Original source · versioned page text
Attachment 7C - Flora and Fauna Survey Assessment_Noosa Landfill - Revision 3
NOOSA LANDFILL EXPANSION
FLORA AND FAUNA SURVEY AND
ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS ON ADJACENT
ECOSYSTEMS
For Noosa Council
Native Foresters
Natural Resource Management Consultants
Email: [email protected]
Mob: 0407 757 872
Document No: 190707-FF – Revision 3
Date: 3rd February 2021
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 81 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 DERM Scientific Purposes Permit
number WISP 10189211 and DEEDI Animal Ethics Committee number CA 2018/01/1150 – CA
2020/08/1398 and in accordance with the relevant regulations.
STUDY TEAM
Simon McVerry (BASc – NRM) - Project Director and Fieldwork
Tony Bright – Fieldwork – Fauna
Dave Burrows – Fieldwork - Flora
Vanessa Moscato (BSc) – Fieldwork – Flora and Fauna, GIS mapping and Reporting
Ed Meyer (PhD) – Field work and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystem specialist consultant
DOCUMENT CONTROL
Project: Noosa Landfill and Resource Recovery Centre
Document: Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 1
Document No.: 190330-FF
Client: Noosa Council
Project Manager: Rachael Hannah
Revisions: Revision 1 – Dated 07/07/2019
Revision 2 – Dated 29/07/2019
Revision 3 – Dated 3/02/2021
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank Nick Brown and ATC Williams for providing the summary of technical
details for future works on Cells 2.3 and 2.4.
Noosa Landfill & Resource Recovery Centre – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 3 2
Page 3
Native Foresters
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................5
1.1 Scope ..................................................................................................................................5
1.2 Objectives of the report .......................................................................................................5
1.3 Site description ....................................................................................................................6
1.4 Legislative requirements .....................................................................................................7
1.5 Proposed works ...................................................................................................................7
2.0 METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................................11
2.1 Desktop review ..................................................................................................................11
2.2 Field assessment...............................................................................................................11
2.2.1 Flora survey ...............................................................................................................11
2.2.2 Fauna survey .............................................................................................................12
2.2.3 Breeding places and fauna habitat assessment .......................................................13
2.2.4 Surface water - Groundwater interaction...................................................................14
2.2.5 Justification of survey timing and weather conditions ...............................................15
2.2.6 Limitations of this study .............................................................................................16
3.0 RESULTS ..............................................................................................................................18
3.1 Desktop review ..................................................................................................................18
3.1.1 Regulated Vegetation and Regional Ecosystem mapping ........................................18
3.1.2 Essential Habitat designation ....................................................................................18
3.1.3 WildNET search.........................................................................................................20
3.1.4 EPBC Protected Matters ...........................................................................................20
3.1.5 Protected Plants Flora Survey Trigger map ..............................................................20
3.1.6 Koala legislation ........................................................................................................22
3.1.7 Wetlands and Watercourses .....................................................................................23
3.1.8 Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems.......................................................................23
3.1.9 Habitat Suitability Model ............................................................................................24
3.1.10 Matters of State Environmental Significance ............................................................26
3.2 Flora assessment ..............................................................................................................26
3.2.1 Vegetation Community Composition .........................................................................26
3.2.2 Invasive Species ........................................................................................................30
3.2.3 Timed Meander Survey .............................................................................................31
3.3 Fauna assessment ............................................................................................................33
3.4 Assessment of breeding places and fauna habitat quality ................................................38
3.4.1 Proposed Clearing Area ............................................................................................38
3.4.2 Land Zone 3 ecosystems – Wetland areas ...............................................................38
3.4.3 Land Zone 5 ecosystems – Scribbly Gum woodland and Eucalypt forest ................39
3.5 Surface water / Ground water Assessments .....................................................................47
3.5.1 Hydraulic connectivity ................................................................................................47
3.5.2 Induration ...................................................................................................................47
3.5.3 Rainwater infiltration and changes in water quantity .................................................48
3.5.4 Changes in surface water / ground water quality ......................................................49
4.0 ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS ..........................................................................53
4.1 Impacts to flora ..................................................................................................................53
4.2 Impacts to fauna ................................................................................................................55
5.0 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................57
5.1 Flora and vegetation communities ....................................................................................57
5.2 Fauna ................................................................................................................................58
5.3 Summary of Impacts..........................................................................................................59
6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS .........................................................................................................60
6.1 Vegetation clearing ............................................................................................................60
6.2 Surface water ....................................................................................................................60
6.3 Groundwater flow and Groundwater dependent ecosystems ...........................................60
6.4 Fauna ................................................................................................................................61
6.5 Invasive species ................................................................................................................61
Noosa Landfill & Resource Recovery Centre – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 3 3
Page 4
Native Foresters 6.6 Matters of State Environmental Significance ....................................................................61 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................62 APPENDIX A – MAP OF AREA COVERED BY PERMIT A .............................................................64 APPENDIX B – NOOSA LANDFILL LAYOUT PLAN ........................................................................65 APPENDIX C - CURRENT AND PROPOSED SURFACE WATER FLOWS ...................................66 APPENDIX D - GROUNDWATER CONTOUR PLAN .......................................................................67 APPENDIX E – PROPOSED WORKS OVERLAYING RE TYPES ONSITE ....................................68 APPENDIX F - CERTIFICATION OF SUITABLY QUALIFIED PERSON - FLORA ..........................69 APPENDIX G - JUSTIFICATION OF SUITABLY QUALIFIED AND EXPERIENCED PERSON - FAUNA SURVEY...............................................................................................................................70 APPENDIX H – SURFACE WATER / GROUND WATER MONTORING AND FIELD OBSERVATIONS ..............................................................................................................................71 APPENDIX I – FLORA SPECIES LIST .............................................................................................76 APPENDIX J – ENDANGERED RE 12.5.3 GROUND-TRUTHED EXTENT ....................................79 APPENDIX K - FAUNA SPECIES LIST ............................................................................................80 APPENDIX L – LOCATION OF RECENT KOALA ACTIVITY .........................................................82 Figures FIGURE 1: Locality map ..................................................................................................................... 9 FIGURE 2: Survey area map ........................................................................................................... 10 FIGURE 3: Mapped vegetation communities occurring near Noosa Landfill ................................... 19 FIGURE 4: Protected Plants Flora Survey Trigger map .................................................................. 21 FIGURE 5: Wallum Frog Habitat Suitability Model ........................................................................... 25 FIGURE 6: Scribbly Gum woodland with Paperbark tea tree on lower slopes - RE12.5.3 .............. 27 FIGURE 7: Eucalypt and Melaleuca woodland - RE12.5.4 .............................................................. 28 FIGURE 8: Melaleuca quinquenervia open forest on alluvium - RE12.3.5 ..................................... 29 FIGURE 9: Closed, wet heath - RE12.3.13 ...................................................................................... 30 FIGURE 10: Singapore Daisy invading Melaleuca woodland from eastern edge of landfill. ........... 32 FIGURE 11: Singapore Daisy invading Scribbly Gum woodland north-east of borehole clearing .. 32 FIGURE 12: Fauna identified in survey area ................................................................................... 35 FIGURE 13: Wallum Froglet - Vulnerable ........................................................................................ 36 FIGURE 14: Swamp Crayfish - Endangered .................................................................................... 36 FIGURE 15: Location of EVNT fauna species and habitats ............................................................ 37 FIGURE 16: Breeding places and evidence of fauna habitation ...................................................... 46 FIGURE 17: Ponded water in high value wet heath - low pH and tannin stained ............................ 49 FIGURE 18: Drainage line on eastern boundary of landfill .............................................................. 50 FIGURE 19: Ponded water in central drainage line – red brown colour indicative of iron enrichment .......................................................................................................................................................... 50 FIGURE 20: Southern stormwater outflow - surface runoff with green algae indicative of nutrient enrichment ........................................................................................................................................ 51 FIGURE 21: Location of existing impacts ........................................................................................ 52 Tables TABLE 1: Water quality assessment methods ………………………………………………………….15 TABLE 2: Weather conditions during field surveys …………………………………………………….15 TABLE 3: Monthly rainfall totals at Eumundi from November 2018 to April 2019 …………………..16 TABLE 4: Regional ecosystems mapped over survey site …………………………………………….18 TABLE 5: Listed species identified by desktop research (RVMM, WildNET, EPBC PMST) as ‘possible’, ‘likely’ or ‘known’ to occur within one kilometre of survey area ...…………………………20 TABLE 6: Habitat assessment and likelihood of occurrence for listed species.……….....................41 Noosa Landfill & Resource Recovery Centre – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 3 4
Page 5
Native Foresters
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Noosa Council is currently in concept design stage for the development of Cells 2.3 and 2.4
of the Noosa Landfill. Native Foresters has been commissioned by Noosa Council to
conduct a flora and fauna survey and habitat assessment of the land adjoining the eastern
edge of the Noosa Landfill and Resource Recovery Centre, including groundwater-
dependent ecosystems.
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. Design and construction
plans for the proposed expansion will need to take into account potential impacts on native
fauna and flora east of the landfill.
1.1 Scope
The works will involve clearing of Category X vegetation adjacent to the eastern edge of
existing landfill areas. The area adjoining the eastern side of the approved landfill site is
mapped Category B Regulated Vegetation - Endangered and Least concern vegetation as
well as mapped Essential Habitat for Koala, Wallum Rocketfrog and Wallum Froglet. It is
noted that Noosa Council has been issued a Permit A – RARP2005/101216 which allows
clearing for the area nominated in Appendix A.
Earthworks required for the construction of the cells have the potential to change existing
groundwater levels on site and in surrounding areas. Changes to surface water flows are
also required.
The scope is to determine whether the proposed cell expansion, and associated
hydrological changes, surface and groundwater, have the potential to impact on regulated
flora and fauna under state and federal legislation. Figure 2 shows the potential impact
area, proposed clearing area and the 100m buffer area. The potential impact area
encompasses the areas located within the elevations that groundwater may be lowered to
in order to match to existing groundwater lowering systems.
1.2 Objectives of the report
The objectives of the report are as follows:
To provide the results of the Flora Guidelines – Protected Plants (Nature
Conservation Act 1992);Survey undertaken in compliance with the requirements of
the Flora Survey
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 that surface and groundwater hydraulic
changes resulting from proposed works may have on adjacent vegetation
communities, including Groundwater-dependent ecosystems; and on the breeding
habitats for State and/or Commonwealth listed fauna species.
To provide preliminary recommendations relating to the potential mitigation of
impacts where considered relevant to proposed works.
