Curlew, Curlew Sandpiper and Great Knot);
• Survey counts across all species in the early years of the survey regularly exceeded 7,000
individuals, though more recently, counts rarely exceeded 2,000 individuals, even during peak
migration. This decline was largely attributable to declining migratory tern numbers;
4
The Convention on Wetlands of International Importance (RAMSAR, 1971)
5
The Partnership for the Conservation of Migratory Waterbirds & Sustainable Use of their Habitats in the East Asian – Australasian Flyway (2006)
6
Directory of Important Wetlands in Australia (1993)
8
The Indo-Pacific Little Tern, a migratory visitor to the Noosa River estuary is also EPBC listed (endangered).
Noosa River – Shorebird Survey Report 2019 Page 4
Page 106
• Amongst shorebird species, total numbers rarely exceeded 200 individuals or less than 10% of
total birds observed in any given survey;
• Between the early and later years, migratory shorebird numbers declined 45% on average, whilst
resident shorebird numbers increased around 12%. Overall shorebird numbers declined 30%;
• Amongst shorebird species (where numbers were sufficient to permit trend analysis), the
populations of 9 of 16 species declined. Only the Red-Capped Plover increased in abundance
during the survey period. Numbers of the remaining 6 species were broadly stable;
• Concerningly, 8 of 11 species of migratory shorebird including the Bar-Tailed Godwit 9, Far
Eastern Curlew and Curlew Sandpiper species saw numbers decline, in some cases
precipitously;
• Inward and outbound migration patterns remained largely unchanged with arrivals peaking in
October-November and departures peaking in March – April. However, the frequency of “over-
wintering”, where migratory species remain in the estuary year-round, declined; and
• Breeding behavior amongst shorebirds in the estuary was limited to pairs of three resident
species, the Beach Stone Curlew, Australian Pied Oystercatcher and Red Capped Plover.
Amongst those only the later was observed to have successfully reared chicks with the estuary.
To the extent that the small data set here permitted, comparison of the results was made to empirical
research on shorebird population trends across Australia and the EAAF. These trends indicate similarities
between changes in shorebird numbers in the Noosa River estuary and those transiting the EAAF.
Finally, and as a general guide to the estuary’s significance, a comparison has been made of the survey
results for all shorebird species observed in the Noosa River estuary to international and national
RAMSAR conservation thresholds using revised population parameters.
A pair of Double-Banded
Plovers (Charadrius bicinctus)
at rest in the estuary.
Unique amongst migratory
species, the Double-Banded
Plover traverses along an east-
west axis between its summer
breeding grounds in New
Zealand and winter foraging
sites along the eastern
seaboard of Australia.
The species is considered
secure in Australia and has
been observed in the estuary in
all but one of the last 14 years.
Credit: Bob Inglis.
9
Common name only for sub-specie Nunivak (or West Alaskan) Bar-Tailed Godwit (Limosa lapponica baueri)
Noosa River – Shorebird Survey Report 2019 Page 5
Page 107
4. Survey area
The area surveyed for this report included the inter-tidal sand banks, semi-permanent islands, mangrove
and saltmarsh foreshore areas and river mouth of the lower Noosa River as depicted in Diagram 2. A total
of 7 observation sites were selected to observe bird species across all preferred habitat in the area. As
much as possible, survey areas were located within line of sight of one another to avoid survey error.
The survey sites extend approximately 1,800 meters directly upstream from the easternmost point of the
river mouth training wall to the western most point of the established islet adjacent to Munna Point. At its
widest in the “Frying Pan” area of the river mouth, the survey area is approximately 1,000 metres wide,
while at its narrowest, the survey area extends just 425 metres from the river mouth training wall to the
established tree line on the north shore. The survey area encompasses an area of around 110 hectares.
Diagram 2: Lower Noosa River – Survey Area
The survey area consists primarily of inter-tidal siliceous sand substrate and semi-permanent, partially
vegetated sand islands rising to a height of around 1.5 metres above mean high tide. The tidal range in
the estuary rarely exceeds 2 metres. The survey area itself is exposed to prevailing winds from the NE
and SW though these were observed to have limited impact on shorebird numbers but for extreme climatic
events.
