Original source · versioned page text
RFI - Attachment 4B - Flora and Fauna Assessment Rev 5
FAUNA AND FLORA ASSESSMENT
Noosa Landfill & Resource Recovery Centre,
Doonan - Northern Section
For Noosa Council
Native Foresters
Natural Resource Management Consultants
Email: [email protected]
Mob: 0407 757 872
Document No: 200112-FF-Revision 5
Date: 13th December 2023
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalLog in to download the original file
Large file: the download may take up to a minute.
Searchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.
Full text of the other 62 pages
Page 2
Native Foresters DISCLAIMER The authors do not accept any form of liability, be it contractual, tortious, or otherwise, for the contents of this document or for any consequences arising from its use or any reliance placed upon it. This report has been compiled on the basis of existing literature, information, and a targeted survey. Native Foresters does not undertake responsibility arising in any way to any persons in respect of the data, errors, or omissions arising, through misinterpretation of information, negligence or otherwise, however caused. Native Foresters is an independent consulting company undertaking projects in Natural Resource Management. All work conducted as part of this survey was conducted under the EHP Scientific Purposes Permit number WQA 0035991 and DEEDI Animal Ethics Committee number CA 2020/08/1398 and in accordance with the relevant regulations. STUDY TEAM Simon McVerry (BASc – NRM) - Project Director, Fieldwork, Reporting Vanessa Moscato (BSc) – Fieldwork – Flora & Fauna, GIS mapping and Reporting Pru McIntyre (BEnvSc) – Fieldwork, GIS Mapping and Reporting DOCUMENT CONTROL Project: Landfill Extension, Noosa Landfill Document: Fauna and Flora Assessment Document No.: 200112 –FF – Revision 5 Revisions: Revision 5 – 13th December 2023 Client: Noosa Council Project Manager: Cody Johnston Central Drive Sippy Downs – Fauna & Flora Assessment 2
Page 3
Native Foresters
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................5
1.1 Objectives of the report .................................................................................................5
1.2 Site description .............................................................................................................5
1.3 Legislative requirements ...............................................................................................6
1.4 Proposed works ............................................................................................................7
1.5 Impacts on ecosystem ..................................................................................................7
2.0 METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................................9
2.1 Desktop review .............................................................................................................9
2.2 Field assessment ..........................................................................................................9
2.2.1 Flora survey ...........................................................................................................9
2.2.2 Fauna survey .......................................................................................................10
2.2.3 Breeding places and fauna habitat assessment ...................................................11
2.2.4 Justification of survey timing and weather conditions ...........................................12
2.2.5 Survey limitations .................................................................................................13
3.1 Desktop review ...........................................................................................................14
3.1.1 Regulated Vegetation Management map .............................................................14
3.1.2 Regional Ecosystem mapping ..............................................................................14
3.1.3 Essential Habitat designation ...............................................................................14
3.1.4 WildNET search ...................................................................................................14
3.1.5 EPBC Protected Matters ......................................................................................15
3.1.6 Protected Plants Flora Survey Trigger map .........................................................15
3.1.7 Vegetation legislation ...........................................................................................15
3.1.8 Koala legislation...................................................................................................18
3.1.9 Wetlands and Watercourses ................................................................................19
3.2 Matters of State Environmental Significance ...............................................................20
3.3 Flora assessment........................................................................................................20
3.3.1 Vegetation within the survey area ........................................................................20
3.3.2 Vegetation within 100 metre buffer.......................................................................23
3.4 Fauna assessment......................................................................................................24
3.5 Assessment of breeding places and fauna habitat quality ...........................................25
4.0 SIGNIFICANT SPECIES ................................................................................................28
4.1 Swamp crayfish (Tenuibranchiurus glypticus) ..........................................................28
5.0 ASSESSMENT OF LANDFILL EXPANSION ..................................................................29
5.1 Noosa Plan .................................................................................................................29
5.2 State Government Supported Infrastructure – Koala Conservation Policy – 2023 .......41
5.3 Proposed Offset Plan ..................................................................................................48
6.0 SUMMARY .....................................................................................................................49
7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................................50
REFERENCES .........................................................................................................................51
APPENDIX A – NOOSA LANDFILL MASTERPLAN .................................................................52
APPENDIX B – DATABASE AND MAP SEARCHES USED FOR DESKTOP REVIEW OF SITE
ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES ....................................................................................................53
APPENDIX C: CERTIFICATION OF SUITABLY QUALIFIED PERSON - FLORA SURVEY .....54
APPENDIX D: JUSTIFICATION OF SUITABLY QUALIFIED AND EXPERIENCED PERSON FOR
FAUNA BREEDING PLACE SURVEY ......................................................................................55
APPENDIX E: MSES MAPPING ...............................................................................................56
APPENDIX F: FLORA SPECIES LIST ......................................................................................59
APPENDIX G: AERIAL IMAGERY ............................................................................................61
APPENDIX H: FAUNA SPECIES LIST......................................................................................63
Central Drive Sippy Downs – Fauna & Flora Assessment 3
Page 4
Native Foresters
Figures
FIGURE 1: Locality map .................................................................................................. 8
FIGURE 2: Vegetation Management supporting map..................................................... 16
FIGURE 3: Protected Plants Flora Survey Trigger map ................................................. 17
FIGURE 4: Melaleuca wetland with Cheese tree and Monkey Rope Vine ...................... 21
FIGURE 5: Melaleuca wetland on eastern edge of the survey area ............................... 21
FIGURE 6: Parts of survey area have been cleared or disturbed ................................... 22
FIGURE 7: Singapore Daisy infestation extends approximately 50-80 m north east of survey area.
...................................................................................................................................... 22
FIGURE 8: Fauna and Fauna Habitat in survey area……………………………………….26
FIGURE 9: Swamp crayfish in Melaleuca wetland adjacent to landfill ............................ 28
FIGURE 10: Biodiversity Overlay………………………………………………………………29
FIGURE 11: Proposed Offset Area……………………………………………………………48
Tables
TABLE 1: Regional ecosystems mapped over survey site ………………………………..14
TABLE 2: Listed species identified by desktop research within 1 km of survey area......15
TABLE 3: Results of Timed meander surveys ……………………………………………...23
TABLE 4: Habitat assessment and likelihood of occurrence for listed species …….......27
TABLE 5: Assessment of Biodiversity, Waterway and Wetlands Overlay Code…………30
TABLE 6: Assessment of Project against State Governments Supported
Infrastructure Koala Policy 2017 ………………………………………………….42
TABLE 7: Self-Assessment Criteria where interfering with koala habitat in an area
that is both a KPA and a KHA, is unavoidable…………………………………..45
Central Drive Sippy Downs – Fauna & Flora Assessment 4
Page 5
Native Foresters
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Native Foresters has been commissioned by Noosa Council to conduct a flora and fauna survey
and habitat assessment of a section of vegetation situated east of the Cleanaway Depot at 561
Eumundi Noosa Road, Doonan within Lot 77 SP298776.
This report assesses the fauna and flora which are present; the ecological condition of the subject
site, and the presence of breeding habitat for native fauna. Recommendations relating to
mitigating the potential impacts on fauna and flora species of conservation significance are made
where considered relevant to proposed works.
1.1 Objectives of the report
The objectives of the report are as follows:
• To provide the results of the Flora Survey undertaken in compliance with the requirements of
the Flora Survey Guidelines – Protected Plants (Nature Conservation Act 1992);
▪ To provide the results of the Breeding Places Assessment undertaken in compliance with the
DES Species Management Program Requirements for tampering with a protected animal
breeding place, the Nature Conservation Act 1992 and Nature Conservation (Wildlife
Management) Regulation 2006.
▪ To comment on the potential impacts of proposed works on native flora and fauna, including
State and/or Commonwealth listed species and their breeding habitat.
▪ To undertake a Code Assessment of works against the Noosa Plan (2020) – Biodiversity,
Waterways and Wetland Code.
1.2 Site description
The subject site is a Melaleuca wetland (approximately 0.9 hectares) that is situated on Lot 77
SP298776, northwest of the Noosa Council Landfill and Resource Recovery Centre and east of
the Cleanaway depot. The subject site adjoins a drainage line with remnant vegetation to the
north, and existing landfill infrastructure to the east and south consisting of access tracks, mown
grass areas, a constructed sediment basin and a vegetated pond.
An additional 100m buffer area was surveyed for EVNT-listed flora species and is referred to as
the total clearing impact area. The 100 metre buffer was also contained within Lot 77 SP298776
and the total clearing impact area for the site is approximately 9 hectares. Refer to Figure 1 for a
Survey area map.
Underlying geology has been described by the Department of Natural Resources, Mines and
Energy (DNRME) and Sattler and Williams (1999) with two land zones occurring in Lot 77
SP298776 as follows:
• Land Zone 3: Quaternary alluvial systems, including floodplains, terraces, levees, alluvial
fans, swamps, channels, closed depressions and fine textured paleo-estuarine deposits. This
land zone covers the central section through to the northern boundary of survey area.
• Land Zone 5: Tertiary-early Quaternary extensive, uniform near level or gently undulating
plains with sandy or loamy soils. This land zone covers a thin band around the east, south
and west boundaries of the survey area.
Central Drive Sippy Downs – Fauna & Flora Assessment 5
Page 6
Native Foresters
Vegetation in the survey area is mapped as ‘Least concern’ Regional Ecosystem (RE) 12.3.13 -
Closed heathland on seasonally waterlogged alluvial plains usually near the coast, and
‘Endangered’ RE 12.5.3 - Scribbly gum (Eucalyptus racemosa subsp. racemosa) woodland on
remnant Tertiary surfaces.
Topography across the survey area is approximately 10 metres above sea level and is generally
flat with small depressions and drainage lines that run in a northerly direction. A larger drainage
line and constructed sediment basin lie on the western side of the survey site.
Existing impacts on the site include:
i) Historical clearing for access tracks/rural land uses;
ii) Modification of drainage lines;
iii) Adjacent industrial uses (landfill and depot) – litter incursion;
iv) Ongoing slashing and maintenance along two sides;
v) Presence of weed/non-native species including Singapore Daisy (Sphagneticola
trilobata), Camphor laurel (Cinnamomum camphora), Lantana (Lantana spp.), and
Setaria Grass (Setaria sphacelata);
vi) Edge effects (increased light, wind, dust and noise) along three boundary lines;
1.3 Legislative requirements
To evaluate the habitat values on the site for State and Commonwealth listed flora and fauna
species the following legislation was reviewed:
Commonwealth:
• Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act)
State:
• Nature Conservation Act 1992 (NC Act)
o Nature Conservation (Animals) Regulation 2020
o Nature Conservation (Plants) Regulation 2020
• Nature Conservation (Koala) Conservation Plan 2017
o Nature Conservation and Other Legislation (Koala Protection) Amendment
Regulation
o Supported Infrastructure Koala Policy 2017
• Planning Act 2016 and Planning Regulation 2017
• Vegetation Management Act 1999 (VMA)
• Biosecurity Act 2016 and Biosecurity Regulation 2016
• Environmental Offsets Act 2014 and Environmental Offsets Regulation 2014
• Fisheries Act 1994 and Fisheries Regulation 2008
• Environmental Protection (Wetland and Water Biodiversity) Policy 2019
Central Drive Sippy Downs – Fauna & Flora Assessment 6
Page 7
Native Foresters
1.4 Proposed works
The proposed works involve the clearing of approximately 1.02 hectares of vegetation for
expansion of landfill infrastructure.
Noosa Council has not yet finalised the specific timing and duration of proposed works.
Appendix A shows the existing Master Plan for the Noosa Landfill.
1.5 Impacts on ecosystem
Potential direct and indirect impacts to existing flora and fauna habitat from the proposed clearing
works include:
• Loss of approximately 1.02 hectares of mapped remnant vegetation (Least Concern
RE 12.3.13 and Endangered RE 12.5.3) which is designated Essential Habitat for
Vulnerable-listed Wallum froglet, Wallum rocketfrog, Koala and Eastern Ground
parrot.
• Loss of 1.02 hectares of wetland habitat that is currently being used by Endangered
Swamp crayfish for foraging and/or breeding.
• Loss of mature native trees of the Lophostemon, Melaleuca, and Eucalyptus genera
with median diameter at breast height (dbh) of 100 mm and 10-12 metres tall, all
potential Koala habitat/refuge trees.
• Removal of ground cover species, and associated disturbance to soil, leaf litter and
debris, will cause loss and/or disturbance of habitat, including breeding habitat, for
reptiles, amphibians and small mammals.
• Potential for introduction and dispersal of weeds by machinery/personnel.
• Compaction of soil and destruction of depressions/burrows used by native fauna.
• Disturbance of habitat through stockpiling of cleared vegetation, soil and construction
materials.
• Localised waterlogging favouring wet sclerophyll/Melaleuca species around
stormwater drain areas and discharge outlets.
• Shift in vegetation community composition towards species adapted to wetter
conditions, such as Melaleuca quinquenervia and sedges, reducing recruitment of dry
sclerophyll species, predominantly in the understorey.
• Increased growth of ground cover species assisted by increased soil moisture, with
resultant increases in fire fuel loads and more intense fire events.
• Introduction of nutrients and propagules of invasive plant species into typically nutrient
poor soils, leading to an increase in invasive plant species.
Central Drive Sippy Downs – Fauna & Flora Assessment 7
Page 8
Native Foresters
Figure 1: NLRCC = Northern Section Survey Area
Central Drive Sippy Downs – Fauna & Flora Assessment 8
Page 9
Native Foresters
2.0 METHODOLOGY
2.1 Desktop review
A desktop review was undertaken to assist in determining the site’s environmental values. The
review consisted of searches of local, state and commonwealth government planning instruments
and databases, as well as relevant academic literature. Multiple databases were utilised to
determine species, communities, and areas of conservation significance with potential relevance
to the works impact area. Sources of information are listed below and further described in
Appendix B.