Noosa Landfill & Resource Recovery Centre – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 3 5
Page 6
Native Foresters 1.3 Site description The Noosa Landfill and Resource Recovery Centre is situated at 561 Eumundi Noosa Road, Doonan (Lot 77 SP298776). Refer to Figure 1 for a Locality map. The potential Impact Area lies on the eastern edge of the proposed new landfill cells 2.3 and 2.4. It extends north- east to the 13 metre contour adjacent to proposed Cell 2.3, and north-east to the 15 metre contour adjacent to proposed cell 2.4 over an area of approximately 18,800m2. This potential Impact Area has the potential to be impacted by groundwater lowering or changes in surface water flows (Figure 2). There is also clearing of approximately 6,500 m2 for the southern stormwater discharge area. This area includes both the discharge drain and an associated buffer area. An additional 100m buffer was included in the flora survey and is referred to as the Clearing Impact Area. The total clearing impact area is approximately 50 hectares. The existing (Stage 1) and proposed (Stage 2) landfill facility is shown in Appendix B – Noosa Landfill Layout Plan. Underlying geology immediately east of the landfill has been described by the Department of Environment and Heritage (DES) and Sattler and Williams (1999) as Land Zone 5 – Tertiary-early Quaternary extensive, uniform near level or gently undulating plains with sandy or loamy soils, with Land Zone 3 – Recent Quaternary alluvial systems occurring along the drainage lines and further to the east. The soil profile in Land Zone 5 is a deeply weathered soil with good internal drainage. The dry sclerophyll plant communities growing on weathered sandstone have adapted over millennia to these soil conditions. The eastern edge of the landfill contains patches of weedy regrowth, with some planted areas in and around the sediment basins, ponds, dams and access tracks. Immediately adjacent to the landfill, the Land Zone 5 supports an Endangered Scribbly gum woodland vegetation community (RE 12.5.3) which occurs to the north east and south east, as well as a Least concern Eucalypt woodland vegetation community (RE 12.5.4). Land Zone 3 supports Closed heathland (RE 12.3.13) and Melaleuca wetland vegetation communities (RE 12.3.5). The Eucalypt-dominated vegetation communities transition to closed heath and/or wetland at several locations where the shallow water table intersects the ground surface in low-lying areas and along drainage lines. The mapped vegetation provides habitat for the following species of conservation significance: Koala (Phascolarctos cinereus), Wallum Rocketfrog (Litoria freycineti) and Wallum Froglet (Crinia tinnula), which are all listed as Vulnerable under the Nature Conservation Act 1992 (NCA), as well as Swamp Crayfish (Tenuibranchiurus glypticus) which is listed as Endangered. The southern and eastern extremities of the allotment are intersected by road reserves and are allocated as Weyba Nature Refuge to the south and east of the road. These are managed for conservation purposes by Noosa Council’s Natural Areas team. The Noosa National Park adjoins the south-western property boundary, located to the south of those features. The area to the north (the balance of the allotment) is zoned for Community Purposes under the Noosa Plan. Noosa Landfill & Resource Recovery Centre – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 3 6
Page 7
Native Foresters
Topography along the survey area is generally flat with minor depressions and elevation
ranging from 10 to 15 metres above sea level. Existing surface water flows north and north-
east from the landfill as shown in Appendix C – Current and Proposed Future Surface
Water Flows. Current groundwater models suggest that groundwater flows in a northerly
direction. Refer to Appendix D – Groundwater Contour Plan (Earth Search, 2019).
Historical groundwater monitoring since 2011 shows the groundwater levels along the
eastern landfill boundary fluctuate between 0 - 5 metres below ground surface, except for
near Borehole 15 where groundwater levels sit 2 – 10 metres below the surface.
1.4 Legislative requirements
To evaluate the habitat values on the site for State and Commonwealth listed flora and
fauna species the following legislation was reviewed:
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) –
Commonwealth
Nature Conservation Act 1992 (NCA) – State
o Nature Conservation (Wildlife Management) Regulation 2006
Vegetation Management Act 1999 (VMA) – State
Biosecurity Act 2016 – State
Planning Act 2016 and Planning Regulation 2017 – State
Nature Conservation and Other Legislation (Koala Protection) Amendment
Regulation
1.5 Proposed works
Noosa Council propose to develop the future Cells 2.4 and 2.3 to the east of the existing
Cells 2.1 and 2.2 respectively. Development will begin with Cell 2.4, which is adjacent to
the existing Cell 2.1; and Cell 2.3 is to the east of existing Cell 2.2. Both new cells are
located within the existing ultimate landfill footprint. Both cells will be constructed with GCL
/ HDPE lined containment bunds and a basal liner consisting of the following liner system:
Groundwater underdrain system;
500mm compacted clay fill (only over groundwater underdrain pipe alignments);
300mm thick compacted earthen fill;
GCL / HDPE liner;
300mm thick gravel leachate collection layer/system.
Cell 2.4 has an approximate footprint area of 9,100m2. The subgrade of the Cell 2.4 basal
liner will be excavated to RL 14.60 at northern end and RL 18.20 at the southern end. This
excavation results in approximately 6,300m3 of spoil material (9,200m³ of cut / 2,900m³ fill)
and an average cut depth of 0.7 metres is required. It is anticipated that the spoil material
can be used for day cover for landfill operations.
Cell 2.3 has an approximate footprint area of 38,100m². Cell 2.3 subgrade of basal liner will
be excavated to RL 15.60 at the northern end and RL18.20 at the southern end resulting in
approximately 58,000m3 of spoil (70,500m³ of cut / 12,500m³ of fill) and an average cut
depth of 0.66 metres is required. It is anticipated that the spoil material can be used for day
cover for landfill operations.
Noosa Landfill & Resource Recovery Centre – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 3 7
Page 8
Native Foresters Interim impervious cover will be installed over all cells initially, followed by permanent capping. Interim impervious cover over the new cells will consist of 300mm of clay with 100mm of top soil and grass cover. Final capping will occur over a 10 year period. Levels for both cells have been set to enable Cell 2.4 to tie into existing Cell 2.1 leachate and groundwater collection system. Grading of Cell 2.3 does not allow for a gravity connection to the existing leachate management system. Leachate from Cell 2.3 will be pumped to the existing leachate management system. However, the groundwater seepage drains from Cell 2.3 will connect via gravity into groundwater drainage system. Both proposed cells require the provision of an access road and stormwater management, including rock chute drains resulting in substantial earthworks. The access track is proposed to be 8 metres wide (14 metre carriageway). The access will be located between the eastern extent of the cells and the pegged extent of vegetation clearing line. During site filling operations, Cell 2.4 will drain to a sediment basin to the north of the cell. Cell 2.3 will drain to a sediment basin to the south of the cell. The construction of clean water diversion drain is also proposed to the south of Cell 2.3. In total, earthworks associated with the access road and stormwater management are expected to require approximately 12,000m3 of additional fill, which can be sourced from excavation of the proposed cells. Current, surface water runoff flows to the east/north-east. Some of this surface flow is directed north from the southern end of the landfill into a constructed channel before flowing north-east into the remnant bushland areas. Future proposed surface water flows will be directed north and south along the landfill boundary before discharging into the remnant bushland areas. Clearing for the new southern stormwater discharge area will result in the clearing of up to 6,500 m2 of vegetation. Construction of Cell 2.4 is estimated to take less than six months to construct. It is expected that construction of Cell 2.3 will take around nine months depending on the volume of earthworks undertaken as a result of day cover excavations. However, it is foreseeable, since Cell 2.3 is a large cell, it may be constructed in (up to) three phases. Around four to six months is allowed for each construction phase. A map showing the location of proposed works onsite in relation to existing vegetation types occurring is shown in Appendix E. Noosa Landfill & Resource Recovery Centre – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 3 8
Page 9
Native Foresters
Survey area
FIGURE 1: Locality map
Noosa Landfill & Resource Recovery Centre – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 3 9
Page 10
Native Foresters
FIGURE 2: Survey area map
Noosa Landfill & Resource Recovery Centre – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 3 10
Page 11
Native Foresters
2.0 METHODOLOGY
2.1 Desktop review
A desktop review was undertaken to assist in determining the site’s ecological attributes.
The review consisted of searches of local, state and Commonwealth government planning
instruments and databases, as well as relevant academic literature. Sources of information
included:
Regulated Vegetation Management Map (DNRME, 2019)
Protected Plants Flora Survey Trigger Map (DES, 2019)
WildNET Database (DES, 2019)
EPBC Protected Matters Search Tool (DoE, 2019)
Matters of State Environmental Significance (DES, 2019)
South East Queensland Koala Conservation State Planning Regulatory Provisions
Habitat Values Map (DES, 2010)
Habitat Suitability Model series (DES, 2019)
Groundwater-dependent ecosystems (BOM, 2019)
Previous fauna and flora studies of the Noosa Fire Trails conducted by BAAM (2012) were
consulted and USC Detection Dogs for Conservation (2017, 2018), along with historical
aerial imagery (Near Maps, QImagery).
This desktop assessment in addition to initial site visits was used to:
Identify habitat features suitable for listed species (Section 2.2.3);
Inform the field survey regime (Section 2.2.2); and
Assess the likelihood of occurrence of listed species (Section 3.4).
2.2 Field assessment
2.2.1 Flora survey
Two experienced botanists undertook a systematic botanical analysis on the 12th March
2019 in order to assess the vegetation communities present in the survey area. Further
surveys were conducted on the 12th January and the 2nd February 2021. During the flora
surveys, particular attention was given to searching for Endangered, Vulnerable or Near-
threatened (EVNT) flora species that may occur. The extent of the flora survey is indicated
in Figure 2.
Certification by the suitably qualified person who led and coordinated the flora survey is
provided in Appendix F. The suitably qualified person has been previously approved by
DES for the Nambour Landfill Expansion survey, April 2017.
Four timed meander flora surveys were conducted in the remnant and non-remnant
vegetation communities present around the potential impact 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 2. The following methodology was used to
conduct the timed meander survey:
Noosa Landfill & Resource Recovery Centre – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 3 11
Page 12
Native Foresters
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.
Where certain preferred habitat types or vegetation communities may be extensively
represented within a site, multiple meanders per habitat type were undertaken across
the clearing impact area to increase the probability of detecting an EVNT species.
An estimate of the statistical power of the flora survey has been made for the site. It is
determined that there is a 95% certainty that all EVNT flora species occurring within the
survey area and 100 metre buffer zone for the site have been recorded by the survey.
2.2.2 Fauna survey
A diurnal and crepuscular fauna assessment was conducted on the 12th March 2019 to
identify the presence of fauna including reptiles, bats, amphibians, and arboreal mammals.
A further survey was conducted on the 12th January 2021. An appropriate survey regime
was devised based on results of the desktop survey, initial site visits and identification of
habitat features suitable for listed species.
Targeted amphibian surveys for Vulnerable listed Wallum frogs in the form of nocturnal
surveys and call playback were conducted during optimal conditions after prolonged periods
of rainfall and localised flooding on the 28th March and 26th April 2019 and on the 12th
January 2021.
The survey team was comprised of four ecologists with specific skills in native fauna
identification and fauna survey. The survey was led by senior field ecologist Tony Bright
and wallum ecosystem specialist, Dr. Ed Meyer. Justification of the suitably qualified person
who led the fauna survey team and conducted habitat assessments is provided in
Appendix G.
The following methods were used in the conduct of the fauna surveys:
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.
Noosa Landfill & Resource Recovery Centre – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 3 12
Page 13
Native Foresters
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.
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 and 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.
Noosa Landfill & Resource Recovery Centre – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 3 13
Page 14
Native Foresters
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.
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.
For EVNT-listed species identified in Essential Habitat Mapping or WildNET within one
kilometre of the survey area, a likelihood of occurrence rating was assigned to each species
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 Surface water - Groundwater interaction
A field survey was undertaken on the 26th April 2019 to further investigate potential impacts
of the proposed works on habitat for Swamp crayfish and ‘acid’ frog species along the
eastern edge of the landfill.
Field investigations focused on areas of wet heath and Melaleuca woodland (mapped as
RE 12.3.5 and 12.3.13) to the north-east and south-east of the tip. Data and observations
from this site visit were used to assess the following:
a) The suitability of habitat for, and potential occurrence of, Swamp crayfish and ‘acid’
frog species in proximity to proposed works during very wet conditions with localised
flooding; and
b) Existing hydrological conditions along and adjacent to the landfill boundary,
including possible hydraulic connectivity between the tip and areas of
known/potential Swamp crayfish and acid frog habitat.
During this site visit, information was gathered on:
The extent of surface water flows originating from the landfill site;
Water quality;
Vegetation cover along and adjacent the eastern tip boundary; and
Fauna present (crayfish, frogs and tadpoles).
Noosa Landfill & Resource Recovery Centre – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 3 14
Page 15
Native Foresters
The methods used to assess water quality and differentiate between groundwater or surface
water flows are listed in Table 1. The results of these investigations are summarised in
Appendix H.
TABLE 1: Water quality assessment methods
Parameter Assessment method(s)
Measured in the field using a B211 Horiba™ portable pH probe
Water pH
with two-point calibration (calibrated daily, before use).
Assessed visually and/or through analysis of water samples
collected in the field. Water samples were analysed for tannin-
Tannin-staining staining using a spectrophotometer following the methodology
outlined in Cuthbert and del Giorgio (1992). Samples were filtered
through a 0.22 µM filter before being analysed.
Measured using a Horiba Aqua Twin salt meter (accurate to 0.1
Salinity/conductivity
ppt NaCl).