Vegetation on the four permanent islands in
the survey area consists of lightly vegetated
foredunes with casuarina, wattle, acacia
and banksia to heights of 6-8 meters in the
swales and elevated areas behind. Species
of mangroves fringe some islands.
Foreshore areas on both north and south
banks include inter-tidal mangrove, mud-
flat and saltmarsh habitat punctuated by
intermittent creeks. This habitat borders
more established coastal heath and dry
eucalypt forest on hind dune areas. The nest of the Red-Capped Plover (Charadrius ruficapillus) disguised amid
typical foredune vegetation cover in the Noosa River. Credit: Jill Dening
Noosa River – Shorebird Survey Report 2019 Page 6
Page 108
Due to the distance from the river mouth, the extensive upstream lakes, creeks, tributaries and inter-tidal
mudflats of the Noosa River system were not incorporated into this survey though were monitored
sporadically from time-to-time. Certain species, particularly water birds, though rarely shorebirds, were
observed in these areas.
Similarly it is unlikely shorebirds, including otherwise resident species, likely remained restricted to the
Noosa River estuary throughout the year, with the Great Sandy Strait (65 kilometers), Pumicestone
Passage (50 kilometres) and Moreton Bay (70 kilometres) all providing similar sheltered habitat in near
proximity and directly along known migration paths.
Like all estuarine systems, the channels, sandbanks and islands of the lower Noosa River remain in a
constant state of flux driven by tidal range, storm water outflow, prevailing weather conditions and human
influence. An aerial comparison of the lower Noosa River in Diagram 3 taken in 2004 and 2017 depicts
changes within the survey area.
Diagram 3 – Lower Noosa River – 2004 10 and 2019
Localised natural movement of channels, tidal sandbanks and permanent islands has occurred since 2005
though no changes were considered of such significance as to materially impact either the overall size or
suitability of the shorebird habitat.
Notably, significant erosion of the north bank of the river mouth over several years led, in late 2018, to a
renewed north channel “breakthrough” where previously a sand spit had extended into the estuary. This
enhanced the relative isolation of the area contributing to improved security for shorebirds. Ongoing
rehabilitation of the area by volunteer groups led by NICA has contributed to an improvement in the overall
diversity and density of riparian vegetation on the prominent sand island and adjacent islets, though some
foreshore areas, particularly around the lower North Shore, have deteriorated.
Minor human-scale development to have taken place since 2005 has been primarily intended to stabilise
and replenish foreshore areas including the installation of geotextile sand container groynes and a
submerged training wall in the Noosa Woods area in 2012, similar geotextile sand container groynes and
replenishment works at Munna Point beach in 2015 and refurbishment of the river mouth carpark in 2018.
These works have understandably increased the available foreshore areas for visitors and pets, hence
leading to more frequent disturbance of shorebirds nearby despite seasonal restrictions imposed by Noosa
Shire Council in 2007 12. Noosa Council is current considering the recommendations of the final Shoreline
Erosion Management Plan (“SEMP”) report, delivered in December 2019. Proposed works may impact
upon estuarine areas including and adjacent to the Noosa Woods dog beach.
10
2004 aerial photo credit: Jim Upton (Sunshine Coast Daily, January 2019)
12
The Noosa North Shore “Exclusion Zone” per Noosa Council Subordinate Local Law #4.
Noosa River – Shorebird Survey Report 2019 Page 7
Page 109
5. Survey methodology
Weather permitting, surveys were conducted monthly commencing in October 2005 through October,
2019. A total of 151 surveys have been undertaken to date (90% capture). A schedule of surveys
conducted is provided in Appendix 1. Prior to 2005, no systematic survey of shorebirds in the Noosa River
estuary was known to have taken place.
Surveys were generally undertaken 4 - 5 weeks apart to ensure migratory species were not missed due
to those shorebirds having already arrived and departed from the survey area. The only exception were
surveys conducted in December and January which were generally scheduled up to 6 weeks apart to
avoid peak holiday disturbances in the survey area. Surveys were conducted regardless of the specific
lunar cycle (and hence tidal range) at the time.
