Original source · versioned page text
Ecological Assessment
Attached to the e-mail Ecological assessment - 4 of 4 MCU16/0081.
The original of this document is very large (16.4 MB). Opening the original or downloading it may take a few minutes. Please be patient and don't click again. The page text is quick to read. If you are on mobile data, it is best to wait until you are on Wi-Fi.
APPENDIX J- Detailed Analysis of Koalas against the Commonwealth’s Draft EPBC Act Referral
Guidelines for the Vulnerable Koala (combined populations of Queensland, New South Wales and
Australian Capital Territory).
Table 1-1 provides an analysis of the Study Area against the Coastal criteria in the Koala habitat
assessment tool (DoE, 2013). The habitat assessment tool has been applied to the entire Study Area
and has not been restricted to the smaller proposed development footprint of the Noosa Civic
Expansion. Areas outside of the Study Area are not considered as part of the “impact area” because
direct and indirect impacts will be limited to within the Study Area.
Table 1-1 Koala Habitat Assessment Tool analysed for the Study Area
Attribute Score Habitat Assessment for study area against Resulting
Assessment category Habitat
Category Assessment
Score
Koala +2 (high) Evidence of one or We undertook koala surveys using the KRAM +2
more Koalas method in 2013. A single koala scat was recorded
Occurrence
within the last 2 during this assessment indicating koala
years use. Further, records on Koala Tracker (Harris,
2013) were noted from within 1km of the Study
Area in 2013.
(While there is evidence of koala use (one scat
collected) and the presence of koala habitat trees,
the size of the population frequenting the Study
Area cannot be determined on the evidence
collected or from the available literature. This said,
no koalas were observed during the assessment
and no koala scratches were recorded on
Eucalyptus grandis or any other tree species. As
there is little evidence of presence it is likely koala
usage of the Study Area is low. This assertion is
supported by the recent release (August, 2014) of
a Queensland Government tender to trial the
translocation of sterile koalas to Noosa National
Park partly on the basis of the “apparent inability of
the area to support a self-sustaining population”
(Department Environment and Heritage Protection,
2012)).
+1 Evidence of one or -
more koalas within
(medium)
5 km of the edge
of the impact area
within the last 5
years
0 (low) None of the above -
Vegetation +2 (high) Has forest or Ecological Survey identified the following Koala +2
woodland with 2 or food tree species:
Composition more known Koala > Eucalyptus grandis;
food tree species > Eucalyptus resinifera;
in the canopy > Eucalyptus robusta;
> Lophostemon suaveolens;
> Lophostemon confertus;
> Melaleuca nodosa;
> Melaleuca quinquenervia; and
> Melaleuca saligna.
+1 Has forest or -
woodland with
(medium)
only 1 species of
known koala food
tree present in the
canopy.
0 (low) None of the above -
Habitat +2 (high) Area is part of a The guideline defines Contiguous landscape as +2
contiguous “An area of koala habitat bounded by
Connectivity
landscape ≥ 500 barriers”. Barriers are also defined as “A feature
ha (natural or artificial) that is likely to prevent the
movement of koalas. Natural barriers may include
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalVery large file: the download may take a few minutes. If you are on mobile data, it is best to wait until you are on Wi-Fi.
Searchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.