Commonwealth:
a) EPBC Protected Matters Search Tool (DCCEEW, 2023), which includes:
o Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES)
o Other matters protected by the EPBC Act
State:
a) Vegetation Management Property Report (Queensland Government, 2023a), which
includes:
o Regulated vegetation management map
o Vegetation management supporting map
o Essential habitat table and map
o Protected plants flora survey trigger map, and
o Koala priority area, koala habitat area and identifies koala broad-hectare area map.
b) WildNet Report (Queensland Government, 2023b).
c) Matters of State Environmental Significance (Queensland Government, 2023c), which
includes:
o Sate conservation areas
o Wetlands and waterways
o Threatened wildlife and special least concern animals
o Koala habitat area, and
o Regulated vegetation.
d) Queensland Waterways for Waterway Barrier Works spatial data layer and guideline
(Queensland Globe, 2023 and DAF, 2021).
2.2 Field assessment
2.2.1 Flora survey
An experienced botanist undertook a systematic botanical analysis on the 12 th December 2019 in
order to assess the vegetation communities occurring within and around the survey area. Further
surveys were conducted on the 12th January 2021, 27th June 2023 and the 30th November 2023.
The survey was consistent with the Flora Survey Guideline – Protected Plants (NCA 1992). The
extent of the flora survey is indicated in Figure 1.
Certification by the suitably qualified person who led and coordinated the flora survey is provided
in Appendix C. The suitably qualified person has been previously approved by DES for the
Nambour Landfill Expansion survey, April 2017.
Central Drive Sippy Downs – Fauna & Flora Assessment 9
Page 10
Native Foresters
Two timed meander surveys were conducted in the vegetation communities present around the
survey area in order to determine the presence of EVNT (Endangered, Vulnerable, Near
threatened) flora species within the site’s 100 metre buffer zone as shown in Figure 1. The
following methodology was used to conduct the timed meander survey:
• The location of the start point of the surveys was determined by the botanist in order to
maximise the possibility of locating EVNT species (if such species are present).
• The surveys were conducted in a random manner for a period of 30 minutes with the identities
of any EVNT plant species recorded and specimens of any unknown species collected.
• A record of the time was taken every two to five minutes. If the survey was interrupted, then
this time was not recorded in the survey results.
• The search was continued until no new EVNT species were recorded for 30 minutes or when
the entire area of habitat type had been surveyed.
• Where multiple habitat types or vegetation communities were present within a clearing impact
area, a timed meander assessment was undertaken within each of these areas.
2.2.2 Fauna survey
A fauna assessment was conducted on the 12th December 2019 to identify the presence of fauna
including reptiles, bats, amphibians, and arboreal mammals by an experienced fauna specialist.
A further survey was conducted on the 12 th January, 27th June 2023 and the 30th November 2023.
The following methods were used in the conduct of the fauna survey:
• Active search - searching for fauna under logs, rocks, leaf litter and decorticating bark.
• Passive search - identifying species both visually and aurally whenever the opportunity
arises while onsite.
• Tracks and scats – signs of an animal's presence, such as scats and tracks, are
interpreted. This procedure was generally opportunistic and used whenever specimens
were located.
• Aural survey and/or call playback - where recorded calls of the listed frog species are
played to determine their presence.
• Binoculars were used to identify arboreal species.
• A hand-held torch was used for inspecting hollows where accessible.
Targeted surveys (crepuscular and nocturnal) for EVNT-listed Wallum frogs and Swamp crayfish
(Tenuibranchiurus glypticus) were conducted under suitably wet conditions on the 6 th and 11th
February 2020 and the 12th January 2021. The following methods were used in the conduct of
these surveys:
• Aural survey and/or call playback - where recorded calls of the listed frog species are
played to determine their presence.
• Opportunistic dip-net surveys - where repeated sweeps with a fine mesh, long-handled
triangular dip net are used to sample representative aquatic habitats for crayfish and
tadpoles. All fauna captured are released unharmed.
Central Drive Sippy Downs – Fauna & Flora Assessment 10
Page 11
Native Foresters
The findings of targeted fauna surveys conducted during March and April 2019 under flooding
conditions as part of an assessment of impacts of landfill expansion on adjacent groundwater
dependent ecosystems have been incorporated into this report where considered relevant (Native
Foresters, 2019).
2.2.3 Breeding places and fauna habitat assessment
A fauna habitat assessment was undertaken during the field investigations. This assessment was
based on the habitats present, the listed threatened species known to occur or potentially
occurring within the locality, and the occurrence of specific breeding places or breeding habitat
for these species.
For the purposes of this report, the definition of “breeding places” follows that provided in s332 of
the Nature Conservation (Wildlife Management) Regulation 2006. For species such as Koala and
native frogs, who do not use a habitual breeding place, the term ‘breeding habitat’ is used in lieu
of ‘breeding place’. The fauna habitat assessment is important in determining species that may
be in the area but whose presence was not able to be detected.
Habitat features that were considered significant for assessing the presence of breeding places
and/or habitation value for native fauna, include but are not limited to:
i. Presence of hollow-bearing trees: These may be used by birds, reptiles or arboreal
mammals to incubate or rear offspring;
ii. Presence of bowers, nests, dreys: These structures are commonly used by birds or
mammals to incubate or rear offspring;
iii. Presence of caves, mounds, burrows, ground hollows and/or coarse woody debris: These
structures are commonly used by birds, mammals, reptiles or amphibians to incubate or
rear offspring;
iv. Presence of permanent water, ephemeral ponding, depressions and/or, seasonally
inundated areas: Waterbodies may be used for breeding by aquatic species or
amphibians, or that may provide intermittent breeding habitat for opportunistic species;
v. Presence of large trees: Large trees can be a dominant feature of native vegetation and
are difficult to replace once lost. Their influence for wide-ranging species can extend over
a considerable distance from their location.
vi. Canopy cover: The uppermost stratum of woody vegetation that forms the canopy
functions as habitat for birds and arboreal mammals, provides food and resources, and
determines the degree of light penetration and heat reaching the lower strata and ground
detrital layer.
vii. Weed cover: Weeds can dominate and suppress native plant growth which affects the
diversity of food sources; they can change the fuel or litter characteristics of a site, thereby
altering the fire regime, and also prevent recruitment and succession of native vegetation.
viii. Understorey components: The shrub and herb strata generally contain the greatest plant
species richness and can be a useful indicator of disturbance and changes in condition.
ix. Organic litter, fallen timber and rocks: Litter cover can be indicative of the degree of
disturbance of a site, and can be an important determinant of species recruitment. It will
influence soil microclimates, structure and composition, and provide refugia for
invertebrates, reptiles, amphibians and ground dwelling mammals.
x. Recruitment: Recruitment of plant species, particularly woody perennials, within all strata
reflects the site’s long-term viability.
Central Drive Sippy Downs – Fauna & Flora Assessment 11
Page 12
Native Foresters
xi. Landscape context: The size of a patch, its connectivity and distance to a core area of
vegetation (i.e. greater than 50 hectares) can affect both its regenerative capacity and
long-term viability. Species–area relationships suggest that large areas support more
species and populations than smaller ones thus retaining greater genetic variability and
providing refuge for species susceptible to disturbances.
A statement to justify the suitability and qualifications of the person undertaking the animal
breeding place survey is provided in Appendix D.
For each listed species that was identified in Essential Habitat Mapping or Wildlife Online, a
likelihood of occurrence rating was assigned based on the following:
• Known - species positively recorded by this survey or other survey by qualified
ecologists during past 30 years;
• Likely - based on the presence of suitable habitat and recent database records from
study area or proximity;
• Possible - suitable habitat present for the species, but no recent database records from
the study area or proximity; and
• Unlikely - based on a lack of suitable habitat and lack of proximate records.
2.2.4 Justification of survey timing and weather conditions
Field surveys were conducted in summer under the following conditions:
• 12/12/2019 - fine, dry conditions with temperatures ranging from 23 to 30 degrees Celsius;
relative humidity of 65 to 70% and 10 mm of rain in the preceding two weeks.
• 06/02/2020 – warm, wet conditions following a series of storms with temperatures ranging
from 21 to 26.4 degrees Celsius, relative humidity of 94 to 100% with 112 mm of rain in
the preceding 24 hours.
• 11/02/2020 – warm, wet conditions with temperatures ranging from 21.8 to 30.6 degrees
Celsius; relative humidity of 93 to100% and 124.2 mm of rain in the preceding five days.
• 12/01/2021 - warm, wet conditions with temperature reaching 28 degrees Celsius and 93
mm of rain in the preceding five days.
• 27/06/2023 – mild, cool and dry conditions with no rain in the preceding weeks.
• 30/11/2023 – warm humid conditions with a number of minor rainfall events in the
preceeding days.
The timing of the flora survey is considered suitable for detecting the target EVNT-listed plant
species, which is not deciduous: Acacia attenuata.
The timing of the fauna surveys are considered suitable for detecting the target Vulnerable-listed
Wallum frogs (Wallum froglet, Wallum rocketfrog and Wallum sedgefrog) and the Endangered
Swamp crayfish, with widespread ephemeral ponding and localised flooding in the first two weeks
of February and local populations of Wallum froglet heard chorusing on both survey nights further
along the Noosa Eumundi Road. Ephemeral ponding was also present during the January 2021
survey.
Central Drive Sippy Downs – Fauna & Flora Assessment 12
Page 13
Native Foresters
2.2.5 Survey limitations
Emphasis is placed on surveying listed threatened ecological communities, populations and/or
species that are considered likely to occur within the survey area. With respect to opportunistic
observations, the possibility exists that certain species may not have been detected during field
investigations due to:
• seasonal inactivity during field survey;
• species present within microhabitats not surveyed;
• species that occur at very low abundance or in very small populations;
• cryptic species able to avoid detection;
• transient wide-ranging species not present during survey period;
• absence of reproductive material for flora identification; or
• drought induced leaf fall or senescence.
The lack of observational data on some species should therefore not be taken as necessarily
indicating that a species is absent from the site.
The field assessment for fauna employed passive techniques only (ie. no live trapping) and the
habitat assessment was limited to contracted timeframes.
The precautionary principle was applied in estimating the likelihood of Commonwealth and State
listed species based on habitats identified within the subject site.
Central Drive Sippy Downs – Fauna & Flora Assessment 13
Page 14
Native Foresters
3.0 RESULTS
3.1 Desktop review
3.1.1 Regulated Vegetation Management map
The Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy (DNRME) presents the Regulated
Vegetation Management Mapping (RVMM) as gazetted under the Vegetation Management Act
(1999) (VMA). Analysis of RVMM shows that the survey area contains mapped Regulated
Vegetation – Category B i.e. Remnant Vegetation.
3.1.2 Regional Ecosystem mapping
DNRME presents a Vegetation Management Supporting map which shows the location of
Regional Ecosystems (RE) as gazetted under the VMA (1999). Analysis of this map shows that
the vegetation in the centre of the subject site is mapped as Least Concern RE 12.3.13 and the
vegetation around the edges is mapped as Endangered RE 12.5.3. These REs are described in
Table 1 and their location is shown in Figure 2.
TABLE 1: Regional Ecosystems mapped over survey area
RE VMA status Biodiversity Description
status
12.3.13 Least No concern at Closed heathland on seasonally waterlogged alluvial
Concern present plains usually near coast
12.5.3 Endangered Endangered Eucalyptus racemosa subsp. racemosa woodland on
Tertiary surfaces
3.1.3 Essential Habitat designation
Essential Habitat is a vegetation ecotype that is considered by DES to form potential habitat for a
species that is listed as Endangered, Vulnerable, Rare or Near Threatened under Schedules 2-5
of the Nature Conservation (Wildlife) Regulation (2006). Essential Habitat mapping is provided in
conjunction with Regulated Vegetation Management mapping (DNRME 2019) as gazetted under
the VMA (1999). The vegetation within and adjacent to Lot 77 SP298776 is designated as
Essential Habitat for the fauna and flora species listed in Table 2.
3.1.4 WildNET search
DES has compiled a database of wildlife sightings and listings for all flora and fauna species within
a designated area. A database search was conducted for all listed species that have been
identified within one kilometre of the survey area. One EVNT-listed fauna species and one flora
species were listed on WildNET as shown in Table 2.
Central Drive Sippy Downs – Fauna & Flora Assessment 14
Page 15
Native Foresters
TABLE 2: Listed species identified by desktop research within 1 km of survey area
NCA EPBC
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME SOURCE
STATUS STATUS
EVNT FAUNA
Anilios silvia Striped blind snake NT - RVMM
Calyptorhynchus lathami Glossy black cockatoo V V RVMM
Crinia tinnula Wallum rocketfrog V - RVMM
Litoria freycineti Wallum rocketfrog V - RVMM
Litoria olongburensis Wallum sedgefrog V V RVMM
Pezoporus wallicus Eastern ground parrot V - RVMM
Phascolarctos cinereus Koala (SE Qld region) E E RVMM/WildNET
FLORA
Acacia attenuata Whipstick wattle V V RVMM/WildNET
Allocasuarina emuina Mt Emu she-oak E - RVMM
Eucalyptus conglomerata Swamp stringybark E - RVMM
3.1.5 EPBC Protected Matters
A report was generated using the EPBC Act Protected Matters Search Tool. It noted that there is
potential for 40 Threatened Species and 17 Migratory Species to occur within two kilometres of
the centre of survey area, including Koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) listed as Vulnerable, and
Giant barred frog (Mixophyes iteratus) listed as Endangered.
There is also potential for three listed Ecological Communities to occur within two kilometres of
the site: Lowland Rainforest of Subtropical Australia, which is listed as Critically Endangered
under the EPBC Act, 1999, Coastal Swamp Oak (Casuarina glauca) Forest of New South Wales
and South East Queensland and Coastal Swamp Sclerophyll Forest of NSW and SEQ which are
listed as Endangered.