Most surveys consisted of two “windows” of observations, conducted on the same day 13. The first
commenced approximately 1.5 hours prior to the “day light” high tide at Noosa Heads and ended
approximately 1.5 hours following that high tide. During high tides, shorebirds in the survey area were
more easily observed as they congregated on the elevated sand banks and permanent islands. The
second intra-day survey, for the purpose of more accurately assessing tern numbers in particular, was
made approximately 40 minutes prior to and following sunset. This survey was conducted from an elevated
position on the river mouth training wall. During the period around sunset, terns feeding in Laguna Bay
and further afield were observed to return to the estuary through the river mouth at relatively low elevation
and when observed against the evening light permitted accurate surveying in flight.
By counting terns in this manner, a
practice pioneered in this survey, a
more accurate assessment of overall
population numbers of birds,
particularly migratory tern species, in
the estuary was established.
Appendix 3 provides further detail on
count variations observed for specific
species of terns between day and
evening survey windows.
Observations of individual birds and
flocks were validated by multiple
observers using high magnification
binoculars, spotting scopes and
digital cameras.
A mixed flock of terns returning at sunset to the Noosa River estuary as observed
from the river mouth training wall. Credit: Jill Dening
Where possible, birds were counted
individually, though in the case of larger
flocks or flocks in flight, particularly terns,
other counting techniques were used from
time-to-time to derive more accurate data.
These included grid studies, proportional
counts and time elapse studies.
Notes on roosting, foraging and, where
relevant, breeding behavior were taken as
were records of tide, precipitation, wind
speed and direction and other relevant
climatic conditions.
Counts were conducted in accordance with
relevant survey protocols.
Survey Group volunteer, Barbara Dickson, conducting a count from Site 2
opposite Noosa Woods. Where possible, observers use high magnification
spotting scopes on fixed tripods to assist counts. Credit: Jill Dening.
13
A total of 128 surveys (85%) including both day and evening counts, of the 151 surveys conducted.
Noosa River – Shorebird Survey Report 2019 Page 8
Page 110
6. Survey results
A. Species biodiversity
Over the 14 year survey period, 59 different bird species were observed in the survey area. Table 1
summarises the species distribution by sub-group applied in the survey. Further detail and a full species
distribution is provided in Appendix 1.
Table 1: Species distribution by sub-group
Species by sub-group Species observed
Tern – Resident 4
Tern – Migratory 4
Shorebird – Resident 9
Shorebird – Migratory 18
Gull 1
Wading bird 6
Water bird 9
Sea bird 2
Raptor 6
Total species observed 59
Of the 59 species observed in the estuary, almost half (27) are considered shorebirds, including 18 of the
37 species of migratory shorebirds that follow the EAAF (North-South) and regularly visit Australia 15. This
list also includes the only species to migrate along an East-West axis (Double-Banded Plover). The
remaining 9 shorebirds are all considered resident to Australia and generally do not migrate.
Evidencing the Noosa River estuary’s unique, albeit threatened, biodiversity and high conservation value,
8 of the 27 species of shorebirds observed are currently listed as threatened under Australia’s Environment
Protection and Biodiversity Assessment Act (1999). Of these, three species – the Far Eastern Curlew,
Great Knot and Curlew Sandpiper - are all considered critically endangered or just one step removed from
“extinct in the wild”. A further 5 migratory shorebird species observed are listed nationally as either
endangered or vulnerable (plus a further one migratory tern specie, the Indo-Pacific Little Tern, itself listed
as vulnerable).
Table 2 summarises the list of nationally threatened shorebird species known to frequent the Noosa River
estuary. Amongst threatened species denoted in Table 2, only the Hooded Dotterel is resident, if a rare
vagrant, to the area. The remaining 7 threatened species are migrants.
It should be noted that the national classification of conservation status of shorebird or other species (as
defined in the EPBC Act) does not always align to the conservation status assigned internationally by the
International Union for Conservation of Nature (“IUCN”). Similarly, the list of species threatened at a State
level may diverge from that at a national level.
For that purpose, a more comprehensive summary of all international, national and state conservation
listings for all species observed throughout the survey is provided in Appendix 7.