Assessed visually in the field. Surface water assessed as ‘clear’,
Turbidity/clarity ‘slight-to-moderately turbid’ or ‘highly turbid’ depending on
visibility in areas of shallow water (5-10 cm deep).
2.2.5 Justification of survey timing and weather conditions
The field surveys were conducted in early-mid autumn, during hot, humid conditions
following a series of rain events. Weather conditions are summarised below in Table 2 for
each survey day. There was 124.8mm of rain in the month preceding the March survey,
and 146.2 mm of rain in the month leading up to the April survey. The survey conducted in
January 2021 was conducted in warm, wet conditions with temperature reaching 28
degrees Celsius and 93 mm of rain in the preceding five days.
TABLE 2: Weather conditions during field surveys
Rainfall Relative Relative
Temperature Temperature Humidity
(mm) Humidity
Date Minimum Maximum Maximum
Preceding Minimum
(oC) (oC) (%)
week (%)
12/03/19 23.7 34 13.6 73 85
28/03/19 19.6 22.5 42.6 96 100
26/04/19 19.5 23 56.2 99 99
12/01/2021 21 28 93.0 90 95
Data sourced from Australian Bureau of Meteorology - Daily Weather Observations,
Tewantin via http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/dwo/201903/html/IDCJDW4118.201903.shtml
Noosa Landfill & Resource Recovery Centre – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 3 15
Page 16
Native Foresters
The timing of the survey is considered suitable for detecting the target EVNT listed plant
species, none of which are deciduous i.e. Acacia attenuata, Acacia baueri, Eucalyptus
conglomerata and Allocasuarina emuina.
Survey timing in January, March and April is considered suitable for detecting target Wallum
frog species, with widespread ephemeral ponding and localised flooding in the weeks
and/or months leading up to the surveys.
Monthly rainfall totals were above average for March and April 2019, but well-below average
during January and February of 2019, and the total rainfall for November 2018 -April 2019
was less than half the average for this period (Table 3). Rainfall, surface and groundwater
conditions during field surveys would likely differ from those in years with average or above-
average rainfall. Variation in faunal assemblages and population dynamics (distribution,
density and breeding season) are also likely to occur as a result of changes in weather
patterns (e.g. late onset of the 2019 wet season associated with late breeding season).
TABLE 3: Monthly rainfall totals at Eumundi from November 2018 to the end of April
2019.
Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr
Date Total
2018 2018 2019 2019 2019 2019
Monthly rainfall
31.1 167.8 7.0 93.6 281.0 181.0 761.5
(mm)
Average
monthly rainfall 117.8 162.6 228.6 248.3 238 155 1150.3
(mm)
Data sourced from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology via http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/
cdio/weatherData/av?p_nccObsCode=136&p_display_type=dailyDataFile&p_startYear=2019&p_c
=-321278797&p_stn_num=040078.
2.2.6 Limitations of this study
Emphasis was placed on surveying listed threatened ecological communities, populations
and/or species that are considered likely to occur within the potential Impact Area and
likely to be affected by any ground or surface water alterations as a result of the creation
of Cells 2.3 and 2.4.
The timing of the survey was optimal for detection of Wallum frogs which were the target
species, expected to be impacted by changed groundwater hydrology. However, this is not
necessarily the ideal time to survey for all other species, unlikely to be impacted by
hydrological changes in the potential impact area.
The field assessment for non-target fauna employed passive techniques only (i.e. no live
trapping for mammals and reptiles). For a comprehensive assessment of species
presence/absence, particularly for cryptic or and nocturnal species such as small mammals
and fossorial reptiles, targeted species surveys in which a combination of Elliott traps,
Camera traps Herptile Funnel traps are required.
Noosa Landfill & Resource Recovery Centre – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 3 16
Page 17
Native Foresters
With respect to opportunistic observations for non-target species (i.e. those not expected to
be affected by hydrological changes), 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 precautionary principle was applied in estimating the likelihood of Commonwealth and
State listed species based on habitats identified within the subject site.
The 2019 Remnant Regional Ecosystem maps and data are based on extensive field
survey, analysis of aerial photographs, satellite imagery and detailed site data, and
assessment of other data such as geology and soil mapping and historical survey plans.
The positional accuracy of regional ecosystem data, mapped at a scale of 1:100,000, is 100
metres. The map scale of 1:50,000 applies to the Wet Tropics and part of Southeastern
Queensland and map amendments areas. The map scale of 1:25,000 applies to the
Brisbane City Council area within Southeastern Queensland. As a result there may be
anomalies between the mapped extent and groundtruthed extent of regional ecosystems
and landzones within the potential Impact Area.
The comments regarding site hydrology contained within this report are derived from field-
based observations and surface water quality monitoring at a limited number of sampling
sites. To better understand the hydro-geology of the Noosa landfill and adjacent vegetation
communities and groundwater dependent ecosystems, further information from a suitably
qualified hydro-geologist on the following is required:
i. The soil profile east of the developed Landfill areas, including the presence
and depth of indurated material retarding the movement of water down through
the soil;
ii. The relationship between ground water and surface water expression from
shallow groundwater wells.
A number of factors including pre-disturbance condition would need to be considered in
order to quantify the role that landfill-derived surface runoff has played since its construction
in 1988. Other considerations include: frequency of events that exceed the water-holding
capacity of the retention basins and the relative contributions from surrounding catchments.
Noosa Landfill & Resource Recovery Centre – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 3 17
Page 18
Native Foresters
3.0 RESULTS
3.1 Desktop review
3.1.1 Regulated Vegetation and Regional Ecosystem mapping
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 potential Impact Area to the east of the Noosa Landfill
contains mapped Regulated Vegetation, including one Endangered ecosystem and three
Least concern ecosystems as shown in Figure 3. The Regional Ecosystems, their
ecosystem description and conservation status are listed in Table 4 below.
TABLE 4: Regional Ecosystems mapped over survey area
RE VMA status Biodiversity Description
status
12.3.13 Least No concern at Closed heathland on seasonally waterlogged
concern present alluvial plains usually near coast
12.3.5 Least No concern at Melaleuca quinquenervia open forest on coastal
concern present alluvium
12.5.3 Endangered Endangered Eucalyptus racemosa subsp. racemosa woodland
on remnant Tertiary surfaces
12.5.4 Least No concern at Eucalyptus latisinensis +/- Corymbia intermedia, C.
concern present trachyphloia subsp. trachyphloia, Angophora
leiocarpa, Eucalyptus exserta woodland on
complex of remnant Tertiary surfaces and
Cainozoic and Mesozoic sediments
3.1.2 Essential Habitat designation
Essential Habitat is a vegetation ecotype that is considered by DES (Department of
Environment and Science) 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 in the Potential Impact Area is designated as Essential Habitat for three
listed amphibians, one listed bird and one listed mammal as shown in Table 5.
Noosa Landfill & Resource Recovery Centre – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 3 18
Page 19
Native Foresters
FIGURE 3: Mapped vegetation communities occurring near Noosa Landfill
Noosa Landfill & Resource Recovery Centre – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 3 19
Page 20
Native Foresters
3.1.3 WildNET search
DES/DSITI 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. Five EVNT-listed fauna
species and one listed flora species were listed on WildNET as shown in Table 5.
TABLE 5: Listed species identified by desktop research (RVMM, WildNET) within one
kilometre of survey area
NCA EPBC
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME SOURCE
STATUS STATUS
EVNT FAUNA
Crinia tinnula Wallum Froglet V - RVMM, WildNET
Litoria freycineti Wallum Rocketfrog V - RVMM
Litoria olongburensis Wallum Sedgefrog V - WildNET
Phascolarctos cinereus Koala V V RVMM, WildNET
Pezoporus wallicus wallicus Eastern Ground Parrot V RVMM, WildNET
EVNT FLORA
Acacia attenuata V - WildNET
3.1.4 EPBC Protected Matters
A report was generated using the EPBC Act Protected Matters Search Tool (PMST). It noted
that there is potential for 40 Threatened Species, 17 Migratory Species and 23 Marine
Species to occur within one kilometre of the survey area. An assessment of the likelihood
of occurrence of each of these species occurring in the impact area and buffer was
conducted by the Senior Ecologist. The Ecologist refined the list down to 18 fauna species
and three flora species which were considered ‘possible’, ‘likely’, or ‘known’ to occur within
the survey area based on extensive knowledge of species habitat preferences and local
occurrence. Comments relating to the likelihood of occurrence of the listed fauna species
are provided in Table 6. Comments relating to the likelihood of occurrence of the flora
species are provided in section 3.2.3.
The EPBC search tool also indicates there is potential for two listed Ecological Communities
to occur within one kilometre of the survey area: Coastal Swamp Oak (Casuarina glauca)
Forest of New South Wales and South East Queensland, which is listed as Endangered,
and Lowland Rainforest of Subtropical Australia, which is listed as Critically Endangered.
Neither of these communities occur in the impact area or buffer.
3.1.5 Protected Plants Flora Survey Trigger map
The Protected Plants Survey Trigger Map is a tool provided by DES in order to identify areas
that are within a two kilometre radius of a validated record of an EVNT-listed plant and/or
that contain habitat likely to have an endangered 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 4 shows that the survey area lies within
a high risk area and as such, is subject to the provisions of the guidelines.
Noosa Landfill & Resource Recovery Centre – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 3 20
Page 21
Native Foresters
FIGURE 4: Protected Plants Flora Survey Trigger map
Noosa Landfill & Resource Recovery Centre – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 3 21
Page 22
Native Foresters
3.1.6 Koala legislation
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 and Other Legislation (Koala Protection) Amendment
Regulation amends the Environmental Offsets Regulation 2014, Planning Regulation 2017,
Nature Conservation (Koala) Conservation Plan 2017 and Vegetation Management
Regulation 2012 to provide increased protection to Koala habitat areas in South East
Queensland.
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.
Outside of Koala Priority Areas, clearing of Koala Habitat Areas must be avoided, mitigated
or offset. Development that is proposing to clear Koala habitat area will be assessed by the
Queensland Government, except for in certain circumstances (Refer to Schedule 10, 16B
of the Planning Regulation 2017).
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.
Noosa Landfill & Resource Recovery Centre – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 3 22
Page 23
Native Foresters
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.
3.1.7 Wetlands and Watercourses
The Map of Referable Wetlands is a state-wide 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 referable wetlands of ecological significance in the footprint of proposed works
however the impact area adjoins wetlands mapped as having General ecological
significance.
3.1.8 Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems
The Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) developed the Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems
Atlas (GDE Atlas) as a national dataset of Australian GDEs to inform groundwater planning
and management. Groundwater dependent ecosystems (GDEs) are ecosystems which
require access to groundwater on a permanent or intermittent basis to meet all or some of
their water requirements so as to maintain their communities of plants and animals,
ecological processes and ecosystem services. Ecosystem dependency on groundwater
may vary temporally (over time) and spatially (depending on its location in the landscape).
GDEs include:
i. Subterranean expressions e.g. aquifers;
ii. Subsurface expressions e.g. terrestrial ecosystems that rely on the subsurface
presence of groundwater; or
iii. Surface expressions of groundwater (e.g. caves, lakes, wetlands, rivers)
The mapping indicates GDE Surface Areas occur on the northern edge of the 100 metre
buffer around the potential Impact Area and extend for about one kilometre in a north-east
direction as shown in Figure 2.
Noosa Landfill & Resource Recovery Centre – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 3 23
Page 24
Native Foresters
3.1.9 Habitat Suitability Model
DES prepares Habitat Suitability Models for listed species in Queensland. The relevant
models for Vulnerable-listed Wallum frog species were assessed, given the presence of
suitable habitat within the Potential Impact Area and buffer, and the potential for impacts to
wallum frog habitat, from changes in groundwater/surface water flows.
The models for Wallum Froglet (Crinia tinnula), Wallum Rocketfrog (Litoria freycineti) and
Wallum Sedgefrog (Litoria olongburensis) delineate ‘core’ and ‘non-core’ habitat for each
species and include a representation of known and potential habitat as well as a measure
of confidence in attributing the habitat value (Figure 5).