3.1.6 Protected Plants Flora Survey Trigger map
The Protected Plants Survey Trigger Map is a tool provided by DES in order to identify areas that
may contain EVNT plant species. The trigger map is used to determine when a flora survey needs
to meet the requirements of the Flora Survey Guidelines – Protected Plants (NCA, 1992). Figure
3 shows that the survey area lies within a Protected Plants high risk area and as such, is subject
to the provisions of the guidelines.
3.1.7 Vegetation legislation
The Planning Regulation 2017 and the Vegetation Management Act 1999 regulates the clearing
of vegetation in Queensland. The Planning Regulation 2017, Schedule 10 Part 3 details the
requirements for clearing native vegetation. Schedule 7 details accepted development and if the
proposed clearing complies with an accepted development vegetation clearing code the work
does not require a development application. The proposed works are not considered to fit under
the Accepted development vegetation clearing code - Clearing for Infrastructure (21 June 2019).
Central Drive Sippy Downs – Fauna & Flora Assessment 15
Page 16
Native Foresters
Schedule 21 details Exempt clearing work under the legislation. As the site contains mapped
endangered regional ecosystem in a category B area it may require an application under the
Planning Act 2016 – Operational works for Clearing Native vegetation.
FIGURE 2: Vegetation Management supporting map
Central Drive Sippy Downs – Fauna & Flora Assessment 16
Page 17
Native Foresters
FIGURE 3: Protected Plants Flora Survey Trigger map
Central Drive Sippy Downs – Fauna & Flora Assessment 17
Page 18
Native Foresters
3.1.8 Koala legislation
State Legislation
Planning Act 2016
The Planning Act 2016 regulates new development including areas of South East Queensland
identified as having important Koala habitat values. The Planning Regulation 2017 (Schedule
10) establishes where clearing may be prohibited, where it is assessable by the State, where
Koala conservation outcomes will be considered by local governments and what exemptions may
apply.
The Nature Conservation (Koala) Conservation Plan 2017 and Koala Conservation Plan Maps
identifies Koala Habitat Areas (core and locally refined) and Koala Priority Areas that contain
Koala habitat which is essential for the conservation of a viable Koala population in the wild in
South East Queensland.
Clearing Koala Habitat Areas in a Koala Priority Area is prohibited, except for in certain
circumstances (see Schedule 10, 16A of the Planning Regulation 2017).
Development in Koala Habitat Areas made assessable under the Planning Regulation 2017 will
need to address State Code 25: Development in South East Queensland koala habitat areas.
Under the framework provided by the Environmental Offsets Act 2014 and Environmental Offsets
Regulation 2014 and the Queensland Environmental Offset Policy, environmental offset
conditions for unavoidable, significant residual impacts on the following may be imposed:
i. Koala Habitat Areas (identified under the Nature Conservation Koala Conservation
Plan 2017);
ii. Essential habitat for Koala (mapped under the Vegetation Management Act 1999); or
iii. Areas which are not mapped but contain, or are likely to contain, Koalas.
Clearing of a non-juvenile Koala tree is considered a significant residual impact.
For the purposes of this report, a Koala habitat tree means:
a) a food tree of the Corymbia, Melaleuca, or Lophostemon or Eucalyptus genera; or
b) a preferred shelter species such as Angophora.
and a non-juvenile Koala habitat tree means a koala habitat tree that has:
a) a height of more than four metres; or
b) a trunk with a circumference of more than 31.5 centimetres at 1.3 metres above the
ground.
A search of the Koala habitat area and Koala priority area mapping shows that the proposed
clearing lies in a Koala habitat area (locally refined) and in a Koala priority area.
Clearing for necessary infrastructure (i.e. a landfill) when conducted ‘by or for the state or a public
sector entity’ is considered ‘exempted development’ under Schedule 24(b) and Schedule 5 (Part
2, item 15) of the Planning Regulation 2017.
Central Drive Sippy Downs – Fauna & Flora Assessment 18
Page 19
Native Foresters
Koala Conservation Policy 2017
It is noted that the proposed development is subject to the provisions of the State Governments
Supported Infrastructure Koala Conservation Policy 2017. Refer Section 5.2.
Commonwealth Legislation
Australia’s key national environment law is the Environment Protection and Biodiversity
Conservation Act 1999, also known as the EPBC Act. This legislation regulates activities that are
likely to have a significant impact on nationally protected matters including Koala and Threatened
Ecological Communities (TEC)..
For impacts to MNES – koala habitat, the self-assessment process outlined in the Significant
impact guidelines 1.1 EPBC Act 1999 (DoE, 2013) has being completed and it is determined that
the any clearing of Koala trees which is less that 2ha is not considered to represent a ‘significant
impact.’
An assessment was undertaken of the potential for the adjoining Paperbark Wetland Vegetation
to fulfill the requirements to be listed as a part of the Threatened Ecological Community Coastal
Swamp Schlerophyll Forest of NSW and SEQ. Following assessment it was determined that
the Paperbark Wetland in the subject site does not meet the criteria for a EPBC Act Threatened
Ecological Community (Coastal Swamp Sclerophyll Forest of NSW and SEQ for the following
reason:
• The subject area does not meet the patch condition and threshold criteria within the
Coastal Swamp Sclerophyll Forest TEC Conservation Advice due to the high level of
weeds in the groundlayer. While the criteria for dominant species and patch size is met
(>0.2ha that is contiguous with a large patch) the area has greater than 50% weed cover
in groundlayer and does not meet the lowest condition class (C2) and as a result is not
protected under the EPBC criteria.
3.1.9 Wetlands and Watercourses
The quality of natural waters in Queensland (e.g. rivers, creeks, wetlands, lakes, estuaries and
coastal areas and ground waters) is protected under the Environmental Protection (Water) Policy
2009 (EPP Water). The EPP Water achieves the object of the EPA 1994 to protect Queensland's
waters while supporting ecologically sustainable development.
The Map of Referable Wetlands is a statewide regulatory map under the Environmental Protection
Regulation 2008 which identifies wetlands of high ecological significance (HES) and general
ecological significance (GES) across the state. HES wetlands on the Map of Referable Wetlands
are considered ‘matters of state environmental significance’ (MSES) under the Planning and
Environmental Offsets legislation (Environmental Offsets Act 2014).
There are no mapped wetlands of significance in the footprint of proposed works within Lot 77
SP298776. It is noted that the works impact area is mapped as a Palustrine Wetland under the
QLD Wetland Maps mapping system and it is therefore considered that the vegetation is a wetland
for assessment purposes.
Central Drive Sippy Downs – Fauna & Flora Assessment 19
Page 20
Native Foresters
3.2 Matters of State Environmental Significance
The State Planning Policy 2017 (SPP) defines matters of state environmental significance
(MSES). A desktop analysis has identified the following MSES within or adjacent to the Potential
Impact Area (Appendix E):
• Species – Threatened species (Koala, Wallum froglet, Wallum rocketfrog and
Ground parrot) and Special least concern species (Short-beaked echidna);
• Regulated Vegetation.
All applications impacting MSES must demonstrate compliance with the ‘avoid, minimise
(mitigate), offset’ obligation in accordance with the Environmental Offsets Regulation 2014 and
either the Significant Residual Impact Guideline (Biodiversity Integration and Offsets, Ecosystem
Outcomes, Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, 2014) or the DSDMIP Significant
Residual Impact Guideline (http://www.dlgrma.qld.gov.au/resources/ guideline/planning/dsdip-
significant-residual-impactguideline.pdf). This obligation requires in the first instance, avoiding
impacts on prescribed environmental matters and if avoidance cannot be achieved,
demonstrating that impacts have been carefully managed and minimised (mitigated).
If after avoidance and mitigation, there is still an impact on prescribed environmental matters, an
offset may be required where the impact is, or is likely, to be significant.
Under the Environmental Offsets Act 2014 and Environmental Offsets Regulation 2014, offset
requirements may apply to assessable developments where it has been determined that there
will be a significant residual impact on a prescribed environmental matter e.g. Koala habitat.
An assessment of the potential for impacts to the Vulnerable listed Gloosy Black Cockatoo
(Calyptorhynchus lathami) was undertaken however it was determined that the site is not
providing breeding or foraging habitat for the Glossy Black Cockatoo for the following reasons:
• No hollow bearing trees or trees showing early stages of hollow formation were observed
in the survey area that would provide suitable breeding habitat for Glossy Black
Cockatoo.
• No Glossy Black Cockatoo food trees of the Casuarina or Allocasuarina spp are present
onsite.
3.3 Flora assessment
3.3.1 Vegetation within the survey area
The vegetation within the survey area can be described as a Melaleuca wetland with a semi-
closed canopy dominated by Paperbark tea tree (Melaleuca quinquenervia) and Swamp box
(Lophostemon suaveolens) and occasional Swamp mahogany (Eucalyptus robusta) and Cheese
tree (Glochidion ferdinandi). Refer to Figure 4. The median height of Paper Barked Tea-trees
was 12 metres and the median diameter at breast height (dbh) was 100mm on the southern side
of the site. The mid strata consists of smaller trees, shrubs and vines including Soap Tree
(Alphitonia excelsa), Monkey Vine (Parsonsia straminea) and Blackwood (Acacia melanoxylon)
and weed species Camphor Laurel (Cinnamomum camphora).
Central Drive Sippy Downs – Fauna & Flora Assessment 20
Page 21
Native Foresters
The understory is dominated by Spiky Sedge (Schoenus brevifolius), Bunchy Sedge (Cyperus
polystachyos), Soft Bracken (Calochlaena dubia) and Blady Grass (Imperata cylindrica) occurring
along with introduced species e.g. Broad Leaf Paspalum (Paspalum mandiocanum) and an
infestation of Singapore Daisy (Sphagneticola trilobata). Some larger Melaleucas with dbh
300mm and height 14 metres occurred on the northern edge of the survey area.
In total, 44 local native species and 23 introduced species were recorded during the flora surveys.
An indicative species list for the site is provided in Appendix F. No EVNT flora species were
recorded within the survey area.
FIGURE 4: Melaleuca wetland with Cheese tree and Monkey Rope Vine
The area surveyed is the moderately disturbed southern end of a larger tract of remnant
heathland. It suffers from degraded edges, weed infestation, litter incursion, clearing for access
tracks and/or potential boreholes and receives stormwater inputs from the constructed sediment
basin on the northern edge of the landfill. Refer to Figure 5.
FIGURE 5: Melaleuca wetland on eastern edge of the survey area
Central Drive Sippy Downs – Fauna & Flora Assessment 21
Page 22
Native Foresters
There is also variation in vegetation condition throughout the centre of the site, where Lantana
and introduced grasses have colonised open patches that were historically cleared/disturbed.
Refer to Figure 6.
FIGURE 6: Parts of survey area have been cleared or disturbed
Weed species are generally restricted to the lower and mid strata and the edges. Of concern is
the presence of Singapore daisy (Sphagneticola trilobata) throughout the survey area, with the
infestation extending over 80 metres into the remnant heathland northeast of the survey area
(Figure 7). Lantana (Lantana camara), Wild tobacco (Solanum mauritianum), African Pigeon
Grass (Setaria sphacelata) Groundsel (Baccharis halimifolia) and Camphor laurel are also
present. Groundsel bush, Singapore daisy, Lantana and Camphor laurel are Restricted Invasive
Plants under the Biosecurity Act 2014. Measures should be taken to control the spread of
Singapore daisy e.g. machinery hygiene inspections and removal/disposal of all spoil
contaminated with Singapore daisy fragments. Management of the Singapore daisy infestation in
the buffer should also be undertaken as part of Council’s general biosecurity obligation.
FIGURE 7: Singapore Daisy infestation extends 50-80 m north east of survey area.
Central Drive Sippy Downs – Fauna & Flora Assessment 22
Page 23
Native Foresters
The RE mapping shows the area of interest near the Cleanaway depot contains thin strips of
remnant Scribbly gum woodland (Endangered RE 12.5.3 - Eucalyptus racemosa subsp.
racemosa woodland on remnant Tertiary surfaces) and a central core of remnant Palustrine heath
(Least concern RE 12.3.13 - Closed or wet heathland on seasonally waterlogged Quaternary
alluvial plains with characteristic species including Melaleuca thymifolia, Banksia robur,
Xanthorrhoea fulva, Hakea actites, Leptospermum spp. and Baeckea frutescens).
Ground-truthing of the vegetation on site however, indicates that the edges of the area of interest
do not contain Scribbly gum and are dominated by Paperbark tea tree. The pre-clear vegetation
mapping suggests that these edges are what remains of the lower slopes of the Scribbly gum
vegetation community in which Paperbark tea tree is often a prominent feature.
The central core, which may have historically been dominated by heath species, appears to be
transitioning to a wetland system with well-established Paperbark tea trees. This has probably
occurred through the exclusion of fire and changes in hydrology. The vegetation community now
exhibits the structure and composition of Least concern RE 12.3.5 - Melaleuca quinquenervia
open forest on coastal alluvium.
Whilst there is some evidence of recent disturbance and clearing for tracks (refer to Appendix G
- Aerial imagery), the area has generally not been mechanically or chemically cleared in the past
20 years.
3.3.2 Vegetation within 100 metre buffer
Two timed meanders through the 100 metre buffer zone traversing remnant wet heath and
Scribbly gum woodland vegetation were undertaken as shown in Figure 1. No EVNT species
were recorded in the timed meander surveys. Results of timed meander surveys are summarised
in Table 3.
TABLE 3: Results of timed meander surveys
Survey 1 (remnant – northeast of the survey site) 12/12/2019 repeated 27/06/2023
Starting point GPS coordinates: -26.435674 oS, 153.026859 oE
Target species: Acacia attenuata, Acacia baueri, Eucalyptus conglomerata.
Time Species recorded
1100
Nil
1130
Survey 2 (remnant – northwest of the survey site) 12/12/2019 repeated 27/06/2023
Starting point GPS coordinates: -26.435590 oS, 153.026752 oE
Target species: Acacia attenuata, Acacia baueri, Eucalyptus conglomerata.