Table 2: Threatened shorebird species by conservation status 17
EPBC conservation status 18 Total Species observed in Noosa River
Critically Endangered 3 Far Eastern Curlew, Great Knot, Curlew Sandpiper
Endangered 2 Red Knot, Lesser Sand Plover
Vulnerable 3 Hooded Dotterel, Greater Sand Plover, Bar-Tailed Godwit
Conservation dependent - -
Total species listed 8
15
Revision of East Asian-Australasian Flyway Population Estimates (Hansen et al, 2016)
17
The Indo-Pacific Little Tern (Sternula albifrons sinensis) is also EPBC listed (vulnerable) and observed in the Noosa River during the survey.
18
Per current EPBC listing (www.environment.gov.au)
Noosa River – Shorebird Survey Report 2019 Page 9
Page 111
A critically endangered Curlew
Sandpiper (Calidris ferruginea)
observed amongst seaweed.
The Curlew Sandpiper breeds in the
lowland tundra of Siberia before its
annual migration along the EAAF to
Australia. The population is
estimated at around 90,000
individuals.
It was last observed in the Noosa
River in November, 2017.
Credit Bob Inglis.
One of the more abundant species of migratory
shorebirds observed in the Noosa River estuary,
the Pacific Golden Plover (Pluvialis fulva) seen
here in its distinctive non-breeding plumage.
The EAAF population of the species, which
breeds in Alaska, is estimated at 120,000
individuals. It is considered secure in Australia
and has been observed in 136 of 151 surveys
conducted.
Credit Bob Inglis.
The Lesser Sand Plover (Charadrius
mongolus) pictured here in non-
breeding plumage. The sub-species
(one of five) migrates from its
breeding grounds in far east arctic
Siberia.
The sub-species is listed as
endangered in Australia, and has
been sighted in 8 of 15 Noosa River
survey years, most recently in May,
2019.
Credit: Queensland Wader Studies
Group (2010).
Table 3 details a summary of the observations recorded over the survey period for all species of bird
observed including typical current counts and trends over time. Note observation frequency denotes the
number of monthly surveys in which a specie was observed, whilst seasonal frequency denotes the
number of July 1- June 30 yearly cycles, or seasons, in which a specie was observed.
Noosa River – Shorebird Survey Report 2019 Page 10
Page 112
Table 3: Survey results - all species (October 2005-October 2019)
Common name EPBC Observation Seasonal Last Recent Count
Status frequency 19 frequency 20 observed peak 21 trend
Resident Tern
Caspian Tern Secure 106 15 Sep-19 25 Stable
Greater Crested Tern Secure 151 15 Sep-19 1,307 Declining
Australian Tern Secure 95 15 Sep-19 27 Stable
Whiskered Tern Secure 4 3 Oct-14 - -
Migratory Tern
Arctic Tern Secure 1 1 Jun-10 - -
Common Tern Secure 82 15 May-19 1,818 Declining
Little Tern (Indo-Pacific) Endangered 65 14 May-19 181 Declining
White-winged Tern Secure 43 15 May-19 51 Declining
Resident Shorebirds
Australian Pratincole Secure 1 1 Sep-13 - -
Banded Lapwing Secure 1 1 Mar-09 - -
Beach Stone-curlew Secure 69 14 Sep-19 2 Stable
Pied Stilt Secure 17 11 Sep-19 3 Stable
Hooded Dotterel Vulnerable 3 1 Aug-10 - -
Masked Lapwing Secure 34 14 May-19 1 Stable
Australian Pied Oystercatcher Secure 114 15 Sep-19 2 Declining
Red-capped Plover Secure 151 14 Sep-19 45 Increasing
Red-necked Avocet 22 Secure 1 1 May-18 1 -
Migratory Shorebirds
Bar-tailed Godwit (Nunivak) Vulnerable 139 15 Sep-19 43 Declining
Broad-Billed Sandpiper Secure 1 1 Dec-18 1 -
Common Greenshank Secure 61 14 Dec-18 1 Declining
Curlew Sandpiper Critically End. 27 13 Nov-17 1 Declining
Double-Banded Plover Secure 60 13 Aug-19 22 Declining
Far Eastern Curlew Critically End. 71 13 Oct-17 1 Declining
Great Knot Critically End. 11 7 Oct-17 2 -