For Wallum Froglet (Crinia tinnula), the model shows:
Core Habitat:
o RE 12.3.13 (Closed heathland on seasonally waterlogged alluvial plains) and
RE 12.3.5 (Melaleuca quinquenervia open forest on coastal alluvium).
“Non-Core” Habitat:
o RE 12.5.4 (Eucalypt woodland on complex of remnant Tertiary surfaces and
Cainozoic and Mesozoic sediments).
Core and non-core habitat encroach into the Potential Impact Area and 100 metre
buffer.
The core habitat area is associated with a drainage line system that flows in a
northeasterly direction from the landfill site.
For Wallum Rocketfrog, (Litoria freycineti) all areas mapped as RE12.3.13/12.3.5 are
considered ‘core habitat’ areas.
For Wallum Sedgefrog (Litoria olongburensis), the areas mapped as RE 12.3.13/12.3.5 that
encroach into the survey area and 100 metre buffer are mapped as ‘non-core’.
Noosa Landfill & Resource Recovery Centre – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 3 24
Page 25
Native Foresters
FIGURE 5: Wallum Frog Habitat Suitability Model
Noosa Landfill & Resource Recovery Centre – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 3 25
Page 26
Native Foresters
3.1.10 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:
ii. Protected Wildlife Habitat.
iii. 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.
A determination of whether the ‘avoid, mitigate, offset’ obligation can be met in accordance
with the Environmental Offsets Regulation 2014 and the Significant Residual Impact
Guideline (Biodiversity Integration and Offsets, Ecosystem Outcomes, Department of
Environment and Heritage Protection, 2014) will inform the outcome of the assessment.
3.2 Flora assessment
The flora survey within the Potential Impact Area and 100m buffer zone recorded 72 native
plant species. An indicative species list is provided in Appendix I. No EVNT flora species
were recorded.
3.2.1 Vegetation Community Composition
The clearing area of 18,800m2 contains patches of weedy and native regrowth (Category X
vegetation) dominated by Eucalyptus, Melaleuca and Acacia spp. Introduced species
including Lantana (Lantana camara), Wild Tobacco (Solanum mauritianum), Singapore
Daisy (Sphagneticola trilobata), introduced grasses and pastoral legumes have colonised
disturbed areas around access tracks and waste stockpiles.
Native aquatic plants and sedges including Bulrush (Typha orientalis) and Water chestnut
(Eleocharis dulcis) occur in sediment ponds and HES basins. There are also native planted
buffers on the edge of the access tracks with Eucalyptus, Glochidion, Alphitonia and Acacia
spp.
Noosa Landfill & Resource Recovery Centre – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 3 26
Page 27
Native Foresters
The clearing impact area for the southern stormwater discharge point will impact on 1,700m2
of vegetation which is consistent with RE 12.5.3 and 800m2 of RE 12.5.4. The discharged
stormwater will exit into RE’s 12.3.5 and 12.3.13 , as described in detail below. Vegetation
descriptions include any ground truthed variations from the RE mapping.
i. RE 12.5.3 – Endangered
Eucalyptus racemosa subsp. racemosa woodland with Corymbia intermedia, E.
siderophloia +/- E. tindaliae, E. resinifera, E. pilularis, E. microcorys, Angophora
leiocarpa. Melaleuca quinquenervia is often a prominent feature of lower slopes. This
RE occupies elevated sections within the site. Onsite it is open woodland with
Eucalyptus racemosa subsp. racemosa dominant in the canopy (Figure 10). Other
canopy species include Eucalyptus resinifera, Corymbia gummifera, Corymbia
trachyphloia, Corymbia intermedia and Syncarpia glomulifera. The mid stratum
contains a range of juveniles of the above species, plus Acacia cincinnata, A.
disparrima, A. melanoxylon, and Allocasuarina littoralis. Common shrubs include
Banksia spinulosa, Persoonia virgata, Acacia hubbardiana, and Austromyrtus dulcis.
The ground stratum comprises numerous sedges and grasses with Entolasia stricta,
Schoenus brevifolius and Lepidosperma laterale common. There are occasional
patches of Themeda triandra, Pteridium esculentum and Caustis blakei. Melaleuca
quinquenervia is also common on the edge of this RE where it merges into RE 12.5.4.
The extent of this RE within the Potential Impact Area and 100m buffer is generally
consistent with the mapping, however it does extend approximately 40 metres further
south and 20 metres further west than mapping shows. A white survey marker at the
southern end of the Potential Impact Area appears to be situated in this RE. Refer to
Appendix J.
FIGURE 6: Scribbly Gum woodland with Paperbark tea tree on lower slopes - RE12.5.3
Noosa Landfill & Resource Recovery Centre – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 3 27
Page 28
Native Foresters
ii. RE 12.5.4 – Least Concern
Woodland of Melaleuca quinquenervia, Eucalyptus latisinensis, Corymbia intermedia,
Angophora leiocarpa, E. exserta, and Lophostemon suaveolens. The extent of this RE
within the site is generally consistent with the mapping. This RE occupies less elevated
areas below RE 12.5.3, and grows on the interface between Land Zone 5 (weathered
sandstone) and Land Zone 3 (alluvium). The boundary between the two REs is
indistinct with species from both REs merging. Slightly elevated (less than one metre
height difference) patches allow for RE 12.5.3 species e.g. Eucalyptus racemosa and
Syncarpia glomulifera to grow due to better soil drainage.
Within RE 12.5.4, the dominant canopy species is Melaleuca quinquenervia with
Eucalyptus resinifera, Eucalyptus latisinensis, and Lophostemon suaveolens present
occasionally. Common shrubs include Banksia robur, Persoonia virgata, Acacia
hubbardiana, and Hakea actites.
The ground stratum consists of sedges and grasses with Schoenus melanostachyos
and Lepidosperma laterale common and occasional Pteridium esculentum (Figure 7).
FIGURE 7: Eucalypt and Melaleuca woodland - RE12.5.4
Noosa Landfill & Resource Recovery Centre – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 3 28
Page 29
Native Foresters
iii. RE 12.3.5 – Least Concern
Melaleuca quinquenervia open forest to woodland. Onsite this vegetation type occurs
along the drainage lines on areas mapped as containing alluvial soils (Figure 8). The
understorey, which contains species such as Tall Saw sedge (Gahnia sieberiana), Zig
Zag Bog Rush (Schoenus melanostachyos) and Silk Pod vine (Parsonsia straminea),
is open and prone to weed invasion.
Within the area of interest, this RE is mapped within a heterogeneous polygon with RE
12.3.13 (closed wet heath) as a 70% RE 12.3.13/30% RE 12.3.5 split. The mapping
for the site could be refined with respect to the drainage line that occurs at the northern
end of the landfill at 26.4361oS; 153.0261oE and contains Melaleuca quinquenervia
open forest but is mapped as RE 12.3.13. Melaleuca quinquenervia forest has a
distinctive canopy signature under aerial photo interpretation.
FIGURE 8: Melaleuca quinquenervia open forest on alluvium - RE12.3.5
Noosa Landfill & Resource Recovery Centre – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 3 29
Page 30
Native Foresters
iv. RE 12.3.13 – Least Concern
Closed or wet heathland. Characteristic species include Melaleuca thymifolia, Banksia
robur, Xanthorrhoea fulva, Hakea actites, Leptospermum spp. and Baeckea frutescens.
Onsite common species include Banksia robur, Leptospermum liversidgei, Hakea
actites, Persoonia virgata, Melaleuca pachyphyllus, and Xanthorrhoea fulva (Figure 9).
Occasional Melaleuca quinquenervia as shrubs. The dense, closed ground layer is
dominated by sedge species.
Within the area of interest, this RE is mapped within a heterogeneous polygon with 30%
RE 12.3.5 and 70% RE 12.3.13. Aerial photo interpretation indicates the vegetation
community centred at -26.4362oS, 152.0317oE is homogenous closed wet heath (RE
12.3.13) and could be remapped as such.
FIGURE 9: Closed, wet heath - RE12.3.13
3.2.2 Invasive Species
28 invasive plant species were recorded within the Potential Impact Area, mostly within 25
metres of the edge of the landfill (Figure 10) and around cleared areas i.e. near bore holes
or disused access tracks (Figure 11). Along drainage lines the weed outbreaks (e.g.
Singapore Daisy, Congo Jute, Groundsel, Brazilian Nightshade, Corky and Stinking
Passion vines, Tobacco bush and Wandering Jew) extend much further.
Noosa Landfill & Resource Recovery Centre – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 3 30
Page 31
Native Foresters
The current drainage outflows appear to be acting as point sources of weeds which are
spreading and becoming dominant downslope (eastwards) up to 150 metres into the
adjacent remnant ecosystems.
The following five Restricted Invasive Plants listed under the Biosecurity Act 2014 were
present, as well as a number of exotic, ornamental and environmental weed species:
Broad-leaf Pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius)
Camphor Laurel (Cinnamomum camphora)
Ground Asparagus (Asparagus aethiopicus)
Groundsel (Baccharis halimifolia)
Singapore Daisy (Sphagneticola trilobata)
Of the above, Singapore daisy is also identified in Noosa Council's Pest Management Plan
2015-2019 as a priority pest for management as a priority pest for management.
Under the Biosecurity Act, landholders have a ‘general biosecurity obligation’ (GBO) which
requires reasonable measures to be taken to minimise the spread of Restricted Invasive
Plants. Under s319 of the Environmental Protection Act 1994, a person or local government
must not carry out any activity that causes, or is likely to cause, environmental harm unless
the person takes all reasonable and practicable measures to prevent or minimise the harm.
3.2.3 Timed Meander Survey
Four timed meanders were undertaken across the Scribbly Gum woodland (RE12.5.3),
Eucalypt woodland (RE12.5.4), wet heath (RE 12.3.13)/Melaleuca wetland ecosystems (RE
12.3.5) and non-remnant/regrowth vegetation communities in the 100 metre buffer as
shown in Figure 2. The following EVNT plant species were targeted during the timed
meander flora survey:
i. Acacia attenuata (Whipstick Wattle) - Listed as vulnerable under the NCA 1992 and
EPBC Act 1999. Previous records for this species are on the same property at
approximately -26.4359; 153.0362 (500 metres north east of the impact zone) and
along Hollett Road at approximately -26.4307; 153.0336 (800 metres north of the
impact zone).
ii. Eucalyptus conglomerata (Swamp Stringybark) - Listed as Endangered under the
NCA 1992 and EPBC Act 1999. Previous records for this species occur at
approximately -26.4207; 153.0289 (1600 metres north of the impact zone within
Tewantin National Park).
iii. Allocasuarina emuina (Emu Mountain She Oak) - Listed as Endangered under the
NCA 1992 and EPBC Act 1999. Previous records for this species occur at
approximately –26.4402; 153.0445 (1100 metres east of the impact zone within
council managed road reserve and environment reserve).
No EVNT listed plants were identified during the timed meander survey within the sites
impact or buffer zones.
Noosa Landfill & Resource Recovery Centre – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 3 31
Page 32
Native Foresters
FIGURE 10: Singapore Daisy invading Melaleuca woodland from eastern edge of landfill.