Time Species recorded
1145
Nil
1215
Central Drive Sippy Downs – Fauna & Flora Assessment 23
Page 24
Native Foresters 3.4 Fauna assessment The vegetation on the subject site supports the breeding and habitation requirements of a diversity of native fauna, including but not limited to one terrestrial mammal; thirteen bird species; five amphibian species and two reptile species, as shown in Appendix H. Two Least-concern skinks were detected within the footprint of proposed clearing works: Elegant Snake Eyed Skink (Cryptoblepharus pulcher) and Garden Skink (Lampropholis delicata). A number of nectarivorous and insectivorous bird species were observed foraging amongst the Paperbarked tea tree, Eucalypt and heath elements in the survey area (Figure 8). Monkey rope vine also provides food for nectarivorous birds during seasonally dry conditions when preferred food sources are scarce. Scarlet honeyeaters (Myzomela sanguinolenta), were observed feeding on Monkey rope flowers during the survey. The survey area provides refuge during dry conditions, and in suitably wet conditions, it also provides breeding habitat for Least concern amphibian species such as Eastern sedge frog (Litoria fallax), Striped marsh frog (Limnodynastes peronii), Striped rocketfrog (Litoria nasuta), Green tree frog (Litoria caerulea) and Graceful tree frog (Litoria gracilenta). Despite the presence of suitable habitat in the survey area, Wallum frogs appear to be excluded from the area of interest on the edge of the landfill potentially due to the presence of large populations of competitor species e.g. Eastern sedgefrog and Striped rocketfrog and predator species e.g. Cane toads; frequent disturbance and/or changes in water quality (pH and nutrients) associated with proximity to landfill runoff (Ed Meyer, pers.comm). Large populations of Vulnerable-listed Wallum froglets (Crinia tinnula) were identified in the less disturbed remnant and groundwater-dependent ecosystems further north and east during targeted surveys conducted in March and April 2019, and further north along the Noosa Eumundi Road (Noosa National Park) in February 2020, but were not present in the survey area. Several Endangered Swamp crayfish (Tenuibranchiurus glypticus) were present in the ephemeral ponds in the Melaleuca wetland. Swamp crayfish will reproduce, overwinter and /or avoid desiccation within elaborate community burrows that extend to depths of more than one metre. Further information on this species is provided in section 4.0. No Koalas (Phascolarctos cinereus) or evidence of Koalas was found within the survey area. However, a previous survey conducted at the Noosa Landfill and Resource Recovery Centre by Native Foresters (2019) identified historical evidence of habitat utilisation within the surrounding Eucalypt-dominated woodland ecosystems. There are also four WildNET records within the surrounding one kilometre radius, suggesting the possibility of a local population. The survey site and surrounding remnant bushland is within a locally refined Koala Habitat Area, and Koala food and habitat trees e.g. Eucalyptus robusta and Melaleuca quinquenervia, are common across the survey area. As such, it is considered likely that the area may be used by local Koala populations. Koalas are listed as Endangered under the NC Act 1992 and the EPBC Act 1999. Central Drive Sippy Downs – Fauna & Flora Assessment 24
Page 25
Native Foresters 3.5 Assessment of breeding places and fauna habitat quality Generally, the natural vegetation within the survey area has been assessed as possessing moderate habitat values, providing some breeding habitat as well as refuge, roosting habitat and basking sites for native fauna. The vegetated swamp contains many depressions that are seasonally inundated. These depressions form ephemeral ponds which are exploited by a number of Least concern frog species for breeding (e.g. Eastern sedge frog, Striped marsh frog, Graceful tree frog and Striped rocket frog). The amphibian population was limited to the more common Least concern species e.g., with the Vulnerable-listed Wallum frogs potentially being excluded from these disturbed edges due to the dilution effect of stormwater on pH of surface waters and groundwaters; and potential inter-species competition and/or predation. The ephemeral ponds formed after rains are also exploited for surface activity, foraging and/or potentially breeding by freshwater crayfish species (e.g. Endangered Swamp crayfish). The breeding biology of Swamp crayfish however is poorly documented. Available data suggest that breeding may occur at any time of year (Dawkins, 2015; E. Meyer, pers. comm.) and very little is known about their breeding habitat requirements. Differentiating between areas of breeding and non-breeding habitat is therefore impractical and, for the purposes of this assessment, areas of occupied habitat are regarded as breeding places. No hollow bearing trees or trees showing early stages of hollow formation were observed in the survey area. Trees within the Melaleuca woodland exhibited an average DBH of 150mm with an average height of 10-12m. No significant coarse woody debris (e.g. large hollow stumps and logs) were observed within the survey area. A small active burrow system and digs were observed within the fauna survey area, likely belonging to Bandicoot (Perameles sp. or Isodon sp.), Bush rat (Rattus fuscipes), Swamp rat (Rattus lutreolus) or Melomys sp as shown in Figure 8. Table 4 provides an analysis of the potential presence of threatened species as listed in WildNET and/or the EPBC Protected Matters Search Tool or based on the field habitat suitability assessment that may occur within the area (i.e. one kilometre radius) and comments on the likelihood of those species occurring in or around the survey site. Central Drive Sippy Downs – Fauna & Flora Assessment 25
Page 26
Native Foresters FIGURE 8: Fauna and fauna habitat in survey area Top left – Scarlet honeyeater feeding on nectar from Monkey rope vine flowers; Top right – Noisy friarbird Bottom left – Variegated fairy wren; Bottom right – Burrow mound at southern end of survey area Noosa Landfill & RRC - northern section – Fauna and Flora Assessment – REV4 26
Page 27
Native Foresters
TABLE 4: Breeding habitat assessment and likelihood of occurrence for listed species
Scientific Name Common NCA EPBC Likelihood Habitat Preferences Presence of breeding
Name status status of places or breeding
occurrence habitat
Habitat specialist requires ephemeral, acidic, Absent
wallum wetland but tolerant of disturbance.
Wallum Possible Large population known to occur
Crinia tinnula V -
froglet approximately 300 metres further north and
east, individuals may disperse during
localised flooding.
Habitat specialist requires ephemeral, acidic, Absent
Wallum Possible wallum wetland but tolerant of disturbance.
Litoria freycineti V -
rocketfrog
Habitat specialist – requires suitable wallum Absent
Litoria Wallum Unlikely swamp and ephemeral wetland areas with
V -
olongburensis sedgefrog emergent aquatic vegetation.
Pezoporus Ground Inhabits lowland, coastal plains with dry and Absent
wallicus wallicus parrot wet heath and sedgelands (excluding
V - Possible permanent waterbodies). Prefers sites that
undergo 5 – 8 year fire intervals.
Secondary koala food and habitat trees Potential habitat present,
Phascolarctos present. Koalas may traverse the area as but no individuals detected.
Koala V V Possible
cinereus they disperse from bushland habitat to the
east, north and west.
Inhabits coastal wallum swamps in areas
with sedges and open water. Nocturnal
Tenuibranchiurus Swamp surface activity associated with rain events
E - Known Present.
glypticus crayfish and ephemeral ponding. Individuals
identified further east in areas mapped as
RE 12.3.5/12.3.13.
Noosa Landfill & RRC - northern section– Fauna and Flora Assessment – REV4 27
Page 28
Native Foresters
4.0 SIGNIFICANT SPECIES
4.1 Swamp crayfish (Tenuibranchiurus glypticus)
Swamp crayfish, listed as Endangered under the NC Act (1992), is Australia’s smallest crayfish
growing up to 25 mm (Figure 9). Its distribution is highly restricted, occurring from the Kinkuna
section of Burrum Coast National Park, Queensland and southwards along the coastline to Lake
Hiawatha, New South Wales. Its area of occupancy within this coastal strip is fragmented and the
species occurs in small, isolated locations, some of which are threatened by urbanisation.
Throughout its range, the Swamp Crayfish is associated mainly with coastal Paperbark swamps,
including areas of remnant and regrowth Melaleuca woodland.
Swamp crayfish can be distinguished from other crayfish species in south east Queensland by its
narrow thorax and the vertical alignment of the fingers of the claws. It is often difficult to detect as
it burrows into the substrate in coastal wallum swamps and shallow drainage channels. It can be
found among sedges and less frequently in open water. Much of the year is spent underground
in elaborate burrows that may extend over 1.5 metres below the surface.
The breeding biology of Swamp crayfish is poorly documented. Available data suggest that
breeding may occur during late autumn/early winter with egg-bearing animals and young-of-year
crayfish having been recorded in May-July (Dawkins, 2015; E. Meyer, pers. comm.), as well as at
other times of year.
Two adult Swamp crayfish were found in small ponds, foraging above leaf litter under a canopy
of Melaleuca (-26.43565oS, 153.02659oE and -26.43570oS, 153.02634oE). Refer to Figure 1.
Their distribution is likely to extend throughout the entire survey area and adjacent habitats.
Habitat loss (i.e loss of treed wetlands), pollution, degradation of water quality, changes to
drainage patterns and climate change are considered significant threats to the survival of Swamp
crayfish. However, records of this species from drainage lines and artificial ponds, within and
adjacent to disturbed Melaleuca woodlands suggest some resilience to disturbance.
FIGURE 9: Swamp crayfish in Melaleuca wetland adjacent to landfill
Noosa Landfill & RRC – northern section – Fauna and Flora Assessment – REV4 28
Page 29
Native Foresters
5.0 ASSESSMENT OF LANDFILL EXPANSION
5.1 Noosa Plan
As part of this revision to the report, a code assessment against the relevant performance and
acceptable outcomes of the Biodiversity, Waterways and Wetlands Overlay Code is provided in
Table 5. This is in response to Council’s Information Request, dated 18 th May 2023 for
application no. 132005.638.02.
Under the Noosa Plan 2020 the site is mapped (see Figure 10) under the Biodiversity, Waterways
and Wetlands Overlay as follows:
• MSES Environmental Values.
• Area of Biodiversity Significance.
It is noted that the overlay maps a Waterway and Riparian Buffer Area approximately 30m to the
north of the proposed clearing.
FIGURE 10: Biodiversity Overlay
Overall, the works will result in the clearing of 1.02 hectares of remnant vegetation which is in a
generally degraded condition associated with stormwater inputs and associated Singapore Daisy
infestation. The adjacent vegetation to the north will be protected and managed to maintain the
ecological values present, including fauna habitat for listed species. The management of works
and operation of the landfill will include measures to protect the adjacent environmental values of
surface waters, groundwaters, native flora and fauna. The provision of an offset area will also
mitigate impacts resulting from the works.
Noosa Landfill & RRC – northern section – Fauna and Flora Assessment – REV4 29
Page 30
Native Foresters
TABLE 5: Assessment of Biodiversity, Waterways and Wetlands Overlay Code
Performance Outcomes Acceptable Outcomes Response
Ecologically important areas
PO1 AO1.1 Complies with PO1
Development is sited and designed to protect Ecologically important areas are conserved or improved
the physical and ecological integrity and to ensure their ongoing contribution to the natural Flora and Fauna Assessments have been undertaken by
biodiversity of ecologically important areas resources and biological diversity of Noosa Shire.
Native Foresters to assess onsite values of the flora and fauna.
through protection of:
a) existing habitat areas and ecological AND
linkages; and RE mapping shows the area of interest near the Cleanaway
b) existing riparian vegetation, depot contains thin strips of remnant Scribbly gum woodland
AO1.2
waterways and wetland habitat Buildings, structures and associated works are located
(Endangered RE 12.5.3 - Eucalyptus racemosa subsp.
values. within existing cleared areas or areas of lowest racemosa woodland on remnant Tertiary surfaces) and a
ecological value. central core of remnant Palustrine heath (Least concern RE
12.3.13 - Closed heathland on seasonally waterlogged alluvial
AND plains usually near the coast).
AO1.3 However, the vegetation on site was found to be a Melaleuca
Where constructing a dwelling house or community wetland exhibiting characteristics of Least Concern Regional
residence, buildings and associated structures are not Ecosystem RE12.3.5 – Melaleuca quinquenervia open forest
located on land identified as an area of biodiversity on coastal alluvium. It was also found to be moderately
significance on a Biodiversity, Waterways and Wetlands disturbed with impacts including degraded edges, weed
Overlay Map infestations i.e. Singapore daisy, litter incursion, clearing for
Or
access tracks, and/or boreholes and receives stormwater
inputs from the sediment basin on northern edge of landfill.
Clearing vegetation (other than for a driveway access) The area was too small to be reclassified using a PMAV, so
does not extend beyond— even though it is not consistent with the mapping, for the
purposes of this report it is classed as partly RE12.3.13 and
a) 30 metres of a habitable building or 10 metres partly RE12.5.3.
of a class 10 structure on lots greater than 10
hectares; or This vegetation is within a mapped Area of Biodiversity
b) 10 metres of a habitable building or class 10 Significance and approximately 0.9 hectares will be cleared
structure on lots 10 hectares or less but more for the expansion of the landfill.
than 3,000m2; or
c) 3 metres of a habitable building or class 10
structure on lots 3,000m2 or less.
AND
Noosa Landfill & RRC – northern section – Fauna and Flora Assessment – REV4 30
Page 31
Native Foresters
Performance Outcomes Acceptable Outcomes Response
Lot 77 will retain 270.53 hectares of regional ecosystems on
AO1.4 site following the works. Therefore, the clearing required for
Clearing of vegetation for a boundary fence does not the landfill expansion is approximately 0.4% of the remnant
extend beyond 5 metres either side of the fence. vegetation in Lot 77.
Area of clearing for proposed expansion = 1.02ha
Area of biodiversity overlay remaining = 269.51ha
The proposed clearing is in accordance with the Master Plan
for the site, which aims to retain the majority of Lot77 as
natural vegetation, with clearing only occurring in the
southern portion of the site for the Noosa Shire waste
management facility.