Greater Sand Plover Vulnerable 11 15 Sep-19 1 Stable
Grey-tailed Tattler Secure 67 15 Sep-19 1 Declining
Lesser Sand Plover Endangered 60 8 May-19 2 -
Pacific Golden Plover Secure 136 15 Sep-19 52 Stable
Red Knot (Siberian) Endangered 6 5 Dec-18 1 -
Red-necked Stint Secure 93 15 Feb-19 10 Declining
Ruddy Turnstone Secure 16 12 Dec-18 3 -
Sanderling Secure 3 2 Dec-18 1 -
Sharp-Tailed Sandpiper Secure 35 14 Mar-19 2 Declining
Terek Sandpiper Secure 6 4 Dec-18 1 -
Whimbrel (Eurasian) Secure 139 15 Sep-19 37 Stable
Gulls
Silver Gull Secure 151 15 Sep-19 96 Declining
Wading Birds
Australian White Ibis Secure 58 8 Sep-19 10 Stable
Black-necked Stork Secure 4 2 Mar-11 - -
Great Egret Secure 32 8 Sep-19 2 Stable
Little Egret Secure 68 23 8 Sep-19 3 Stable
Striated Heron Secure 33 11 Mar-19 1 Declining
White-Faced Heron Secure 113 14 Sep-19 3 Declining
Water Birds
Australasian Darter Secure 14 7 Sep-19 1 Stable
Australian Pelican Secure 134 15 Sep-19 46 Stable
Black Swan Secure 1 1 Oct-06 - -
Chestnut Teal Secure 1 1 May-11 - -
Great Cormorant Secure 20 9 Sep-19 3 Stable
Little Black Cormorant Secure 115 15 Sep-19 112 Declining
Little Pied Cormorant Secure 21 9 Jun-19 2 Stable
Pacific Black Duck Secure 61 13 Mar-19 8 Stable
Australian Pied Cormorant Secure 142 15 Sep-19 29 Declining
Seabirds
Australasian Gannet Secure 1 1 Jun-19 - -
Great Frigate bird Secure 2 1 Feb-10 - -
19
Number of high tide surveys each species was observed (total = 151 surveys conducted).
20
Number of years each species observed (total = 15 years)
21
Maximum number of that species observed in any daylight high tide or evening survey (terns) over last 24 months.
22
At the commencement of the survey in 2005, the Red-Necked Avocet was incorporated into the survey database within the sub-group of wading
birds per then accepted practice. The single sighting of the Red-Necked Avocet is hence included in the wading bird sub-group for this analysis.
23
Data for the Little Egret, Great Egret and Australia White Ibis only available from 2012 due to change in survey collection methods
Noosa River – Shorebird Survey Report 2019 Page 11
Page 113
Table 4: Survey results by raptor species
Common name EPBC Status Observation Seasonal Last Recent Count
frequency frequency observed peak trend
Black Kite Secure 2 1 Aug-19 - -
Brahminy Kite Secure 101 14 Sep-19 2 Stable
Eastern Osprey Secure 84 14 Sep-19 3 Stable
Nankeen Kestrel Secure 1 1 Mar-09 - -
White Bellied Sea Eagle Secure 133 15 Sep-19 3 Stable
Whistling Kite Secure 133 15 Aug-19 4 Stable
Despite the somewhat modest size of the survey area, the diversity of species observed including the
ongoing presence of almost half of the migratory shorebirds common to the EAAF along with numerous
threatened species indicates the high conservation value of the Noosa River estuary.
A mixed group of migratory shorebirds, primarily
Bar-Tailed Godwit (Limosa lapponica baueri), at
rest in the Noosa River estuary.
One of two sub-species of Bar-Tailed Godwit to
regularly visit Australia, the Nunivak or West
Alaskan baueri sub-specie pictured here is listed
nationally as vulnerable. The population of Bar-
Tailed Godwit (both sub-species) traversing the
EAAF is estimated at 325,000 individuals.
One of the larger and more abundant of the
migratory shorebirds to visit the Noosa River
estuary, the species was observed in 139 of the
151 surveys conducted.
Credit Jill Dening.
Three Great Knot (Calidris tenuirostris), foreground
facing camera, in breeding plumage, captured in the
Noosa River amongst Nunivak Bar Tailed Godwit
(Limosa lapponica baueri) and Pied Stilt (Himantopus
leucocephalus) at rear.