FIGURE 11: Singapore Daisy invading Scribbly Gum woodland north-east of borehole
clearing
Noosa Landfill & Resource Recovery Centre – Fauna and Flora Assessment 32
Page 33
Native Foresters 3.3 Fauna assessment The wet heath, wetland and Eucalypt woodland vegetation communities around the Noosa Landfill support the breeding and habitation requirements of a diversity of native fauna, including but not limited to three mammal species, 26 bird species, five reptile species, six amphibians and one invertebrate, as shown in Appendix K. Some of the fauna present are shown in Figure 12. Fauna detection was largely impeded by the density of understorey vegetation, however the habitats present are considered likely to support a high density of small and medium- sized mammals e.g. Bush Rat (Rattus fuscipes), Swamp Rat (Rattus lutreolus), Grassland Melomys (Melomys burtoni), Fawn-footed Antechinus (Antechinus flavipes), Bandicoots (Perameles nasuta and Isoodon macrourus) and Special Least concern Short-beaked Echidna (Tachyglossus aculeatus). Historical evidence of habitat utilisation by Koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) in the form of scratches and scats has been found in the Scribbly gum and Eucalypt-dominated woodland ecosystems in the impact area and buffer (BAAM, 2012) and surrounds (USC Detection Dogs for Conservation, 2017; pers.comm. Romane Critescu). Given the historical evidence of Koala activity adjacent to the landfill as shown in Appendix L and the presence of suitable habitat and preferred Koala food trees, it is considered that the area may be used by local Koala populations. Koalas are listed as Vulnerable under the NC Act 1992 and the EPBC Act 1999. A number of snakes e.g. Red Belly Black Snake (Pseudechis porphyriacus), Eastern Brown Snake (Pseudonaja textilis) and Carpet Python (Morelia spilota Mcdowelli) were identified during the fauna survey. A number of reptiles, including Tussock Rainbow Skink (Carlia vivax) and Lace monitors (Varanus varius) were observed in the more open habitats towards the northern end of the survey area. The avian population is abundant and diverse. Passerines e.g. Brown Honeyeater (Lichmera indistincta) and White-throated Gerygone (Gerygone olivacea) were found in the Eucalypt and wallum woodlands and among strips of regrowth vegetation on the eastern boundary of the landfill. Waterbirds and waders were present around the ponds, dams and drainage lines, e.g. Australian White Ibis (Threskiornis molucca in large numbers) and Black-fronted Dotterel (Elseyornis melanops). Raptors e.g. Black Kite (Milvus migrans) and White-bellied Sea Eagle (Haliaeetus leucogaster) were observed circling overhead on the edge of landfill. The avian population will vary in response to seasonal conditions, migratory patterns and availability of food resources. A large population of Vulnerable-listed Wallum Froglets (Crinia tinnula, Figure 13) was detected approximately 200 to 600 metres east north-east of the landfill boundary (outside of the identified impact area) in closed heathland (-26.4359, 153.0321) and in an area of extensive ephemeral ponding adjacent to the fire trail (-26.4351, 153.0318). Refer to Figure 15. Wallum Froglets are tolerant of disturbance and will sometimes breed in roadside puddles, spoon drains and flooded grasslands. Their distribution may expand/contract in response to wet/dry cycles. During wetter years, the distribution may expand into the patches of suitable habitat that occur in the identified impact area. Noosa Landfill & Resource Recovery Centre – Fauna and Flora Assessment 33
Page 34
Native Foresters Wallum Rocketfrogs (Litoria freycineti) were not detected during the targeted amphibian surveys in the impact area. However, Wallum Froglet and Wallum Rocketfrog were both recorded in the area beyond the 100 metre buffer in 2012 (BAAM 2012) and there are WildNET records of Wallum Froglet, Wallum Rocketfrog and Wallum Sedgefrog within one kilometre of the site suggesting the presence of a local population (Figure 15). Wallum Rocketfrogs are widely distributed in freshwater wetlands and associated vegetation communities occurring on low nutrient sandy soils but may also breed in disturbed areas. Their distribution may expand/contract in response to wet/dry cycles. A number of Least concern amphibian species were found in the drainage line along the eastern landfill boundary and in the bio-retention basins, dams and ponds. Large choruses of Eastern Sedgefrog (Litoria fallax), Striped Marsh Frog (Limnodynastes peronii), Striped Rocketfrog (Litoria nasuta) and Graceful Tree Frog (Litoria gracilenta) were observed around the northern vegetated pond, and a small population of Bleating Frog (Litoria dentata) and Striped Marsh Frogs (Limnodynastes peronii) was heard calling from the southern pond. Striped Rocketfrog tadpoles were found in the drainage line that runs parallel to the landfill boundary. The Endangered Swamp Crayfish (Tenuibranchiurus glypticus) (Figure 14) was found to occur within the potential Impact Area and in the 100-metre buffer, with juvenile and adult specimens recorded at -26.43620, 153.03025 and -26.43615, 153.03163 respectively. Swamp crayfish were found to co-occur with Orange-fingered yabby in some cases, and it is likely that their distribution was associated with surface expression of groundwater based on the low pH of the ponds they inhabited. Swamp Crayfish will reproduce, overwinter and /or avoid desiccation within elaborate community burrows, up to one metre deep. Studies by Harding and Williams (2003), suggest the species prefers areas of dense sedge cover which provide protection from predation however Swamp crayfish have also been recorded in water bodies with little or no sedge cover (E. Meyer, pers. comm.). The breeding biology of Swamp Crayfish is poorly documented. Available data suggest that breeding occurs 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.). Observations on the Gold Coast and Bribie Island, however, suggest breeding may occur at other times of the year as well (Dawkins, 2015). Swamp Crayfish breeding habitat requirements are similarly unknown. 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. The more common Orange-fingered yabby (Cherax depressus) was abundant in the inundated wetland areas immediately adjacent to the landfill boundary, which were influenced by surface water runoff. Non-native species including Black Rat (Rattus rattus) and Cane Toad (Rhinella marina) were found to occur within and around the landfill. Four species of introduced mammal are also considered likely to occur in the survey area: House mouse (Mus musculus), Wild Dog (Canis sp), Feral Cat (Felis catus) and Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes). Figure 15 shows the location of EVNT fauna species occurring onsite. Noosa Landfill & Resource Recovery Centre – Fauna and Flora Assessment 34
Page 35
Native Foresters
``
Brown Quail crossing track between cell 2.2 and 2.4 White bellied Sea Eagle on edge of Noosa Landfill
Graceful Tree Frog in sediment retention basin Orange-fingered Yabby in Melaleuca woodland
FIGURE 12: Fauna identified in survey area
Noosa Landfill & Resource Recovery Centre – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 3 35
35
Page 36
Native Foresters
FIGURE 13: Wallum Froglet - Vulnerable
FIGURE 14: Swamp Crayfish - Endangered
Noosa Landfill & Resource Recovery Centre – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 3
36
Page 37
Native Foresters
FIGURE 15: Location of EVNT fauna species and habitats
Noosa Landfill & Resource Recovery Centre – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 3
37
Page 38
Native Foresters
3.4 Assessment of breeding places and fauna habitat quality
3.4.1 Proposed Clearing Area
The proposed clearing area of the landfill, including mulch and timber piles, provide habitat
for small mammals (e.g. rodents) and snakes, which in turn attracts populations of birds of
prey (e.g. raptors and owls). The ponds, bioretention basins and sediment retention basins,
constructed rock chutes and drainage lines on the eastern edge of the landfill provide
suitable habitat for a range of waterbirds, waders, frogs and aquatic invertebrates (Figure
16). The southern stormwater drainage area contains large remnant trees which provide
important habitat for a range of arboreal fauna species.
The amphibian community in the areas that receive surface runoff e.g. the ponds and
drainage line that run parallel to the eastern landfill boundary, is dominated by common
species that are tolerant of disturbance. This community includes Beeping Froglet (Crinia
parinsignifera), Striped Rocketfrog (Litoria nasuta) and Eastern Sedgefrog (Litoria fallax),
as well as introduced Cane Toads. These species are considered the main competitors of
Wallum frogs and are generally excluded from the more acidic and ephemeral ponds in
coastal heathlands as their aquatic life stages would not endure in low pH environments.
Conversely, Vulnerable-listed Wallum frogs are likely to be excluded from the areas on the
edge of the landfill where large populations of the competitor species occur.
3.4.2 Land Zone 3 ecosystems – Wetland areas
Land Zone 3 – Recent Quaternary alluvial systems occurring along the drainage lines
supports wet heath (RE12.3.13) and wetland (RE12.3.5) areas east of the landfill. These
areas possesses high ecological value for a range of fauna, including Endangered Swamp
Crayfish (Tenuibranchiurus glypticus) and Vulnerable-listed Wallum frogs (Refer to Figure
15). Breeding habitat for Swamp Crayfish occurs in the Potential Impact Area and 100m
buffer areas. Breeding habitat for Wallum Froglet is known to occur in the buffer, with core
breeding habitat confirmed at 200 to 600 metres east north-east of the landfill. Core
breeding habitat potentially extends into the impact area under very wet conditions.
Breeding habitat for Wallum Froglet and Wallum Rocketfrog occurs where water persists
for six to eight weeks in summer and eight or more weeks in winter, and is typically,
although not exclusively, associated with heath vegetation and sedges where water collects
above organic hardpan layers forming acidic (pH <6.0) ‘perched’ swamps and lakes. The
surrounding woodland and wetland habitats in the Potential Impact Area also provide
suitable habitat for dispersing Wallum frog individuals.
Wallum Sedgefrog (Litoria olongburensis) were not detected during the survey and are
considered unlikely to occur in the Potential Impact Area given the absence of suitable
core habitat or breeding habitat i.e. ephemeral ponds with emergent sedges and rushes.
There is however potential for Wallum Sedgefrogs to occur in the 100 metre buffer given
the presence of mapped non-core habitat as shown in Figure 5 and the presence of a
ground-truthed area of core sedgeland habitat centred on -26.4355, 153.03155 as shown
in Figure 15.
Noosa Landfill & Resource Recovery Centre – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 3
38
Page 39
Native Foresters
Whilst no evidence of chewed orts was found during the survey, there are small thickets of
Black She-oak (Allocasuarina littoralis) trees on the edge of the heathland area shown as RE
12.3.13/12.3.5 which may provide foraging resources for the EVNT listed Glossy Black
Cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus lathami).
There is one WildNET record of Vulnerable-listed Ground parrot (Pezoporus wallicus
wallicus) within one kilometre and RE12.3.13 is listed as a Mandatory Essential Habitat
Factor for this species. However, it is considered unlikely the dense, closed heathland in
the Potential Impact Area and 100 metre buffer would support Ground parrot given the
absence of fire (or other disturbance).
The wetland vegetation communities were found to be in moderate ecological condition,
with extensive weed infestation extending from the landfill boundary up to 150 metres into
the remnant vegetation bushland areas. The Paperbark Tea Tree–lined drainage lines
adjacent to the landfill edge dominated by Silk Pod vine (Parsonsia straminea) and native
sedges are providing a pathway for habitat changing weeds e.g. Singapore Daisy into
otherwise ecologically intact areas. There was evidence of recent spraying for Singapore
Daisy on the landfill edge. Slashing along the access tracks is likely to further facilitate
spread of fragments of Singapore Daisy.
Along the southern drainage line, Silk Pod vine is exhibiting weedy behaviour, smothering
all strata from the ground to the canopy, with visible alteration of community composition
and structure extending up to 200 metres east of the landfill boundary. This growth may be
a response to increased light/historical disturbance and may be fuelled by changes to
surface water flows associated with landfill development and operation.
3.4.3 Land Zone 5 ecosystems – Scribbly Gum woodland and Eucalypt
forest
Land Zone 5 is a deeply weathered soil with good internal drainage. It supports the Eucalypt
and Corymbia dominated woodland ecosystems (RE 12.5.4 and 12.5.3) which provide high
quality habitat for Koalas as they contain a number of preferred food tree species (e.g.
Eucalyptus racemosa, Eucalyptus resinifera, Corymbia intermedia). Refer to Figure 2. There
are three WildNET records of Koala within a one kilometre radius of the Potential Impact
Area. Historical surveys conducted by BAAM in 2012 and USC in 2017 confirm that there
was evidence of Koala activity in the form of scats and scratches in the Scribbly Gum
woodland at the northern end of the survey area and surrounding habitats. Refer to Figure
21 and Appendix L – Location of Recent Koala Activity. Given the low population size, large
home ranges and the significant threats faced by Koalas across South East Queensland
conservation of their remaining habitat areas is vital.
The Eucalypt and Corymbia dominated woodland ecosystems also contain a large number
of relictual, hollow-bearing Scribbly Gums (Eucalyptus racemosa), Pink Bloodwood
(Corymbia intermedia) and Paperbark Tea Trees (Melaleuca quinquenervia) with diameter
at breast height 1 – 2 metres, some bearing multiple hollows, providing excellent habitat
for hollow-dependent fauna (e.g. owls, birds, gliders, microbats and possums). There were
approximately five to ten of these very large trees per hectare within the sites 100 metre
buffer. These large diameter remnant trees are also p-resent in the the area proposed for
the southern stormwater discharge drain.