Justification for clearing is that:
• This vegetation is the area of lowest ecological value
on site – due to it jutting out from the main
vegetation, being impacted by weeds, edge effects,
litter, etc.
• Weeds within the retained vegetation will be treated
in accordance with a Weed Management Plan to
ensure environmental values in the retained
vegetation are enhanced and protected.
• Rehabilitation Offset Planting will occur to 1.8ha of
area in SE of site.
Reconfiguring a Lot
PO2 AO2 N/A
New Lots are only created if they maintain Where clearing vegetation for the purpose of
ecological linkages and minimize the clearing of reconfiguring a Lot
vegetation d) new boundaries to lots do not transect and
fragment existing native vegetation;
e) new lots are created to allow for suitable
building envelopes for future buildings and
works to be located within existing cleared
areas or areas of low ecological value;
Noosa Landfill & RRC – northern section – Fauna and Flora Assessment – REV4 31
Page 32
Native Foresters
Performance Outcomes Acceptable Outcomes Response
f) building envelopes are designated for each lot;
and
g) ecological linkages and ecologically important
areas are secured by environmental covenant
or transferred to public ownership or through
gazettal of a nature reserve.
Management of impacts
PO3 AO3.1 Complies with PO3
Development is designed and sited to manage Where clearing of vegetation cannot be practicably
adverse impacts on ecologically important avoided, the development: The landfill expansion works cannot be practicably avoided
areas by: a) ensures the design and siting limits the loss of and the clearing requirements have been minimised as much
a) minimising the total footprint within vegetation to the smallest extent possible;
which all activities, buildings, b) protects and retains ecological values and
as possible.
structures driveways and other works ecosystem processes to the greatest extent
are contained; possible within and adjacent to the site; The proposed clearing will allow for the landfill expansion to
b) locating development in existing c) provides measures to allow for safe movement occur in accordance with the master plan for the site, and will
cleared areas or areas of low of fauna through the site; and require clearing of 1.02 ha of mapped vegetation – area of
ecological value over other areas to d) provides suitable habitat replacement and biodiversity importance.
the greatest extent possible; and replanting in accordance with PSP3 Ecological
c) incorporating siting and design Assessment Guidelines. Clearing vegetation is unavoidable, but the following is noted:
measures to protect and retain
• The proposed clearing is directly adjacent to the
ecological values and ecosystem AO3.2
processes within or adjacent to the Habitat trees, recruitment habitat trees, and roosting, existing cleared areas of the landfill site,
development site; and breeding and feeding areas are protected for native • Vegetation proposed to be cleared is a patch that is
d) where adverse impacts have been fauna habitat. surrounded on three sides by landfill areas and has
minimised, any residual impacts on been impacted by the uses of the landfill,
ecological values are compensated • Proposed works on the site include a HES Basin and
for through suitable habitat concrete crushing area which are positioned to
replacement and replanting on site in manage the expanded landfill footprint and ensure
the first instance or in a way that
stormwater flows from the site are properly treated.
results in a net gain and
enhancement of the overall habitat • Clearing will be undertaken to minimise impacts to
values of Noosa Shire. native fauna, by having a Wildlife spotter catcher
undertake pre-clearance survey and to be present for
all clearing.
• Retained vegetation will be managed to remove
weeds in accordance with a Weed Management
Plan, which will improve habitat values of the
Noosa Landfill & RRC – northern section – Fauna and Flora Assessment – REV4 32
Page 33
Native Foresters
Performance Outcomes Acceptable Outcomes Response
retained vegetation.
• Compensatory planting will occur to an area of 1.8ha
to ensure a new gain and enhancement of the overall
habitat values of Noosa Shire. This rehabilitation
plan is detailed in Section 5.1 below.
PO4 AO4.1 Complies with PO4
Development provides for effective measures Vegetation is protected from disturbance or damage
during construction and operation to protect from The proposed clearing will be undertaken in accordance with
ecological values including: construction and operation activities by: a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP)
a) avoiding disturbance to or clearing of a) clearly marking trees to be retained with
vegetation in and within the vicinity of flagging tape;
which will incorporate actions specific to protecting the
the site; b) installing protective fencing around the dripline environmental values on site and adjacent to the site.
b) managing habitat disturbance and of the vegetation and avoid filling and
physical harm to fauna from noise, excavating in these fenced areas; The works will also be undertaken in accordance with an
vibration, dust, light, dewatering or c) ensuring stockpiling, storage and vehicle approved High Risk Species Management Program (SMP) for:
excavating; and parking occurs outside the identified • Wallum Froglet (Crinia tinnula) - Vulnerable;
c) avoiding clearing in areas where vegetation areas; and • Wallum Rocketfrog (Litoria freycineti) - Vulnerable;
erosion or slippage could occur. d) using low impact construction techniques
around vegetation.
• Swamp Crayfish (Tenuibranchiurus glypticus) –
Endangered.
AO4.2
Vegetation which is capable of forming or contributing to This SMP outlines management of impacts to these species
a buffer between different land uses or a buffer against breeding habitat and contingency planning.
pollution, light spillage or noise is retained.
The works will also be undertaken in accordance with a Low
AO4.3 Risk SMP for least concern fauna species on site.
Lighting associated with development:
a) does not contribute an unacceptable level of The site is flat and clearing will not result in hillslope erosion or
illuminance (greater than 1 lux) for light slippage.
sensitive species within or at the boundary of
an ecologically important area; and
b) does not contribute to an unacceptable level of
illuminance on landward horizons along
coastal areas and known marine turtle nesting
beaches.
AO4.4
Noosa Landfill & RRC – northern section – Fauna and Flora Assessment – REV4 33
Page 34
Native Foresters
Performance Outcomes Acceptable Outcomes Response
Clearing of vegetation does not involve clearing that may
cause or contribute to hillslope erosion, bank erosion, or
slippage.
Connectivity
PO5 AO5 Complies with PO5
Development is designed and operated to Development is designed and operated to maintain
maintain and enhance connectivity between ecological linkages and maximise opportunity for The vegetation proposed to be cleared is a 1.02ha of
and across ecologically important areas and connectivity and the movement of fauna by: vegetation “jutting” into the landfill site. It is shown within the
connecting habitat and support unimpeded and a) ensuring protection of wildlife refuges;
safe movement of terrestrial and aquatic fauna. b) maintaining vegetation in patches of the
Master Plan to be cleared for landfill uses.
greatest possible size and within the smallest
possible edgetoarea ratio; It does not link to vegetation in the south, east or west, but is
c) enhancing connectivity through planting and surrounded by landfill in these directions. It is connected to
rehabilitation works, including across property the bulk of vegetation (i.e. approx.. 270ha) on Lot 77 to the
boundaries, to areas of national park, state north.
forest or reserve;
d) avoiding the creation of physical barriers and The clearing will reduce the existing ‘edge’ of the patch
safety hazards (such as roads, pedestrian remaining inside the landfill area.
access and instream structures) along and
within the ecological linkage;
e) providing mitigation measures such as wildlife Fauna breeding habitat will be managed in accordance with
movement infrastructure, fauna exclusion and the approved SMP for the site.
directional fencing, underpasses/overpasses
and traffic calming devices, signage and An offset plan is detailed in Section 5.1 below to deliver an
lighting; and offset to support fauna to the south of the clearing area.
f) where offsets are necessary, delivering offsets
that support and enhance ecological linkages. The proposed works do not impact the connectivity to the north
to the adjacent national park.
Waterways and wetlands
PO6 AO6.1 Complies with PO6
The biodiversity and ecosystem values of Development and clearing of vegetation does not occur
waterways, wetlands and adjacent riparian within: The proposed clearing for the landfill expansion is shown in
zones are protected by: a) a riparian buffer area; the Noosa Council Overlay mapping to be within:
a) avoiding any new development in a b) a wetland area; or
riparian buffer area and wetland area; c) 10 metres either side of the centre line of other • MSES Environmental Values
b) retaining aquatic and terrestrial waterways identified on a Biodiversity, • Area of Biodiversity Significance
habitat in riparian zones; Waterways and Wetlands Overlay Map. Approximately 30m to the north of the clearing there is
c) maintaining and enhancing wildlife AO6.2 mapped:
corridors and connectivity along Development provides for the rehabilitation of land • Waterways
within:
Noosa Landfill & RRC – northern section – Fauna and Flora Assessment – REV4 34
Page 35
Native Foresters
Performance Outcomes Acceptable Outcomes Response
watercourses and drainage lines for a) a riparian buffer area; • MSES Regulated Vegetation – intersecting a
native fauna movement; b) a wetland area; and watercourse
d) avoiding edge effects and damage c) 10 metres either side of the centre line of any
• Riparian Buffer Area
from adjacent land uses; other waterway identified on a Biodiversity,
e) maintaining stream integrity and bank Waterways and Wetlands Overlay Map.
stability by minimising bank erosion Queensland Wetland Program mapping (Wetland Maps)
and slumping; AO6.3 identifies the area as:
f) maintaining water quality through Recreational facilities (e.g. playgrounds, pergolas, • Palustrine Wetland – hydrologically natural, and
filtering sediments, nutrients and barbeques) are setback a minimum of 10 metres from • Coastal and sub-coastal floodplain tree (Melaleuca
other pollutants; and the top of the bank of a waterway. and Eucalypt) swamps
g) removing pest species and replacing
them with local native species.
The clearing is approximately 35m to the south of the
Council’s overlay mapped waterway and 30m south of the
mapped riparian buffer.
The clearing does not occur in a riparian buffer area or 10
metres either side of the centre line of a waterway.
However, the clearing does result in clearing a wetland area
– up to 1.02ha. This wetland is degraded due to the
infestation of Singapore Daisy accounting for over 50% of the
groundlayer species.
It is proposed to mitigate this loss of wetland area to:
• Undertake weed management in the retained
vegetation in accordance with a Weed Management
Plan to ensure edge effects and on-site values are
improved for the retained wetland areas, vegetation
and waterways on site.
• Rehabiltation of 1.8ha land which includes a wetland
area with a constructed riparian drainage line.
PO7 No acceptable outcome provided. N/A
Vegetation within 400 metres of the full
ponded water within Lake
Macdonald is retained.
Noosa Landfill & RRC – northern section – Fauna and Flora Assessment – REV4 35
Page 36
Native Foresters
Performance Outcomes Acceptable Outcomes Response
PO8 AO8.1 N/A
Development on land adjacent to a waterway or Development adjacent to a waterway or wetland
wetland maintains appropriate extent of public provides that: There is currently no public access to the waterway to the north
access to waterways and wetlands and a) no new lots directly back onto a riparian buffer of the proposed clearing.
minimises edge effects. area; and
b) new public roads are located between a
riparian buffer area or riparian zone and the
proposed development area.
Surface and ground water hydrology
PO9 AO9.1 Does not comply with PO9
Development ensures that the natural surface Development does not impact on the natural surface
water and ground water hydrologic regimes of water or groundwater hydrologic regimes and this is The native vegetation directly north of the clearing (in adjacent
waterways, wetlands and facilitated by: retained vegetation) is not mapped as a groundwater
hydrologically-sensitive plant communities are a) avoiding or minimising channelization,
not adversely impacted. redirection or interruption of flow;
dependent ecosystem (GDE) on QLD Globe. It is noted that
b) avoiding groundwater extraction; that A GDE occurs approximately 600 metres north of the site.
c) maintaining groundwater recharge and
discharge processes; The works have been designed to ensure surface flows are
d) maintaining natural groundwater fluctuations; safely conveyed across the site without causing erosion on the
e) avoiding causing ingress of saline water into site. The works will also be undertaken in accordance with a
freshwater aquifers of wetlands; and CEMP to protect water quality values on site.
f) avoiding contaminants entering groundwater
(e.g. from runoff, effluent disposal). There is no proposed groundwater extraction for the works.
The landfill site currently uses a HES basin and a bioretention
basin to treat surface waters on site prior to entering adjacent
ecosystems. The proposed works include a larger upgraded
HES Basin with the intention of improving water quality of
stormwater entering adjacent retained vegetation.
The proposed works will ensure that the existing overland flow
catchments are not re-directed away from current flowpaths.
All adjacent vegetation and soil may be affected by the
groundwater drainage system outflow. Areas that provide the
receiving environment for groundwater flows
(RE12.5.3/12.5.4/12.3.13) may become wetter over time with
resulting impacts on community structure i.e. the understorey
Noosa Landfill & RRC – northern section – Fauna and Flora Assessment – REV4 36
Page 37
Native Foresters
Performance Outcomes Acceptable Outcomes Response
may become more dense (shrubs and sedges) and
composition i.e. more Melaleucas.
Increased/intermittent surface water/ stormwater inputs to the
north of the works impact area and the closed heathland /
wetland Land Zone 3 ecosystems that occur there, are likely
to lead to:
o Changes in water quality north of the works
impact area (i.e. increase in pH, increase in
nutrient concentrations);
o Changes to soil chemistry (i.e. altering soil pH
levels to a less acidic state);
o Changes in vegetation community structure
favouring denser understorey of sedges and
ferns.
o Intensification and further spread of existing weed
outbreaks which will need to be managed through
active and ongoing weed control operations.
By managing the site to ensure water quality from landfill runoff
is treated and meets the current SPP (Water) guidelines, the
proposed works should avoid contaminants entering
waterways including groundwater.