One of three species of critically endangered
shorebirds observed in the Noosa River, it migrates
annually to Australia from its breeding grounds in far
northern Siberia.
The EAAF flyway population of the Great Knot is
estimated at 425,000 individuals but it has been
observed only 11 times in 151 surveys in Noosa
River, most recently in October, 2017.
Credit: Allen Briggs.
Noosa River – Shorebird Survey Report 2019 Page 12
Page 114
B. Species abundance
Overall, the survey data indicated a steady decline in the total abundance of all water birds observed in
the estuary. Declines in total count numbers from peaks exceeding 10,000 individuals in the early years
of the survey to infrequent counts exceeding 2,000 individuals in later years, were accounted for largely
by the decline in tern numbers, particularly migratory terns (together up to 85% by number of any given
count). Total shorebird numbers including during peak migration, rarely exceeding 200 individuals, hence
robust declines in shorebird abundance had minimal impact on overall survey counts.
To the extent that the small data set permits, Table 5 details population changes by sub-group counts
across in the “early” and “later” years of the surveys to date. The table indicates a near 30% decline on
average across sub-group numbers, most notably amongst migratory shorebirds species.
Table 5: Change in population by sub-group – early and later survey periods
Group Average count Average count % Change
2007-2011 2015-2019
Migratory Shorebirds 104 57 -45%
Resident – Shorebirds 24 27 +12%
Gull 59 40 -32%
Wading Birds 6 5 -11%
Water Birds 66 53 -20%
All species (excluding terns) 259 182 -30%
Diagram 1 illustrates both the migratory patterns and long-term decline observed in numbers of migratory
shorebirds frequenting the estuary. These include abrupt declines in numbers of several of the historically more
abundant species such as the Bar-Tailed Godwit, Sharp-Tailed Sandpiper and Double-Banded Plover.
Diagram 1: Migratory shorebird (day) count time series – 2005 to present
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Oct-05 Oct-06 Oct-07 Oct-08 Oct-09 Oct-10 Oct-11 Oct-12 Oct-13 Oct-14 Oct-15 Oct-16 Oct-17 Oct-18
Three is a crowd!
Individuals from three shorebird species
captured together in the Noosa River
estuary (from left to right) - a Red-Necked
Stint (Calidris ruficollis), Red-Capped
Plover (Charadrius ruficapillus) and
Sanderling (Calidris alba) .
Though the Red-Necked Stint and
Sanderling are EAAF migrants, all three
are considered secure in Australia.
Credit: Dorothy Pashniak.
Noosa River – Shorebird Survey Report 2019 Page 13
Page 115
A Greater Sand Plover (Charadrius leschenaultii) captured in non-
breeding plumage. The species breeds in Mongolia prior to its
annual migration along the EAAF to Australia.
The species is considered vulnerable in Australia but has been
sighted in 11 of the 15 years of the Noosa River survey, albeit in
small numbers.
Credit: Queensland Wader Studies Group (2010).
A rare visitor indeed!
An Australian Pratincole (Stiltia isabella)
captured here, has been observed only
once in the Noosa River estuary in
September, 2013.
The species is more common to northern
and inland Australia and does not generally
migrate. It is considered secure in Australia.
Credit Jill Dening.
Numbers of resident shorebird species have demonstrated greater resilience than migratory species, as
indicated in Diagram 2, with resident shorebirds on average 12% more abundant in the later years of the survey.
This trend is largely attributable to the breeding success of the Red Capped Plover, by some margin the most
abundant of resident shorebirds, though only one of five resident species witnessed a decline in numbers
otherwise.
Diagram 2: Resident shorebird (day) count time series – 2005 to present
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Oct-05 Oct-06 Oct-07 Oct-08 Oct-09 Oct-10 Oct-11 Oct-12 Oct-13 Oct-14 Oct-15 Oct-16 Oct-17 Oct-18
Noosa River – Shorebird Survey Report 2019 Page 14
Page 116
A male Red-Capped Plover
(Charadrius ruficapillus) foraging on
sand flats in the Noosa River estuary.
Groups of over 20 individuals are
regularly sighted.