Noosa Landfill & Resource Recovery Centre – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 3
39
Page 40
Native Foresters
When flowering, the Eucalypt, Corymbia and Melaleuca trees provide blossoms which are
an important food source for gliders, birds, possums and bats, including Vulnerable-listed
Grey-headed Flying Fox (Pteropus poliocephalus).
The semi-closed woodland canopy allows sufficient light penetration to provide suitable
microhabitat conditions for a number of reptiles and litter-foraging invertebrates. There are
a number of arboreal hollows, hollows at ground level and fallen hollow logs that also
provide refuge for small mammals and reptiles.
In addition to breeding habitat, Wallum frogs require a variety of habitat types that provide
food sources; fire and flood refuges and essential dispersal routes between these refuges
(Meyer et al. 2006). They also need a variety of habitats to maintain genetic diversity. Areas
of Eucalypt forest and woodland, whilst not providing breeding habitat, may play a critical
role in the maintenance of areas where they do breed e.g. maintaining hydrology and water
quality within the catchment. With the exception of the Wallum Sedgefrog, there are records
of Wallum frogs in rainforest, eucalypt forest and eucalypt woodland, at some distance from
water (Queensland DNR, 2000; E. Meyer, unpub. data). As such, it is considered likely that
during non-breeding periods, Wallum Froglets (and potentially Wallum Rocketfrogs) may
disperse into the Eucalypt woodland habitats that occur between the landfill and the
breeding habitat areas (i.e. the RE12.5.4 vegetation communities), where they can be
found sheltering in crayfish burrows or under leaf litter.
Overall, the Scribbly gum and closed heathland vegetation communities were found to be
in very good ecological condition, with Singapore daisy and environmental weeds generally
limited in extent to the 25 metres beyond the landfill boundary and weed presence
decreasing to almost nil as distance from the landfill edge increased.
Table 6 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 and comments on the likelihood of
those species occurring in or around the Potential Impact Area.
Figure 16 shows areas of fauna breeding habitats occurring onsite.
Noosa Landfill & Resource Recovery Centre – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 3
40
Page 41
Native Foresters
TABLE 6: Breeding habitat assessment and likelihood of occurrence for listed species
Scientific Name Common NCA EPBC Likelihood Habitat Preferences Presence of breeding places or
Name status status of breeding habitat
occurrence
Mammals
Petauroides Found in eucalypt forest Potential habitat present (areas
Greater V V Possible from Mossman, Queensland, mapped as RE12.5.4/12.5.3), but
volans Glider
to Daylesford, Victoria, no individuals detected.
Preferred koala food trees present
and evidence of Koala presence Potential habitat present (areas
Phascolarctos (scat and scratches) from previous mapped as
Known survey in 2012. Three WildNET
cinereus Koala V V RE12.3.5/12.5.3/12.5.4). Apply
records in 1km radius. precautionary principle.
Inhabits rainforest, melaleuca and
Grey- mangrove woodland, swamps and
Pteropus Likely Absent
headed C V disturbed areas. Suitable habitat
poliocephalus
flying fox occurs within one kilometre of survey
area.
Habitat generalist that inhabits forests,
woodlands, shrublands and
grasslands, rocky outcrops and
Short- agricultural lands. Often found among Potential habitat present, no
Tachyglossus Likely
beaked SL - rocks, in hollow logs, under vegetation individuals detected.
aculeatus
Echidna or piles of debris, under tree roots or
sometimes in wombat or rabbit
burrows. May leave young in nursery
burrows whilst foraging.
Occur in a range of habitats. They
usually roost in a colony in tree
hollows or caves, sometimes under
Special bark, under dead fronds of tree ferns Potential habitat present in hollow
(Multiple species) Microbats - Likely
LC or disused bird nests. Also known to Eucalypts and landfill structures.
use anthropogenic structures such as
in mines, tunnels, buildings, bridges
and rooftop cavities.
Noosa Landfill & Resource Recovery Centre – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 3 41
Page 42
Native Foresters
Scientific Name Common NCA EPBC Likelihood Habitat Preferences Presence of breeding places or
Name status status of breeding habitat
occurrence
Birds
Generally prefers closed forest and
Accipiter Grey requires tall, mature trees for nesting, Potential habitat present, no
NT - Possible
novaehollandiae Goshawk however may utilise other habitats individuals detected.
seasonally.
Widespread in northern Australia.
Anseranas
Magpie Occasional visitor to southern
semipalmata SL Migratory Possible Absent
Goose Queensland. Usually found near
waterways, wetlands, dams and lakes.
Almost exclusively aerial, flying
Fork-tailed
Apus pacificus SL Migratory Possible over inland plains but sometimes Absent
Swift
above foothills or in coastal areas.
Found in grasslands, woodlands and
Cattle
Ardea ibis SL Migratory Possible wetlands, but may also use pastures Absent
Egret
and croplands. Will forage at landfills.
Prefers shallow water, usually flowing,
Great
Ardea alba SL Migratory Possible but may be seen on any watered area, Potential habitat present.
Egret
including damp grasslands.
Inhabits tropical and warm-temperate
Erythrotriorchis Potential habitat present, no
Red Possible woodlands and forests, prefers
radiatus E V individuals detected.
Goshawk ecotones, often near wetlands or
woodlands with Eucalypts/Melaleucas.
Hirundapus White- Potential habitat present, no
Possible Largely aerial bird that sometimes
caudacutus throated - V individuals detected.
roosts in trees.
Needletail
Occurs mainly in open forests and
woodlands, shrublands, also in
cleared or semi-cleared habitats and
Rainbow farmlands. Nests located in long
Merops ornatus SL Migratory Likely Absent
Bee-eater burrow or tunnel excavated in flat or
sloping ground, in creek banks,
roadside cuttings, quarry walls, gravel
mounds or in cliff-faces.
Noosa Landfill & Resource Recovery Centre – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 3 42
Page 43
Native Foresters
Scientific Name Common NCA EPBC Likelihood Habitat Preferences Presence of breeding places or
Name status status of breeding habitat
occurrence
Monarcha Prefers thick understorey in rainforests,
Spectacled
trivirgatus SL Migratory Possible wet gullies and waterside vegetation, as Potential habitat present.
Monarch
well as mangroves.
Widespread in rainforest, Eucalypt
forest and regrowth with shrubby
Black- understorey. Breeds in rainforest, nest
Monarcha
faced SL Migratory Possible usually situated near top of tree with Potential habitat present.
melanopsis
Monarch large leaves, top of sapling, or in
shrubs, nest well concealed by foliage
and secured in a fork.
Widespread in Qld, inhabits eucalypt Potential habitat present, no
forests, often near wetlands or individuals detected.
watercourses. Nest placed in a fork of
Myiagra Satin
SL Migratory Possible outer branches of trees, such as
cyanoleuca Flycatcher
paperbarks, eucalypts, and banksia,
usually in same area or same tree
each year.
Widespread along coast and in Absent
terrestrial wetlands of tropical and
Eastern Possible temperate Australia and off-shore
Pandion cristatus SL -
Osprey islands. Stick nest used year after year
and placed in fork of tall dead tree or
other tall structure e.g. cliff or post.
Fresh water marshes at the edges of Absent
lakes and rivers, lagoons, flood-plains,
wet meadows, swamps, reservoirs,
Plegadis
Glossy Ibis SL Migratory Possible sewage ponds, rice-fields and
falcinellus
cultivated areas under irrigation.
Breeds at only a few locations in
Australia.
Inhabits rainforest, woodlands and Absent
regrowth, usually with a dense
Rhipidura Rufous
SL Migratory Possible shrubby understorey, in coastal and
rufifrons Fantail
near coastal districts of northern and
eastern Australia
Noosa Landfill & Resource Recovery Centre – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 3 43
Page 44
Native Foresters
Scientific Name Common NCA EPBC Likelihood Habitat Preferences Presence of breeding places or
Name status status of breeding habitat
occurrence
Rostratula Inhabits shallow, brackish or
Australian
Possible freshwater terrestrial wetlands, Absent.
australis Painted - E
especially temporary ones with muddy
Snipe
margins and small, low-lying islands.
Ninox strenua Powerful Found in open forests, woodlands, Potential habitat present (areas
Owl and along sheltered gullies, often mapped as RE 12.5.4/12.5.3), but
near water. Will sometimes be found no individuals detected.
V - Likely in open areas near forests, farmland,
parks and suburban areas, as well as
in remnant bushland. Nests in old
growth trees.
Inhabits lowland, coastal plains with Absent.
Pezoporus dry and wet heath and sedgelands
Ground V - Possible (excluding permanent waterbodies).
wallicus wallicus Parrot
Prefers sites that undergo 5 – 8 year
fire intervals.
Turnix Black- Restricted to rainforests and forests, Absent
melanogaster breasted V V Possible low closed forests, particularly semi-
Button evergreen vine thicket, low microphyll
Quail vine forest, notophyll vine forest.
Reptiles
Shelters under rocks in Eucalypt- Potential habitat present, no
Collared Possible targeted survey (herptile funnel
Delma torquata V V dominated woodlands and open-
Delma trapping) conducted.
forests on Land zone 3, 9 and 10
Amphibians
Potential breeding habitat
present throughout areas
mapped as RE 12.3.13 and
Habitat specialist requires
Wallum 12.3.5 (core habitat) and RE
Crinia tinnula V - Known ephemeral, acidic, wallum wetland
Froglet 12.5.4 and 12.5.3 (non-core).
but tolerant of disturbance.
Large population identified within
200 metres of the landfill edge.
Refer to Figure 5 and 15.
Noosa Landfill & Resource Recovery Centre – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 3 44
Page 45
Native Foresters
Scientific Name Common NCA EPBC Likelihood Habitat Preferences Presence of breeding places or
Name status status of breeding habitat
occurrence
Potential breeding habitat
Habitat specialist requires present throughout areas
ephemeral, acidic, wallum wetland mapped as RE 12.3.13 and
Wallum
Litoria freycineti V - Likely with emergent aquatic vegetation, 12.3.5 (core habitat) and RE
Rocketfrog
but somewhat tolerant of 12.5.4 and 12.5.3 (non-core). No
disturbance. individuals detected. Refer to
Figure 5.
Potential breeding habitat
Habitat specialist – requires suitable
present throughout areas
Litoria Wallum wallum swamp and ephemeral
V V Possible mapped as RE 12.3.13 and
olongburensis Sedgefrog wetland areas with emergent aquatic
12.3.5. No individuals detected.
vegetation.
Refer to Figure 5 and 15.
Invertebrates
Inhabits coastal wallum swamps
- in areas with sedges and open Present (areas mapped as RE
Tenuibranchiurus Swamp Known
E E water. Nocturnal surface activity 12.3.5/12.3.13)
glypticus Crayfish
associated with rain events and
ephemeral ponding,
Noosa Landfill & Resource Recovery Centre – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 3 45
Page 46
Native Foresters
Weedy edge of landfill with litter encroaching into
Lace monitor in crack hollow of a Scribbly Gum remnant bushland
Small pond at south-eastern end of landfill providing
Sediment retention pond on eastern edge landfill (proposed amphibian breeding habitat
location of cell 2.4)
FIGURE 16: Breeding places and evidence of fauna habitation
Noosa Landfill & Resource Recovery Centre – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 3 46
Page 47
Native Foresters
3.5 Surface water / Ground water Assessments
An assessment of the hydrogeology of the site by a qualified Hydrogeologist was not
provided to Native Foresters. The following assessment is based on field observations and
surface water monitoring at selected sites. To address impacts/potential impacts on
groundwater and groundwater-dependent flora and fauna, further detailed investigations
and ground-truthing assessments of the geology, lithology, groundwater resources and
hydraulic connectivity within the landfill and immediate surrounds should be conducted.