Rehabilitation of ecologically important areas
PO10 AO10.1 Complies with PO10
Development provides for ecologically Landscaping and rehabilitation complements and
important areas to be restored and enhanced supports ecologically important areas by: The works will include implementation of a Weed
through: a) utilising local native species; Management Plan for Singapore Daisy and other weed
a) designing landscaped areas to b) utilising suitable plant species identified in
complement and enhance existing PSP2 Landscaping;
species in the retained vegetation to enhance the habitat
vegetation and ecological linkages; c) restoring degraded ecosystems to achieve a value of this vegetation on the edge of the landfill.
b) removing species likely to displace functional ecosystem state that requires
native flora species or degrade fauna minimal human intervention; During works any suitable coarse woody debris, or hollows
habitat; d) replicating adjacent remnant habitats of the found during clearing will be relocated into the adjacent
c) replanting and rehabilitating degraded same type, including the understorey retained vegetation to the north, to provide habitat features in
habitat; vegetation; this area.
d) replacing any vegetation removed e) creating or enhancing linkages between
with suitable local native species; existing habitats;
e) providing for fauna habitat; and
Noosa Landfill & RRC – northern section – Fauna and Flora Assessment – REV4 37
Page 38
Native Foresters
Performance Outcomes Acceptable Outcomes Response
f) avoiding the planting of pest plant f) avoiding the use of pest plant species listed in
species. PSP2 Landscaping; The area selected for Offset works is within the Landfill facility
g) planting riparian zones to filter stormwater
in the south-eastern sector of the site. The pre clear RE
run-off, stabilise soil and provide for wildlife
habitat; and Mapping for the site indicates that the proposed Offset area
h) providing ground and arboreal structures for contained the mapped Regional Ecosystems 12.3.13 and
fauna, which may include ground depressions, 12.5.3. This is the same as the ecosystem been cleared and
rocks, hollows, nesting boxes and in-stream is therefore considered to provide a suitable area to provide a
habitat.
like for like Offset planting.
AO10.2
Vegetation cleared is replaced with:
a) plantings of equivalent area that replicate the
floristic structure of the vegetation removed; or
b) where this is not possible due to the
characteristics of the site and the
development, plantings twice the number of
the removed trees and plants.
Koala habitat protection and enhancement
PO11 AO11.1 Complies with PO11
Development is designed, constructed and Development design complies with the Koala-sensitive
operated to— Design Guideline: A guide to koala sensitive design The proposed works will require clearing of 1.02 ha of koala
a) protect and enhance koalas and measures for planning and development activities. habitat.
koala habitat and avoid adverse
impacts; AO11.2
b) provide measures to assist the It is proposed to provide the following measures to reduce
Development incorporates revegetation and landscaping impacts and risks to koalas as a result of these works;
survival of koala populations in the that provides food, shelter and movement opportunities
area to mitigate any potential threats for koalas. • Offset plan to include a 3:1 offset of koala trees
or risk to koalas; and • Weed management of the site
c) provide for safe and appropriate AO11.3 • Erecting a fauna, dust and rubbish exclusion fence
koala movement across the Development is designed to maximise and enhance around the edge of the landfill to reduce impacts to
landscape. connectivity between koala habitat trees and ensure safe adjacent vegetation and excluding access to the
koala movement. landfill areas for koalas and other fauna.
• A koala spotter catcher required during clearing works
AO11.4 to relocate koalas and other native fauna.
During construction, measures are incorporated to not • Clearing works to be undertaken in a sequential
increase the risk of death or injury to koalas, by including
safe koala movement measures, as defined in the
manner from cleared edges towards retained
Planning Regulation 2017. vegetation to allow fauna to escape
Noosa Landfill & RRC – northern section – Fauna and Flora Assessment – REV4 38
Page 39
Native Foresters
Performance Outcomes Acceptable Outcomes Response
• Works to be in accordance with a CEMP detailing
clearing works methodology to reduce impacts on
native fauna.
• Council to manage the site during landfill operations to
ensure regular inspections of protective measures are
working in accordance with design.
Bushfire management
PO12 Complies with PO12
Bushfire management measures are adopted No acceptable outcome provided.
based on ecological principles, which: The site is mapped as Medium Potential Bushfire Intensity and
a) maintain and enhance biodiversity;
Potential Impact Buffer areas, with adjacent vegetation also
b) minimise threat of fire to the natural
environment, as well as life and
being Medium to High potential bushfire intensity.
property; and
c) provide for effective use and Council will continue to manage the landfill to reduce bushfire
maintenance of buildings and potential on the landfill site, by:
structures. • Maintaining clear access ways around the edge of the
landfill and through the landfill for Fire Vehicles,
• Maintaining water supply for firefighting purposes,
• Manage green waste area to ensure flammability is
limited,
• Manage weeds in retained vegetation in accordance
with the Weed Management Plan to ensure fuel loads
are maintained in the adjacent protected areas.
The adjacent retained vegetation on Lot 77, which is not
dedicated conservation area, will continue to be managed in
accordance with Council’s bushfire management of this site.
There are bushfire access roads on site.
Scenic amenity
PO13 AO13.1 Complies with PO13
The scenic amenity and vegetated character of Vegetation is retained:
the landscape is protected by retaining a) on and within 30 metres of prominent The proposed clearing does not significantly change the
vegetation: ridgelines and on sloping sites; scenic amenity of the site.
a) along and around watercourses and b) in gullies;
drainage lines; c) along watercourses and drainage lines;
b) on steep slopes and ridgelines; d) within 10 metres of the major road network;
c) along the major road network; and and
Noosa Landfill & RRC – northern section – Fauna and Flora Assessment – REV4 39
Page 40
Native Foresters
Performance Outcomes Acceptable Outcomes Response
d) that forms coastal vistas to and from e) along the front coastal dune system. The clearing area is not visible from adjacent road ways and
beaches. as it is within an existing landfill site, it is unlikely to change the
amenity.
The adjacent large area of vegetation retains the scenic
amenity values of the site.
The proposed Offset Planting will act to visually buffer the
landfill to the south of the site.
Noosa Landfill & RRC – northern section – Fauna and Flora Assessment – REV4 40
Page 41
Native Foresters
5.2 State Government Supported Infrastructure – Koala Conservation
Policy – 2023
This report has determined that the following points are relevant to the Landfill expansion site:
• Within mapped Koala Priority Area
• Within mapped Locally refined Koala Habitat Area
• Defined as “infrastructure” as per Schedule 5 of the Planning Regulation 2017
• Council is a Queensland public sector entity and must deliver on the requirements of
Column 1 of Table 1 in the policy.
• If the works do not meet an exemption or transitional provision in Column 2, then the
project requires a self-assessment of the proposed works against the Self-Assessment
Criteria in Column 3 of Table 1, and if relevant, Table 2.
As a result an assessment to determine if the works can occur in accordance with Column 1,
whether there is exemption for the works, and if not a self-assessment against Column 3 has
been undertaken in Tables 6 and 7.
Noosa Landfill & RRC – northern section – Fauna and Flora Assessment – REV4 41
Page 42
Native Foresters
TABLE 6: Infrastructure Requirements and Self-Assessment Criteria – Noosa Landfill Expansion Project Responses
Column 1: Column 2: Column 3:
Requirements that apply to all RESPONSE Government Supported Infrastructure RESPONSE Self-Assessment Criteria SELF –
Government Supported development in a KHA that is exempt ASSESSMENT
Infrastructure development in SEQ from the Self-Assessment Criteria of RESPONSE
Column
1. Where possible, development Complies 1. Development in a State Development N/A Development in an area that is See Table 2
avoids fragmenting KHA within the The clearing is on the Area. both a KPA and a KHA assessment
land to which the development edge of retained 1. Where interfering with koala below.
applies. vegetation and cleared habitat, occurs, public sector
areas. entities, in addition to any relevant
criteria of Column 1, must also
self-assess against the
requirements in Table 2.
2. Where possible, development does Complies 2. Development for a Coordinated N/A Development in an area that is a N/A
not impede or restrict the The vegetation is an Project. KHA outside a KPA
movement of koalas within the land area 1.02ha which is 2. Where interfering with koala
to which the development applies “jutting” into the landfill habitat is unavoidable,
and provides safe koala movement site; and currently does development in a KHA, in addition
measures between highly not provide a corridor to any relevant criteria of Column
connected patches of retained or link from the 1, must:
KHA. remaining vegetation a. minimise interfering with
on site (to the east of koala habitat; and
the landfill) to another
patch of vegetation.
3. Clearing of koala habitat trees must Complies 3. Development in a declared Priority N/A b. where possible, mitigate any N/A
be carried out in a way that Council will clear from Development Area or a declared impacts that interfere with
complies with sequential clearing the landfill towards the Provisional Priority Development Area. koala habitat values; and
conditions. retained vegetation.
4. Development must ensure that: Complies 4. Development that involves interfering with N/A c. where interfering with koala N/A
a. measures are taken in A Wildlife Spotter koala habitat to: Proposed habitat results in a
construction practices to not Catcher experienced in a. a total area of 500m2 or less; or clearing is significant residual impact,
increase the risk of death or koala spotting and b. a total of 12 non juvenile koala 1.02ha deliver an offset:
injury to koalas; and relocating, will be habitat trees or less on the land to i. in accordance with
b. native vegetation in an area required during all which the development applies. the requirements of
identified by a proponent to be clearing works. the current
retained as a safe koala Works will also be Queensland
movement measure is undertaken in Environmental Offsets
progressively restored if it must accordance with a Policy or
be impacted during site CEMP.
operations.
N/A
Noosa Landfill & RRC – northern section – Fauna and Flora Assessment – REV4 42
Page 43
Native Foresters
Column 1: Column 2: Column 3:
Requirements that apply to all RESPONSE Government Supported Infrastructure RESPONSE Self-Assessment Criteria SELF –
Government Supported development in a KHA that is exempt ASSESSMENT
Infrastructure development in SEQ from the Self-Assessment Criteria of RESPONSE
Column
5. Where appropriate in the N/A 5. Development that involves interfering with N/A ii. where the public N/A
context of the landscape, koala habitat where the development is for sector entity has a
landscaping activities provide necessary fire management. pre-existing offset, the
food, shelter and movement offset must be
opportunities for koalas delivered in in
consistent with the site design. accordance with the
requirements of the
current Queensland
Environmental Offsets
Policy with the
exception of the offset
site location
preferences; or
iii. as an alternate N/A
compensatory action,
where the
development is for
transport
infrastructure, and if
the alternate
compensatory action
will achieve a
conservation outcome
equal to, or greater
than, the conservation
outcome that would
otherwise be
achieved through the
delivery of a land-
based offset under
the current
Queensland
Environmental Offsets
Policy
6. Development that involves interfering with N/A 3. Clearing of koala habitat trees in a Complies
koala habitat to remove or reduce a KHA are undertaken under the Council will
foreseeable, imminent or ongoing: guidance of a koala spotter where undertake
clearing in
Noosa Landfill & RRC – northern section – Fauna and Flora Assessment – REV4 43
Page 44
Native Foresters
Column 1: Column 2: Column 3:
Requirements that apply to all RESPONSE Government Supported Infrastructure RESPONSE Self-Assessment Criteria SELF –
Government Supported development in a KHA that is exempt ASSESSMENT
Infrastructure development in SEQ from the Self-Assessment Criteria of RESPONSE
Column
a. risk of serious personal injury; or koala habitat trees have a trunk of accordance
b. risk of damage to Government a diameter of more than 10cm at with a CEMP
Infrastructure or private property; or c. 1.3m above the ground. and a Wildlife
risk to public safety. Spotter
Catcher will be
present during
all clearing.
7. Interfering with koala habitat where it is N/A
necessary to undertake maintenance work New landfill
or repair work on Government area
Infrastructure. proposed.
8. Interfering with koala habitat where it is N/A
necessary to undertake retrofit work on
existing transport infrastructure to install
koala mitigation or management
structures.
Commonwealth EPBC Act obligations N/A
9. Development that involves interfering with
koala habitat where the development is
identified as having, or is likely to have, a
significant impact on a matter of national
environmental significance and is
subsequently determined as a controlled
action by the Commonwealth Government
under the Environmental Protection and
Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999,
provided the assessment decision
requires that a koala offset be delivered
10. Development that: N/A
a. was assessed against the
requirements of the previous policy It is noted
and the development has that the
commenced; or application
b. is submitted for approval or to Council
received an approval to proceed was
and funding approval for the withdrawn
development, issued by the and has
Noosa Landfill & RRC – northern section – Fauna and Flora Assessment – REV4 44
Page 45
Native Foresters
Column 1: Column 2: Column 3:
Requirements that apply to all RESPONSE Government Supported Infrastructure RESPONSE Self-Assessment Criteria SELF –
Government Supported development in a KHA that is exempt ASSESSMENT
Infrastructure development in SEQ from the Self-Assessment Criteria of RESPONSE
Column
Queensland Cabinet Budget been
Review Committee or other project- resubmitted,
specific governing body, relevant but SARA
Minister or Federal Government has
including being listed on Qld previously
Transport Roads Implementation approved
Program, within 12 months of the the works.
commencement of this policy; or
c. received a development approval,
issued prior to the commencement
of this policy, as a result of a
development assessment process
under the Planning Act 2016 or
other relevant Act.
TABLE 7: Self-Assessment Criteria where interfering with koala habitat in an area that is both a KPA and a KHA, is
unavoidable
Public Sector Entities must: RESPONSE
1. Minimise interfering with koala habitat The proposed clearing is required to extend the landfill facility in accordance with the Noosa Council Master Plan for
the Noosaville Waste Management Facility. Lot 77 SP298776 is 322.13 hectares in total and the landfill use currently
has an approximate area of 49 hectares (i.e. 15% of Lot 77). The site contains approximately:
• 235 hectares of Core KHA, and
• 31 hectares of Locally refined KHA.
The works will result in impacting:
• 0.21 hectares of Core KHA, and
• 0.81 hectares of Locally refined KHA.
• A total of 1.02 hectares of mapped KHA (which equates to impacting approximately 0.4% of the mapped KHA within Lot 77).
2. To the best extent possible mitigate any impacts that As detailed in Table 2 and Section 4 of Impact Assessment Report for MNES & MSES by Native Foresters dated 10th
interfering with koala habitat has on koala values. December 2023 (Doc. No.: 220716-MNES/MSES- Rev 3) there are a number of mitigation actions proposed to reduce
impacts to koala habitat, as summarized below:
• Fauna spotter catcher to undertake pre-clearance survey.