The Red-Capped Plover is both the only
shorebird species to have increased in
abundance and the only species to
have bred successfully in the Noosa
River.
Credit Bob Inglis.
Overall, to the extent analysis of the survey data permits, declines in numbers of migratory and some
resident shorebirds in the Noosa River survey correlate with population declines witnessed elsewhere in
Australia and along the EAAF 25. Moreover, research supports the thesis that factors at a local or regional
level were largely unable to account for variability in migratory shorebird populations between sites.
This is further discussed in Appendix 5.
A Hooded Dotterel (Thinornis
cucullatus) observed and
photographed in the Noosa River
in August, 2010. A resident
species, it is considered
vulnerable nationally.
The Hooded Dotterel has been
observed only three times in 14
years, all in 2010, and likely the
same individual.
Credit: Bob Inglis.
C. Migratory presence and breeding behavior
Extensive records were kept of the in- and out-bound cycles of all migratory shorebirds (and terns),
observed in the survey along with resident shorebirds known to transit regionally when conditions
permitted. Table 6 depicts the seasonal presence of all species in the Noosa River where sufficient data
exists to draw an inference.
25
Continental-scale decreases in shorebird populations in Australia (Clemens et al, 2016).
Noosa River – Shorebird Survey Report 2019 Page 15
Page 117
Table 6: Migratory species patterns of the Noosa River estuary
Common name Seasonal Last Species presence in Noosa River
frequency observed
Resident Tern J F M A M J J A S O N D
Caspian Tern 15 Sept-19
Greater Crested Tern 15 Sept-19
Australian Tern 14 Sept-19
Migratory Tern
Common Tern 15 May-19
Little Tern (Indo Pacific) 14 May-19
White-wing Tern 14 May-19
Resident Shorebirds
Beach-Stone Curlew 14 Sep-19
Pied Stilt 11 Sep-19
Masked Lapwing 14 May-19
Pied Oystercatcher 15 Sep-19
Red-capped Plover 15 Sep-19
Migratory Shorebirds
Bar-tailed Godwit 15 Sep-19
Broad-billed Sandpiper 1 Dec-18
Common Greenshank 14 Dec-18
Curlew Sandpiper 13 Nov-17
Double-Banded Plover 13 Aug-19
Far Eastern Curlew 13 Oct-17
Great Knot 7 Oct-17
Greater Sand Plover 15 Sep-19
Grey-tailed Tattler 15 Sep-19
Lesser Sand Plover 8 May-19
Pacific Golden Plover 15 Sep-19
Red-necked Stint 15 Feb-19
Red Knot 5 Dec-18
Ruddy Turnstone 12 Dec-18
Sanderling 1 Dec-18
Sharp-Tailed Sandpiper 14 Mar-19
Terek Sandpiper 4 Dec-18
Whimbrel (Eurasian) 15 Sep-19
Peak species presence
Some species presence
As Table 6 indicates, the majority of the 18 trans-hemisphere (EAAF) migrants arrive in early spring
(September) and depart after the summer (April) for their Northern summer breeding cycle. Nevertheless,
small numbers of these migrants including the Whimbrel, Pacific Golden Plover and previously the Bar-
Tailed Godwit have been observed to periodically “over winter” in the estuary though numbers exhibiting
this behavior have declined.
Amongst tern species, the Indo-Pacific Little Tern and White-winged Tern have been observed to follow
trans-hemisphere patterns whilst it was noted the abundant Greater Crested Tern, typically departed the
estuary in November each year, returning in late January from its breeding habitat off northern NSW. The
Australian Tern occasionally departed in the summer and bred inland when conditions permitted.
A Whimbrel (Numenius
phaeopus) captured “on the
wing” over the Noosa River
estuary. Another of the
migratory species of curlew
(Numenius) common to the
Noosa River, its long de-
curved bill is used to probe
mud flats by day and night for
invertebrates, crustaceans and
worms.
The Whimbrel (Eurasian) is
considered “secure” in
Australia and amongst the
most abundant and frequently
sited migratory shorebirds in
the Noosa River.
Credit Bob Inglis.