3.5.1 Hydraulic connectivity
Connectivity refers to the degree of hydraulic interaction between aquifers, between
different parts of the same aquifer, and between groundwater and surface water systems.
Connectivity is important in determining whether the excavation and construction of new
cells and the associated changes to landfill profile and drainage will affect groundwater-
dependent ecosystems to the near east of the proposed landfill expansion area.
Historical groundwater monitoring since 2011 shows the groundwater levels along the
eastern boundary of the landfill have been recorded as fluctuating between 0-5m below the
ground surface. The exception to this is in the vicinity of Borehole 15 where waters sit
between 2 and 10m below the ground surface.
There is insufficient data on the degree of hydraulic connectivity between the groundwater
resources on the eastern landfill boundary and the groundwater resources that underlie the
ecosystems further east. Information from historical landfill processes including lowering of
groundwater for cells 2.1 and 2.2 and exploratory bore holes to the east of the landfill may
be useful in this regard. However based on our current understanding, it is likely that the
lowering of groundwater to RL 13m under Cell 2.3 and RL 15m under Cell 2.4 will remove
the seasonal fluctuation of groundwater levels away from the surface in areas between the
landfill and the RL 13m and RL 15m contour to the north east of the site boundary
respectively.
3.5.2 Induration
Groundwater resources can be divided into shallow, perched unconfined groundwater
bodies and deep (basal) partially confined groundwater bodies. These bodies have differing
hydrological processes and chemical composition and may be separated by a more or less
impervious layer of indurated material (e.g. organic hard pan or coffee rock).
Observed ponding of tannin-stained acidic surface water (pH 4.5 – 5.6) in areas of Swamp
Crayfish and Wallum Froglet habitat 100 to 200 metres east of the landfill suggests the
presence of shallow groundwater perched above an organic hardpan or coffee rock (Ed
Meyer, pers.comm). Refer to Appendix H – Surface water and Ground water Monitoring
and Field Observations.
Noosa Landfill & Resource Recovery Centre – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 3
47
Page 48
Native Foresters
Induration can potentially occur at depth or near to the surface. Induration can be laterally
and vertically variable. The presence of an indurated layer is of hydrogeological significance
as it can act as a semi-confining layer influencing groundwater flows, hydraulic connectivity
and aquifer storage. The transitional environments between the Land Zone 5 and Land
Zone 3 ecosystems may or may not exhibit induration and there is potential for merging of
confined deep aquifers and unconfined shallow aquifers at the interface between the two
land zones.
Uncertainty regarding the presence of coffee rock/organic hardpans may be addressed by
soil profile data from bore holes excavated along the eastern tip boundary (in particular Bore
16 which lies to the near west of areas of known Swamp Crayfish/Wallum Froglet habitat)
and from areas further east in close proximity to Swamp Crayfish/Wallum Frog habitat.
Should the presence of a layer of coffee rock or organic hardpan underlying shallow
groundwater east of the tip be confirmed, excavation works along the eastern tip boundary
should not exceed the depth of this material.
3.5.3 Rainwater infiltration and changes in water quantity
Construction of new cells and the installation of impervious cover over all cells has the
potential to reduce localised recharge of groundwater to the near east of the landfill and
increase the amount of rainwater (previously infiltrated to the landfill and directed to the STP
via leachate) flowing to the drainage lines at SW4 and SW5 (Refer to Appendix B). Total
flows will increase because larger catchment areas will be redirected to those points.
Whether the reduction in infiltration and groundwater recharge will have a significant impact
on ground water levels in areas of nearby Swamp Crayfish and/or Wallum Froglet requires
further investigation and hydrological modeling of the following:
i. the behaviour of ground water east of the tip (including fluctuations in
groundwater levels related to rainfall);
ii. the amount, intensity, frequency and duration of rain;
iii. groundwater recharge and discharge rates; and
iv. evapotranspiration.
With respect to increased/intermittent surface flows to the drainage lines, it is considered
likely that peak flows can be mitigated, however total volumes and flow frequency will
increase. Resultant impacts on habitat condition and vegetation community structure are
discussed in section 4.1.
Noosa Landfill & Resource Recovery Centre – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 3
48
Page 49
Native Foresters
3.5.4 Changes in surface water / ground water quality
Water quality in the groundwater-dependent ecosystems to the north and east depend on
the quantity and quality of water discharged to it. This will include groundwater seepage as
well as surface flows.
Field investigations along the eastern edge of the landfill and stormwater discharge outlet
(SW5) are listed below. These investigations suggest the area currently impacted by
surface flows extends 150-200 metres east from the developed areas and that this has
occurred over the past 15-20 years of landfill operation. Refer to Figure 21 for the location
of the observed impacts related to surface flows.
Field monitoring of surface water quality in late April 2019 suggests that surface
waters have higher pH downstream of existing discharge points in the potential
Impact Area (circa. pH 6-7), compared with the pH of surrounding natural areas
further east of the landfill (circa pH 4.5-5.6) in the 100 metre buffer. Refer to
Appendix F.
The ponding of low pH water in the 100m buffer is likely to be associated with natural
processes including surface expression of groundwater; humic acids from organic
matter decomposition and/or acid sulfate soils (Figure 17).
FIGURE 17: Ponded water in high value wet heath - low pH and tannin stained
The drainage line that runs parallel to the landfill’s eastern boundary and the
drainage lines that run perpendicular to the boundary from the constructed
discharge outlets carry stormwater inputs from the landfill which may have a diluting
effect on the naturally acidic soils of the closed heathland and Melaleuca wetland
remnants, creating a plume of higher pH soil and water around them (Figure 18).
Noosa Landfill & Resource Recovery Centre – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 3
49
Page 50
Native Foresters
FIGURE 18: Drainage line on eastern boundary of landfill
The orange-brown sludge along the south-eastern landfill boundary may be
attributed to the proliferation of iron-oxidising bacteria which tends to be associated
with elevation in iron (Fe2+) levels in emerging groundwater and/or more anoxic
groundwater (Figure 19). Oxidation of acid sulfate soils can also result in elevated
iron levels.
FIGURE 19: Ponded water in central drainage line – red brown colour indicative of iron
enrichment
The presence of green algae at the southern stormwater outflow is indicative of high
nutrient concentrations (Figure 20).
Noosa Landfill & Resource Recovery Centre – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 3
50
Page 51
Native Foresters
FIGURE 20: Southern stormwater outflow - surface runoff with green algae indicative of
nutrient enrichment
Given the above observations from current landfill operations, the proposed redistribution
of catchment flows and increased water volumes to the drainage lines associated with
additional cell development, has the potential to exacerbate or shift the observed impacts
further to the east into areas of retained and currently un-impacted vegetation. How Swamp
Crayfish and/or Wallum Frogs respond to this will depend on their sensitivity and tolerance
to changes in water quality and habitat condition.
pH - Based on our current understanding, it appears likely that the these species
would tolerate a moderate increase in water pH, with Swamp Crayfish and Wallum
Froglet tadpoles having been recorded in pH 6.0 water (E. Meyer, unpub. data).
However, water chemistry plays an important role in limiting interspecies
competition. Areas that receive increased volumes of higher-pH surface runoff may
potentially, over time, become more favourable for Beeping Froglet (Crinia
parinsignifera); Striped Rocketfrog (Litoria nasuta); and Eastern Sedgefrog (Litoria
fallax), which are considered the main competitors of Wallum frogs and whose
aquatic life stages would not endure in low pH environments.
Nutrients - Nitrogen enrichment is known to cause chronic and acute toxicity to
amphibians and their larvae (Ortiz-Santaliestra et al. 2006; Egea-Serrano et al.
2012). Nutrient enrichment leading to eutrophication of aquatic systems is linked to
increased parasite infection and amphibian disease risk (Johnson et al. 2007).
Heavy metals/other pollutants (in the event of unexpected or unpermitted release)-
Species responses to increases in pollutants (e.g. detergents, surfactants) and
metal ion concentrations are currently not available.
In areas where catchments/surface runoff will be redirected to, additional investigations into
water quality discharged will be required to determine whether direct and indirect impacts
to Swamp Crayfish/Wallum Frogs can be mitigated or avoided.
Noosa Landfill & Resource Recovery Centre – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 3
51
Page 52
Native Foresters
FIGURE 21: Location of existing impacts
Noosa Landfill & Resource Recovery Centre – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 3
52
Page 53
Native Foresters
4.0 ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS
Development of supporting infrastructure for the two new cells (Cell 2.3 and 2.4);
construction of the southern stormwater drain; changes in landfill profile; as well as surface
and groundwater water hydraulic changes, have the potential to impact on the surrounding
vegetation communities and fauna habitats.
4.1 Impacts to flora
Direct and indirect impacts (including potential impacts) to the Endangered Scribbly Gum
woodland ecosystems (RE 12.5.3), Least Concern ecosystems (RE 12.5.4, 12.3.5 and
12.3.13) and regrowth ecosystems that occur in the impact areas and buffer as a result of
clearing; groundwater lowering and changes to surface flows are summarised below.
Clearing Impacts:
Edge effects as a result of proposed clearing (e.g. increased light, weeds, dust etc.)
Loss of up to 2.475 ha of regrowth (Category X) Eucalypt and Melaleuca woodland
that occurs on the eastern landfill boundary and provides an important buffer between
the degraded landfill edge and the high ecological value remnant ecosystems further
east.
Loss of up to 0.275 ha of remnant Scribbly Gum woodland RE12.5.3. mapped as
Category X vegetation
Loss of up to 0.170 ha of mapped remnant Scribbly Gum woodland RE12.5.3.
Loss of up to 0.480 ha of mapped remnant Eucalypt woodland RE12.5.4.
Potential loss of up to 8 large Scribbly Gums with arboreal hollows dependent upon
the final alignment of the southern stormwater discharge drain.
Groundwater Level Changes Impacts:
Potential fracture/breaching of a shallow, indurated layer with potential impacts on
moisture-dependent species in the lower strata of adjacent ecosystems.
Groundwater lowering at depth is unlikely to cause impacts to the Endangered
RE12.5.3 and Least Concern RE12.5.4 as follows:
o The dry sclerophyll plant communities growing on weathered sandstone have
adapted over millennia to these soil conditions and are likely to be able to
withstand a certain degree of groundwater lowering.
o The Scribbly gums (Eucalyptus racemosa) which dominate the canopy have the
capacity to root to 15 metre depth and do not appear to be affected by historical
landfill development and operation.
o The community is not showing any signs of being affected by historical
groundwater lowering for the existing cells (2.1 and 2.2).
Moderate impacts to RE 12.3.13/12.3.5
o RE 12.3.5 typically has standing water on the surface for three months of the
year. Any desiccation resulting from groundwater lowering may lead to a decline
in sedges and a shift towards less water-demanding grasses in the understorey.
The Melaleucas in the canopy will persist in drier conditions.
Noosa Landfill & Resource Recovery Centre – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 3
53
Page 54
Native Foresters
All adjacent vegetation and soil may be affected by the groundwater drainage system
outflow. Areas that provide the receiving environment for groundwater flows
(RE12.5.3/12.5.4/12.3.5) may become wetter over time with resulting impacts on
community structure i.e. the understorey may become more dense (shrubs and
sedges) and composition i.e. more Melaleucas. As the canopy species which define
the ecosystem type are likely to persist, the above-mentioned impacts would not
constitute effective clearing under the Vegetation Management Act 1999.
Surface water Changes Impacts:
Moderate impacts for RE12.5.31 and 12.5.42 as detailed below:
o Localised waterlogging favouring wet sclerophyll/Melaleuca species around
stormwater drain areas and discharge outlets.
o 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. As the canopy
species which define the ecosystem type are likely to persist, this shift to a
wetter understorey would not constitute effective clearing under the Vegetation
Management Act 1999.
o Increased growth of ground cover species assisted by increased soil moisture,
with resultant increases in fire fuel loads and more intense fire events.
o Introduction of nutrients and propagules of invasive plant species into typically
nutrient poor soils, leading to an increase in invasive plant species.