• Clearing supervised by a Fauna spotter catcher
• Clearing to be sequential as outlined in NCA 1992 requirements.
• Clearing area to be delineated prior to work and no entry to adjacent protected vegetation by personnel or machinery is allowed
during works.
Noosa Landfill & RRC – northern section – Fauna and Flora Assessment – REV4 45
Page 46
Native Foresters
• If possible, works will occur outside breeding season.
• Machinery hygiene protocol enforced during works to reduce potential to spread weeds.
• Weed management plan within retained vegetation to ensure Singapore daisy infestation is controlled, as well as other RIP’s.
3. Ensure that, where interfering with koala habitat results in a
significant residual impact, and offset if delivered:
a. at a multiplier of 6 (unless the offsets calculator It is proposed to establish a total rehabilitation area of 1.8 hectares to mitigate impacts to Koala habitat. The
is a greater amount) and otherwise in rehabilitation will involve:
accordance with the requirements of the • A dedicated Koala Tree Offset planting for Lot 77 which will nominate an offset in suitable habitat which is larger than the koala
Queensland Environmental Offsets Policy at the habitat to be cleared of 1.02ha. The rehabilitation area is to be designed to improve and or create vegetated Koala movement
time of the project approval; or corridors and provide for the offset of koala trees.
• Within the Koala rehabilitation works a minimum of 0.21ha of designated revegetation aimed to achieve RE 12.5.3 (Eucalyptus
racemosa subsp. racemosa woodland on remnant Tertiary surfaces (DES, 2022), to mitigate the impacts to Endangered RE.
As a significant residual impact is not relevant for this proposed clearing, the requirement for a 6 to 1 offset is not
necessary. Council is proposing a 1.8 ha Offset for the 1.02 ha of area been cleared.
b. at a multiplier of 6 (unless the offsets calculator “as above”
is a greater amount) and otherwise in
accordance with the requirements of the
Queensland Environmental Offsets Policy at the
time of the project approval, except for the offset
site location preferences if the public sector
entity has a pre-existing offset; or
c. as an alternate compensatory action, where the N/A
development is for Transport Infrastructure, and
the alternate compensatory action includes:
i. the design, prior to the
commencement of impacts, of a
Koala Management Plan that:
a) demonstrates that the alternate N/A
compensatory action will deliver
a conservation outcome equal
to, or greater than, would
otherwise be achieved through
the delivery of a land-based
offset in 3 (a) or (b) above; and
b) demonstrates that the alternate N/A
compensatory action is based
Noosa Landfill & RRC – northern section – Fauna and Flora Assessment – REV4 46
Page 47
Native Foresters
on proven scientific methods
and contemporary data; and
c) involves an assessment of the N/A
number of koalas at risk from
the development;
d) demonstrates how individual N/A
koala welfare will be managed,
i.e. how will koalas be
protected during the
development.
4. Ensure clearing of koala habitat trees in a KHA are Complies
undertaken under the guidance of a koala spotter where Council will undertake clearing in accordance with a CEMP and a Wildlife Spotter Catcher will be present during all
koala habitat trees have a trunk of a diameter of more than clearing.
10cm at 1.3m above the ground.
Noosa Landfill & RRC – northern section – Fauna and Flora Assessment – REV4 47
Page 48
Native Foresters
5.3 Proposed Offset Plan
Council is proposing a Rehabilitation Offset Plan in accordance with the Environmental Offsets
Act 2014. Council will need to enter into an agreed delivery arrangement to deliver this
environmental offset. The Council proposed offset area is shown in Figure 11.
Generally the plan will include:
• Establishment of an offset area to offset impacts to RE12.3.13 and 12.5.3
• Ensure species selection is determined to re-establish RE12.3.13 and 12.5.3.
• Establish an offset for the loss of koala habitat trees at a ratio of 3:1.
• Ensure koala habitat trees are used in offset planting works to achieve replacement of
loss of koala habitat trees at a ratio of 3:1.
• To remove environmental weeds and restricted invasive plants (RIP) as listed in the
Biosecurity Regulation 2016.
FIGURE 11: Proposed Offset Area
Noosa Landfill & RRC – northern section – Fauna and Flora Assessment – REV4 48
Page 49
Native Foresters
6.0 SUMMARY
• The vegetation within the survey area consists of a Melaleuca wetland occurring across
two land zones (Coastal alluvium in the centre and remnant Tertiary surfaces and
Cainozoic and Mesozoic sediments on the outer edges).
• The vegetation is mapped as remnant ‘Least Concern’ RE 12.3.13 - Closed heathland on
seasonally waterlogged alluvial plains usually near the coast, and ‘Endangered’ RE
12.5.3- Scribbly gum woodland on remnant Tertiary surfaces.
• Ground-truthing of the RE mapping suggests that in the absence of fire, the central core
is transitioning from a palustrine heath to a palustrine wetland (Least concern RE12.3.5 –
Paperbark tea tree open forest on coastal alluvium), as evidenced by a well-established
canopy of Paperbark tea tree.
• The Land Zone 5 ecosystem on the edges of the patch also has a well-established canopy
of Paperbark tea tree, with no Scribbly gums present, and is likely to represent the lower
slopes of the remnant Scribbly gum woodland which would have historically covered the
area to the south.
• A total of 43 local native flora species and 23 introduced flora species were recorded
during the survey, including four species listed as Restricted Invasive Plants under the
Biosecurity Act 2014.
• No EVNT flora species were recorded within the survey site or adjoining 100m buffer zone.
• No evidence of EPBC listed Ecological Communities was found onsite.
• The survey area provides suitable habitat for a range of native fauna, including but not
limited to thirteen bird species, two reptile species, five amphibian species and one
terrestrial mammal, possibly a Bandicoot or Bush rat.
• One EVNT-listed fauna species, Swamp crayfish (Tenuibranchiurus glypticus) – listed as
Endangered - was identified in the ponded water on site after large rain events.
• Proposed works will result in the loss of approximately 1.02 hectares of mapped remnant
vegetation in which Melaleuca and Eucalyptus spp are dominant. The clearing area is
considered to be in a degraded condition associated with inputs of stormwater from the
landfill and the associated presence of the habit changing groundcover species;
Singapore Daisy which is a restricted invasive plant.
• A large infestation of Singapore Daisy is occurring at the northern end of the site extending
approximately 80 metres north into remnant heathland. Other restricted invasive plants,
e.g. Lantana, Camphor laurel and Groundsel also occur.
• There is evidence of clearing for access tracks in historical aerial imagery. This has
resulted in significant variation in condition throughout the survey area and has left canopy
openings that have now been colonised by introduced grasses and weeds e.g. Lantana.
• The site lies in a Koala Priority Area and a Koala Habitat Area (locally refined). However
as the proposed clearing is for landfill infrastructure conducted by a local council, it is
considered ‘exempted development’ under the Planning Regulation 2017. It is also noted
that works are subject to the State Government Supported Infrastructure – Koala
Conservation Policy – 2023.
• No evidence of Koala habitat utilisation was found, however four WildNET records and
other historical records within the surrounding 1km radius suggest the possibility of a local
population. Koala food and habitat trees (Eucalyptus robusta and Melaleuca
quinquenervia) are present and it is considered possible that the forested areas may be
used by a local Koala population as they disperse from suitable bushland occurring to the
west (across Eumundi Noosa Road), north (through existing bushland), east (Weyba
Nature Refuge) and south (Noosa National Park) or as a dry season refugia.
Noosa Landfill & RRC – northern section – Fauna and Flora Assessment – REV4 49
Page 50
Native Foresters
7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
To minimise any potential adverse impacts on native flora and fauna species and their breeding
habitats within the survey area, the following recommendations are made:
1. A Residual Impact Assessment for the Matters of State Environmental Significance that are
known to occur on site i.e Regulated Vegetation and Protected Species has been undertaken
which determined that an offset will be required for residual impacts to MSES that cannot be
avoided or mitigated.
2. An approved Species Management Plan has been prepared in order to mitigate potential
impacts on Endangered Swamp crayfish and their breeding habitat within the survey area.
3. An Operational Works for Clearing Native Vegetation application may need to be submitted
under the Planning Act 2016.
4. As the proposed clearing is in a Protected Plants High Risk area, an Exempt Clearing
Notification (protected plants) will need to be submitted, in accordance with 261z of the
Nature Conservation (Wildlife Management) Regulation 2006. This report includes a flora
survey as per the Flora Survey Guidelines and can be submitted with the notification provided
it is lodged to the state within 12 months of the survey being undertaken.
5. A Fauna Spotter catcher should be engaged during clearing and excavation works to relocate
any native fauna found to undisturbed habitat nearby.
6. Disturbance to retained remnant vegetation and tree root protection zones of large retained
habitat trees (trees with dbh>300mm) that occur next to the clearing area should be avoided.
7. Whilst the likelihood of encountering a Koala during works is considered low, due
consideration should be given to the potential presence of Koalas in surrounding bushland
habitat.
8. Care should be taken to avoid introduction and further spread of undesirable habitat-changing
weeds during works through machinery inspections and hygiene protocols and
removal/disposal of all spoil contaminated with Singapore daisy fragments.
9. Control and eradication of Singapore daisy should be considered a priority where it has
colonised drainage lines and where it has encroached into adjacent remnant ecosystems as
part of Council’s General Biosecurity obligation under the Biosecurity Act 2014.
10. Control of Lantana, Groundsel, Camphor Laurel and Morning Glory should also be
incorporated into works as part of the General Biosecurity Obligation. Frog-friendly herbicides
should be used in proximity to wetlands.
11. Implementation of sediment control measures to minimise the potential for overland erosion
and adverse effects on downstream water quality will be required.
12. Appropriate litter control measures such as a litter barrier or fence or regular clean ups should
be implemented to ensure no dispersal of litter into the adjacent retained remnant vegetation.
13. Felled trees should be retained and dispersed throughout adjacent remnant and regrowth
areas where appropriate to reinstate coarse woody debris or donated to community
revegetation projects to augment habitat value for reptiles and small mammals.
14. A detailed Offset Delivery Plan should be developed in accordance with the Environmental
Offsets Act 2014 which details species composition, planting and maintenance program for
the Offset area. Appropriate monitoring and reporting for the Offset area should be included
as part of this plan.
Noosa Landfill & RRC – northern section – Fauna and Flora Assessment – REV4 50
Page 51
Native Foresters REFERENCES Eyre TJ, Ferguson DJ, Hourigan CL, Smith GC, Mathieson MT, Kelly, AL, Venz MF, Hogan, LD and Rowland, J. (2014), Terrestrial Vertebrate Fauna Survey Assessment Guidelines for Queensland. Department of Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts, Queensland Government, Brisbane. Frogs Australia Network (2017), Australian Frogs Database. www.frogsaustralia.net.au Heavey, J. and MacDonald, S. (2013), Weeds of The Sunshine Coast. Noosa Integrated Catchment Association Inc. Leiper, G., Glazebrook, J., Cox, D. and Rathie, K. (2009), Mangroves to Mountains. A Field Guide to the Plants of South East Queensland. Revised Edition. Society for Growing Australian Plants – QLD Region. Meyer E, Hines H and Hero J-M (2001), Wet forest frogs of south-east Queensland, Griffith University, Nathan. Native Foresters (2019), Noosa Landfill Expansion- flora and fauna survey and assessment of impacts on adjacent ecosystems, Document No:190707-FF-Revision 2. Neldner, V.J., Wilson, B.A., Dillewaard, H.A., Ryan, T.S., Butler, D.W., McDonald, W.J.F, Addicott, E.P. and Appelman, C.N. (2019), Methodology for survey and mapping of regional ecosystems and vegetation communities in Queensland. Version 5.0. Updated March 2019. Queensland Herbarium, Queensland Department of Environment and Science, Brisbane. Parkes, D., Newell, G. and Cheal, D. (2003), Assessing the quality of native vegetation: The ‘habitat hectares’ approach. Ecological Management and Restoration 4: S29–S38. doi: 10.1046/j.1442-8903.4.s.4.x Queensland Government, Department of Environment and Science (2019), Flora Survey Guidelines – Protected Plants. Nature Conservation Act 1992. Prepared by Wildlife and Threatened Species Operations, Version 2.01. Queensland Government, Department of Environment and Science (2019), BioCondition benchmark for regional ecosystem condition assessment, Queensland Herbarium, Brisbane, https://www.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0026/67382/seq-benchmarks.pdf Queensland Government (2006), Nature Conservation (Wildlife Management) Regulation 2006. Queensland Government (2020), Nature Conservation and Other Legislation (Koala Protection) Amendment Regulation. Queensland Herbarium (2016), Regional Ecosystem Description Database (REDD) Version 10.0 (December 2016) (DSITI: Brisbane). Noosa Landfill & RRC – northern section – Fauna and Flora Assessment – REV4 51
Page 52
Native Foresters APPENDIX A – NOOSA LANDFILL MASTERPLAN Noosa Landfill & RRC – northern section – Fauna and Flora Assessment – REV4 52
Page 53
Native Foresters
APPENDIX B – DATABASE AND MAP SEARCHES USED FOR
DESKTOP REVIEW OF SITE ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES
DATABASE / MAP SOURCE DESCRIPTION
PRODUCT
Regulated Vegetation DR, 2022 Regulated Vegetation mapping shows vegetation categories that
Management Map determine clearing requirements as gazetted under the Qld Vegetation
Management Act 1999. The Regulated Vegetation Supporting map
provides information on regional ecosystems, wetlands, watercourses,
and essential habitat and factors.
Protected Plants Flora DES, 2022 This tool identifies whether a proposed clearing area lies within a high
Survey Trigger Map) risk area that may contain EVNT plant species. It is used to determine
when a flora survey needs to meet the requirements of the Queensland
Flora Survey Guidelines – Protected Plants (NCA, 1992).