Noosa River – Shorebird Survey Report 2019 Page 16
Page 118
Evidence of breeding in the estuary was limited to three resident species - the Beach Stone-curlew, Red-
Capped Plover and Australian Pied Oystercatcher. The nest of each species typically consisted of no
more than a sand scrape above the high tide mark and disguised amid vegetation. Whilst courting
behavior, nests and occasionally eggs were observed amongst pairs of all three species, only the Red-
Capped Plover, a shorebird, was observed to be successful in raising chicks to adulthood in the estuary 26.
The inability of the other species to do likewise was concerning.
A pair of Australian Pied
Oystercatchers (Haematopus
longirostris) (female at front,
male at rear) as observed in
the Noosa River. Individuals of
the species have been known
to live to 22 years.
Though considered secure, the
entire Australian population
may not exceed 10,000
individuals.
Credit: Bob Inglis.
The speckled eggs and “nest” of an
Australian Pied Oystercatcher as
photographed in the Noosa River
estuary.
The resident pair of Australian Pied
Oystercatchers in the estuary are not
known to have hatched chicks - a
concerning occurrence for such a
slow breeding species.
Credit: Jill Dening.
26
Records were not maintained on breeding success rates for the Red-Capped Plover or any other species.
Noosa River – Shorebird Survey Report 2019 Page 17
Page 119
A pair of Beach stone-curlew
(Esacus magnitostris) at watch
in the Noosa River estuary. A
generally shy and nocturnal
species the Beach Stone-
curlew is considered vulnerable
in Queensland.
This resident pair of the species
in the Noosa River estuary are
not known to have hatched a
chick during the survey period.
Credit: Jill Dening.
7. Conservation
Results of the survey confirm a steady, albeit variable decline in numbers of migratory shorebirds visiting
the Noosa River estuary, though resilience in numbers of some resident species of shorebirds. To the
extent the data permits (see Appendix 4), the declines in migratory species reflects similar trends observed
across the EAAF.
Whilst beyond the scope of this report, recent research suggests that environmental influences at a trans-
hemisphere level (EAAF), as opposed to predominantly local factors, are primarily responsible for the
decline in species numbers observed. The loss of intertidal staging habitat in the Yellow Sea “bottleneck”
has been identified as disproportionately responsible for these declines 28, whilst the impact of climate
change on atmospheric and localised sea surface temperatures, ocean acidity and fish stocks is likely also
responsible. At a national level, declines in certain resident shorebird species, particularly species
frequenting inland areas, suggest disruption to wetland systems in Australia may be influential.
Nonetheless, localised influences including loss of roosting and foraging habitat or food sources, changes
in hydrology, predation and disturbance cannot be disregarded. Whilst the largely siliceous-sand based
habitat of the lower Noosa River survey area remained largely unchanged (but for localised movement and
sand replenishment works as described earlier), reduced seagrass and mangrove coverage, ongoing
sedimentation and declines in benthic biodiversity as identified in recent studies may well have contributed
to the declining abundance witnessed in certain species.
Anecdotal evidence of predation including on the sandbanks and islands of the estuary was also observed
and possibly attributable to introduced foxes, cats and dogs present around the estuary.
Disturbance of shorebirds, particularly migratory species, causing resting birds to repeatedly take flight, and
expending significant energy doing so, is possibly a factor in declining abundance given the survey area’s
proximity to urban areas and the high volume of traffic on and around the Noosa River estuary. Human activity,
particularly vehicular traffic on and around dunes, also risked destroying the fragile nests of resident shorebirds.
Indeed, disturbance of shorebirds was observed to occur with increasing frequency despite the access
restrictions imposed by Noosa Shire Council in 2007 to protect areas with the estuary.
28
The 2006-2008 Saemangeum shorebird monitoring program report (Moores et al, 2008); Threats to the Yellow Sea’s Tidal Wetlands (Murray et
al, 2014).
Noosa River – Shorebird Survey Report 2019 Page 18
The text continues on page 120.
Used in these records
Cover Letter, DA Form 1, Plans, Owners Consent, Coastal Environment Assessment.pdfRelated documentApplication case desk ↗
L.A10342.001.cover letter_lowres.pdfRelated documentApplication case desk ↗
About this file
- File size
- 9.0 MB (large file)
- File type
No other editions are linked here.
Original file
Log in to download the original file
The download may take up to a minute.