Essential Habitat Map DR, 2022 Essential Habitat is a vegetation ecotype that is considered by DES to
form potential habitat for an EVNT species that is listed under the Nature
Conservation Regulations (2020). Essential Habitat mapping is
provided in conjunction with Regulated Vegetation Management
mapping as gazetted under the VMA (1999).
WildNET Database DES/DSITIA, Wildlife sightings and listings for all flora and fauna species within a
2022 designated area.
EPBC Protected Matters DoE, 2022 This tool generates a report that indicates whether matters of national
Search Tool environmental significance or other matters protected by
the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act
1999 that are likely to occur in your area of interest – Indicative only.
Map of Referable DES, 2022 A statewide regulatory map under the Environmental Protection
Wetlands Regulation 2008 which identifies wetlands of high ecological
significance (HES) and general ecological significance (GES). HES
wetlands are considered MSES under the Planning and Environmental
Offsets legislation.
Nature Conservation Qld These maps identify Koala Habitat Areas (core and locally refined) and
(Koala) Conservation Government, Koala Priority Areas that contain Koala habitat which is essential for the
Plan 2017 and maps 2022 conservation of a viable population in the wild in South East Queensland
Queensland Waterways Development This spatial data layer guides the determination of whether operational
for Waterway Barrier Assessment work that is constructing or raising waterway barrier works i.e. works
Works spatial data layer Mapping that may inhibit the free movement of fish along waterways and onto
and guideline System, floodplains, complies with the accepted development requirements or is
DSDMIP 2022 assessable development requiring a development approval under the
Planning Act 2016.
Matters of State DES, 2022 This report identifies MSES as referenced in the biodiversity state
Environmental interest under the State Planning Policy (SPP). MSES encompass
Significance (MSES) environmental values protected under Queensland legislation
Noosa Landfill & RRC – northern section – Fauna and Flora Assessment – REV4 53
Page 54
Native Foresters
APPENDIX C: CERTIFICATION OF SUITABLY QUALIFIED
PERSON FOR FLORA SURVEY
Native Foresters flora surveys are undertaken by competent and trained personnel led by Vanessa
Moscato.
Vanessa Moscato (BSc) also undertakes flora surveys as part of the Native Foresters flora survey team.
Vanessa has been undertaking flora surveys, including EVNT species surveys for twelve years, including:
▪ Flora and Fauna Assessment - Petrie Creek Bank Stabilisation (2017)
▪ Plot survey of Pararistolochia praevenosa - Nambour Landfill Expansion (2015-2017)
▪ Flora Assessment - Maleny Southern Wetlands (2016)
▪ Flora Assessment - Jimna Bellthorpe Road bridge, West Kilcoy (2016)
▪ Population survey of Symplocos harroldii at Daintree Estate, Tewantin (2014)
The following statement is provided in certification of the suitably qualified person who conducted the flora
survey.
I certify that
(a) I have adhered to all statutory requirements and flora survey guideline requirements, and
(b) the flora survey report is an accurate and full account of the flora survey.
I have previously been approved by EHP under the Nambour Landfill Expansion project – Fauna and
Flora Assessment, prepared for Noosa Council.
Name: Vanessa Moscato Signature:
Date: 12/12/2019
Noosa Landfill & RRC – northern section – Fauna and Flora Assessment – REV4 54
Page 55
Native Foresters
APPENDIX D: JUSTIFICATION OF SUITABLY QUALIFIED AND
EXPERIENCED PERSON FOR FAUNA BREEDING PLACE
SURVEY
Native Foresters fauna surveys and breeding habitat assessments are coordinated and led by
Tony Bright.
Tony Bright is a native fauna and flora specialist with over 40 years’ experience in the field. He
has spent ten years as a guide working in the Fraser Island region and 30 years doing field–based
research in Australia and overseas. Tony is a professional wildlife keeper and a licensed Wildlife
spotter catcher (Fauna rehabilitation permit holder) specialising in reptile, mammal and amphibian
species.
Tony Bright is assisted in the field by Vanessa Moscato and Pru McIntyre.
Vanessa is an ecological consultant with:
• Ten years’ experience in conducting surveys for animal breeding places;
• A Science degree; and
• Four years’ experience as a Fauna Spotter-catcher
Pru is an environmental scientist with five years’ experience in conducting habitat restoration,
fauna and flora surveys.
Noosa Landfill & RRC – northern section – Fauna and Flora Assessment – REV4 55
Page 56
Native Foresters APPENDIX E: MSES MAPPING Noosa Landfill & RRC – northern section – Fauna and Flora Assessment – REV4 56
Page 57
Native Foresters MSES - Species Koala habitat area (SEQ) Area of Interest ([} Lot and Pian A Towns Freeways/Highways Secondary roads Major rivers/creeks HR Koala habitat area (core) Koala habitat area (locally refined) LOCALITY DIAGRAM The koala habitat mapping within South East Queensland uses regional ecosystem linework compiled at a scale varying from 1:25,000 to 1:100,000. Linework should be used as a guide ° 140 200 420560 700m only. The positional accuracy of regional ecosystem a data mapped at a scale of 1:100,000 is +/- 100 metres. © The State of Queensland, 2020 This product is projected into GDA 1994 Queensland Albers While every care is taken to ensure the accuracy of this product, the Department of Environment and Science acting ‘on behalf of the State of Queensland makes no representations ‘or warranties about its accuracy, reliability, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose and disclaims all responsibilty ‘and ail liability (including without limitation, liability in negligence) for all expenses, losses, damages (including indirect or onsequential damage) and costs which you might incur as a result of the data being inaccurate or incomplete in any way and for any reason. Due to varying sources of data, spatial locations may not coincide when overtaid The represented layers for SEQ ‘koala habitat area-core’ and koala habitat area- locally refined’ in MSES are sourced directly from the regulatory mapping under the Nature Conservation (Koala) Conservation Pian 2017. Whilst every effort is made to ensure the information remains current, there may be delays between updating versions. Please refer to the original mapping for the most recent version. See https://environment des.qid.gov.aulwildlife/animalsfiving- with/koalas/mapping Noosa Landfill & RRC — northern section — Fauna and Flora Assessment — REV4 57
Page 58
Native Foresters MSES - Regulated Vegetation Area of Interest | Information presented on this product is distributed by the (Lot and Plan LOCALITY DIAGRAM Queensland Government as an information source only. While a Tk every care is taken to ensure the accuracy of this data, the state fowns of Queensland makes no statements, representations or — Freeways/Highways warranties about the accuracy, reliability, completeness or suitability of any information contained in this product. Secondary roads Major rivers/creeks The state of Queensland disclaims all responsibility for information contained in this product and alll liability (including — Regulated vegetation (intersecting a watercourse) without limitation, labiity in negligence) forall expenses, losses Fulani vegatnieti (100m fein wetland) damages and costs you may incur as a result ofthe information being inaccurate or incomplete in any way for any reason. Regulated vegetation (category B - endangered or of concern) [Regulated vegetation (category C - endangered or of concern) Regulated vegetation (category R - GBR riverine) —] Regulated vegetation (essential habitat) 150 300 450 600 750 m © The State of Queensiand, 2020 This product is projected into GDA 1994 Queensland Albers Noosa Landfill & RRC — northern section — Fauna and Flora Assessment — REV4
Page 59
Native Foresters
APPENDIX F: FLORA SPECIES LIST
SCIENTIFIC NAME FAMILY COMMON NAME ABUNDANCE
CANOPY
Acacia melanoxylon Mimosaceae Blackwood Occasional
Eucalyptus robusta Myrtaceae Swamp mahogany Occasional
Eucalyptus pilularis Myrtaceae Blackbutt Rare
Glochidion ferdinandi Phyllanthaceae Cheese tree Common
Lophostemon suaveolens Myrtaceae Swamp box Occasional
Lophostemon confertus Myrtaceae Brushbox Uncommon
Melaleuca quinquenervia Myrtaceae Broad-leaved paperbark Common
MID STRATA
Acacia leiocalyx Mimosaceae Black wattle Occasional
Allocasuarina littoralis Casuarinaceae Black she-oak Common
Alphitonia excelsa Lauraceae Soap tree Common
Archontophoenix
cunninghamiana Arecaceae Piccabeen palm Rare
Banksia robur Proteaceae Swamp banksia Occasional
Ficus coronata Moraceae Creek sandpaper fig Occasional
Guioa semiglauca Sapindaceae Guioa Common
Hakea actites Proteaceae Wallum hakea Uncommon
Homalanthus nutans Euphorbiaceae Bleeding heart Uncommon
Hovea acutifolia Fabaceae Hovea Uncommon
Leptospermum
polygalifolium Myrtaceae Wild may Common
Leucopogon sp. Arecaceae Beard heath Uncommon
Maclura cochinchinensis Moraceae Cockspur thorn Uncommon
Melaleuca pachyphylla Myrtaceae Wallum bottlebrush Common
Melaleuca sieberi Myrtaceae Small-leaved paperbark Common
Melia azedarach Meliaceae White cedar Rare
Parsonsia straminea Apocynaceae Monkey rope Common
Persoonia virgata Sapindaceae Geebung Occasional
Piper hederaceum Piperaceae Pepper vine Occasional
Pultenaea villosa Sapindaceae Hairy bush-pea Uncommon
Baeckea/ Twiggy leaf
Sannantha bidwillii Myrtaceae myrtle Occasional
Symplocos stawellii Symplocaceae White hazelwood Rare
Xanthorrhoea fulva Xanthorrhoeaceae Wallum grasstree Rare
LOWER STRATA
Calochlaena dubia Dicksoniaceae Soft bracken Occasional
Cassytha filiformis Lauraceae Dodder vine Occasional
Cyperus polystachyos Cyperaceae Bunchy sedge Common
Doodia aspera Aspleniaceae Rasp fern Occasional
Noosa Landfill & RRC – northern section – Fauna and Flora Assessment – REV4 59
Page 60
Native Foresters
SCIENTIFIC NAME FAMILY COMMON NAME ABUNDANCE
Entolasia stricta Poaceae Wiry panic grass Common
Gahnia clarkei Cyperaceae Tall aw sedge Occasional
Hardenbergia violacea Fabaceae Hardenbergia Occasional
Imperata cylindrica Cyperaceae Blady grass Common
Juncus usitatus Juncaceae common rush Uncommon
Lindsaea ensifolia Lindsaeaceae Graceful necklace fern
Lygodium microphyllum Schizaeaceae Climbing maidenhair fern Occasional
Ottochloa gracillima Cyperaceae Graceful grass Common
Schoenus brevifolius Cyperaceae Spiky sedge Common
SCIENTIFIC NAME FAMILY COMMON NAME RESTRICTED
NON-NATIVE
Ageratum houstonianum Asteraceae Billygoat weed
Ardisia elliptica Primulaceae Shoebutton ardisia
Axonopus compressus Poaceae Broad-leaved carpet grass
Baccharis halimifolia Asteraceae Groundsel X
Bidens pilosa Asteraceae Cobbler's pegs
Briza minor Poaceae Shivery grass
Calyptocarpus vialis Asteraceae Creeping cinderella weed
Chloris gayana Poaceae Rhodes grass
Cinnamomum camphora Lauraceae Camphor laurel X
Citrus x limon Rutaceae Bush lemon
Conyza bonariensis now
Erigeron bonariensis Asteraceae Flax-leaf fleabane
Hypochaeris radicata Asteraceae False dandelion
Ipomoea indica Convolvulaceae Morning glory X
Lantana camara Verbenaceae Lantana X
Macrotyloma axillare var.
axillare Fabaceae Perennial horse gram
Paspalum mandiocanum Poaceae Broad-leaved paspalum
South African pigeon
Setaria sphacelata Poaceae grass
Sida rhombifolia Malvaceae Paddy’s lucerne
Solanum mauritianum Solanaceae Wild tobacco bush
Solanum nigrum Solanaceae Blackberry nightshade
Sphagneticola trilobata Asteraceae Singapore daisy X
Syagrus romanzoffiana Arecaceae Cocos Palm
Urena lobata Malvaceae Pink burr
Noosa Landfill & RRC – northern section – Fauna and Flora Assessment – REV4 60
Page 61
Native Foresters APPENDIX G: AERIAL IMAGERY 1958, Qld Herbarium 2012, Qld Herbarium Noosa Landfill & RRC – northern section – Fauna and Flora Assessment_REV4 61
Page 62
Native Foresters
1994, QImagery
Noosa Landfill & RRC – northern section – Fauna and Flora Assessment_REV4 62
Page 63
Native Foresters
APPENDIX H: FAUNA SPECIES LIST
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME
Birds
Coturnix ypsilophora Brown Quail
Corvus orru Torresian Crow
Dacelo novaeguineae Laughing Kookaburra
Grallina cyanoleuca Peewee
Lichmera indistincta Brown Honeyeater
Macropygia amboinensis Brown Cuckoo-dove
Malurus lamberti Variegated Fairy Wren
Meliphaga lewinii Lewin’s Honeyeater
Myzomela sanguinolenta Scarlet Honeyeater
Philemon corniculatus Noisy Friar Bird
Rhipidura rufifrons Rufous Fantail
Streptopelia chinensis Spotted Dove
Threskiornis molucca White Ibis
Mammals
Perameles sp or Isodon sp Bandicoot (Digs)
Reptiles
Cryptoblepharus pulcher Elegant Snake Eyed Skink
Lampropholis delicata Garden Skink
Reptiles
Litoria caerulea Green tree frog
Litoria gracilenta Graceful tree frog
Litoria nasuta Striped rocket frog
Limnodynastes peronii Striped marsh frog
Litoria fallax Eastern sedge frog
Rhinella marina* Cane toad
Invertebrates
Cherax depressus Orange-fingered yabby
E
Tenuibranchiurus glypticus Swamp crayfish
KEY E – Endangered * - Introduced
Noosa Landfill & RRC – northern section – Fauna and Flora Assessment_REV4 63