Moderate impacts for RE12.3.13/12.3.5 as detailed below:
o Increased/intermittent surface water/ stormwater inputs to the near east of the
landfill and the closed heathland / wetland Land Zone 3 ecosystems that occur
there, are likely to lead to:
Changes in water quality east of the landfill (i.e. increase in pH, increase in
nutrient concentrations);
Changes to soil chemistry (i.e. altering soil pH levels to a less acidic state);
Changes in vegetation community structure favouring denser understorey
of sedges and ferns.
Intensification and further spread of existing weed outbreaks.
1 The impacts from increased/intermittent surface flows to the Endangered Scribbly gum woodland
(RE 12.5.3) are associated with intermittent increases in clean water flows from Catchment areas
C2C (0.53ha) and C2D (4.84ha) and a proportion of dirty water flows from Catchment area C2A
(2.98ha), C2B (5.27ha) and C3B (1.08ha) that may spill directly into the Endangered ecosystems
during high flow events and/or dissipate through the sandy soils. Refer to Appendix C – Current and
Proposed Surface Water Flows.
2 The impacts from increased/intermittent surface flows to the Least concern Eucalypt woodland
(RE12.5.4) are associated with dirty water flows from Catchment areas C3A (0.72ha) and a
proportion of dirty water flows from Catchment area C1 (4.66ha) that may spill over from the dirty
water cutoff drain into Catchment area C3A or from overland flow during high flow events. Refer to
Appendix C – Current and Proposed Surface Water Flows.
Noosa Landfill & Resource Recovery Centre – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 3
54
Page 55
Native Foresters
4.2 Impacts to fauna
The following impacts and potential impacts to native fauna from landfill expansion works
have been identified:
Clearing Impacts:
Loss of up to 2.475ha of regrowth (Category X) Eucalypt and Melaleuca woodland
Loss of up to 0.445 ha of remnant Scribbly Gum woodland RE12.5.3. and 0.480 ha
of remnant Eucalypt woodland RE12.5.4. including the loss of leaf litter, woody
debris, vegetation, burrows and ephemeral ponds that provide habitat, including
breeding habitat, for native fauna.
There are up to eight relictual hollow-bearing Scribbly gums with dbh>1 metre that
provide potential habitat for arboreal mammals and hollow-dependent fauna (e.g.
microbats, owls, possums, gliders) at the southern end of the clearing area and
within the area proposed for the southern stormwater drain that may be impacted by
works.
Loss of up to 0.650 ha of mapped Koala habitat (core).
Groundwater Level Changes Impacts:
Excavation for the new cells may potentially breach/fracture any indurated material
underlying areas of shallow ‘perched’ groundwater, reducing surface expression of
perched groundwater. This could be detrimental to Swamp Crayfish and/or Wallum
Froglet inhabiting these areas.
Areas that receive inputs from the groundwater drainage management system may
become wetter over time, with resulting changes in species composition and
vegetation structure. Grasses and dry sclerophyll species may be replaced by
sedges and wet-sclerophyll species. This may improve the habitat value of these
areas for amphibians, although whether Wallum Frog species will be favoured will
depend on the quality/pH of the groundwater.
Surface water Changes Impacts:
Changes to vegetation community composition and structure associated with
increased surface water flows may affect the amenity or suitability of the habitat for
breeding, foraging and dispersal by native fauna:
o Localised waterlogging around stormwater outlets and proliferation of water-
dependent native flora species (e.g. Melaleuca, sedges and ferns) will
enhance the amenity and suitability of these areas for amphibians and
crayfish, however Wallum Frog competitor species are likely to be favoured
by the higher pH typical of surface runoff.
o The spread of weed species forming dense infestations (e.g. Para grass,
Setaria grass, and Singapore daisy) around stormwater outlets is likely to
intensify, unless an ongoing management commitment is made;
o An increase in understorey species will result in a higher fire risk.
Noosa Landfill & Resource Recovery Centre – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 3
55
Page 56
Native Foresters
Changes to soil chemistry and water quality associated with increased surface water
flows may potentially alter the suitability of the heathland / wetland habitats for
breeding by acid-specialist Wallum frogs, where the mixing of surface flows with
groundwater has a diluting effect, resulting in higher pH.
Potential contamination of Wallum frog breeding habitat with surface water/
stormwater inputs that may carry detergents, disinfectants and as well as particulate
and dissolved inorganic nutrients, heavy metals and other pollutants associated with
the operation of the landfill. This would only arise where unexpected, accidental,
releases as a result of human error or stochastic events occur. Under current license
requirements, all surface water in contact with waste must be sent to the leachate
management system.
Potential deleterious effects of nitrogen enrichment on amphibians and amphibian
larvae if elevated concentrations (>10mg/L nitrate-nitrogen) are released, including:
o Lethal effects (e.g. increased larval mortality); and
o Sub-lethal effects (e.g. reduced size at metamorphosis; increased frequency
of abnormalities; increased time to hatching or time to metamorphosis).
o Aquatic ecosystem eutrophication which increases amphibian disease risk.
A long term shift in amphibian community composition towards the more
common/tolerant competitor species (Eastern Sedgefrog, Striped Rocketfrog and
Beeping Froglet) may occur as a result of changes to soil chemistry/water quality.
Noosa Landfill & Resource Recovery Centre – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 3
56
Page 57
Native Foresters
5.0 SUMMARY
5.1 Flora and vegetation communities
There is an existing approval for works onsite Permit A – RARP2005/101216 which
allows clearing for the identified works impact areas onsite.
The proposed clearing area adjacent to the landfill can be described as weedy
regrowth in poor condition, with Singapore Daisy, introduced grasses and pastoral
legumes dominating the understorey. It currently provides a buffer to the adjacent
remnant vegetation communities that are in good condition and are generally
consistent with the mapped Regional Ecosystem types.
The proposed clearing area for the southern stormwater discharge drain and the
areas adjacent to the landfill expansion area can be described as remnant Scribbly
gum (Eucalyptus racemosa) and Eucalypt open forest to woodland in the more
elevated areas (Land Zone 5, Figure 2), and Paperbark Tea Tree (Melaleuca
quinquenervia) wetland with closed wet heath and sedgeland in the lower-lying
areas (Land Zone 3, Figure 15).
The remnant Eucalypt-dominated communities east of the landfill (RE 12.5.3/12.5.4)
possess a complex structure and feature old growth Eucalypts up to 20 metres
in height, with diameter at breast height one to two metres, bearing multiple
hollows, and a semi-closed understorey. Weeds are limited to the 25 metre strip
on the edge and around the stormwater discharge outlets.
The remnant Eucalypt woodland (RE12.5.3/12.5.4) and closed heathland (RE
12.3.13) in the impact area, the 100 metre buffer and beyond, that are not near a
point source of surface runoff, a major road or motorway, or an area of historical
clearing, are in very good ecological condition.
The Paperbark Tea Tree community (RE 12.3.5) that occurs along the drainage lines
is highly susceptible to eutrophication and prone to weed invasion, as evidenced by
the current state of the northern drainage line.
There is up to 2.475ha of regrowth (Category X) Eucalypt and Melaleuca woodland
which is impacted by weed growth to be cleared.
There is up to 0.170 ha of vegetation within the southern stormwater discharge drain
that is composed of the Endangered RE 12.5.3 to be cleared.
There is up to 0.480 ha of vegetation within the southern stormwater discharge drain
that is composed of the Least Concern RE 12.5.4 to be cleared.
There is 0.275 ha of vegetation within the southern area of the landfill expansion
area is consistent with the Endangered RE 12.5.3 but is mapped as Category X
vegetation to be cleared.
The potential Impact Area east of the landfill is mapped as an Area of Biodiversity
Significance under the Noosa Plan 2019 (Noosa Council Biodiversity Overlay).
The potential Impact Area lies within a Protected Plants high risk area.
There were no EVNT listed flora species located within the potential Impact Area or
the 100 metre site buffer.
Weed outbreaks are expanding from the landfill edge, drainage lines and historical
clearings for boreholes and access tracks into high quality habitat further north and
east. Along the central drainage line, rampant growth of Silkpod vine growth
(Parsonsia straminea) is dominating all strata.
Noosa Landfill & Resource Recovery Centre – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 3
57
Page 58
Native Foresters
5.2 Fauna
The faunal community identified onsite includes some 26 species of birds, five reptile
species, six amphibian species, three mammals and two invertebrates.
Both adult and juvenile specimens of the Endangered Swamp Crayfish
(Tenuibranchiurus glypticus) were found in the acidic, tannin stained pools in areas
of surface expression of groundwater in the potential Impact Area and 100m buffer.
Due to knowledge gaps relating to Swamp Crayfish breeding habitat requirements,
areas occupied by Swamp Crayfish are considered breeding habitat.
There are three WildNET records of Koala in a one kilometre radius of the site and
there is evidence of Koala activity in the Scribbly Gum woodland at the northern end
along the fire trail (2012) and in the surrounding habitats (2017). The area proposed
for the southern stormwater discharge drain contains 0.650 ha of mapped Koala
habitat (core).
Other arboreal mammals e.g. Gliders are also likely to occur and medium-sized
mammals e.g. Bandicoots and Swamp Wallabies are considered likely to inhabit or
traverse the survey area.
The large populations of small mammals and frogs around the landfill, ponds and
mulch piles support an active raptor and snake population.
Targeted amphibian surveys confirmed the presence of a large population of
Wallum Froglets within 200-600 metres of the landfill’s eastern boundary.
Suitable habitat for breeding by Wallum Froglets (core habitat) occurs within the
potential Impact Area, however no calling activity indicative of breeding was
detected during the survey period in the Impact Area. Calling activity indicative of
breeding by Wallum Froglet was detected in the site’s 100 metre buffer, with core
breeding habitat (i.e. ponded areas with surface expression of acidic groundwater)
confirmed at 200 to 600 metres east north-east of the landfill. Species utilisation of
core breeding habitat areas may expand into the potential Impact Area under very
wet conditions. Refer to Figure 15.
There is also potential habitat for Wallum Rocketfrog in seasonally inundated
depressions and ephemeral drainage lines throughout the closed heathland and
wetland communities in the Potential Impact Area and 100 metre buffer.
The habitat suitability models for these species suggest that all areas mapped as
RE12.3.13 and 12.3.5 constitute core habitat. Adjacent vegetation communities (RE
12.5.4) are considered non-core habitat for Wallum Froglets dispersing after
breeding and core habitat for Wallum Rocketfrogs.
Potential Habitat Models for Wallum Sedgefrog indicate that core habitat is not
present in the Potential Impact Area. Non-core habitat is mapped as occurring in
the areas mapped as 12.3.13 and 12.3.5. However, ground-truthing surveys
suggest that an area of sedgeland located on the edge of the 100 metre buffer
possesses suitable (core) habitat attributes to support breeding by this species.
Noosa Landfill & Resource Recovery Centre – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 3
58
Page 59
Native Foresters
5.3 Summary of Impacts
Works will result in the clearing of 0.170 ha of mapped Endangered RE 12.5.3
vegetation and 0.275 of unmapped (category X) RE 12.5.3 vegetation.
This area contains a number of large remnant Scribbly Gums with arboreal hollows
present.
Works will result in the clearing and 0.480 ha of mapped Least Concern RE 12.5.4
vegetation within the southern stormwater discharge drain.
Works will result in the clearing of 2.475ha of regrowth (Category X) Eucalypt and
Melaleuca woodland which is impacted by weed growth.
The current condition of the Endangered and Least concern remnant ecosystems
adjacent to the landfill, particularly along the eastern boundary, drainage lines and
stormwater outfalls (SW4 and SW5), suggest that the proliferation of introduced
weeds and stormwater inputs are impacting vegetation community structure and
composition in the adjacent remnant ecosystems.
Additional/intermittent stormwater inputs and loss of regrowth and remnant
vegetation on the eastern boundary are likely to exacerbate existing impacts.
Initially, these impacts may be localised, however over time, unless carefully
managed, their influence on soil conditions and vegetation communities is likely to
extend further downslope and east into the Endangered ecosystem and Wallum
Frog/Swamp Crayfish habitats.
The Paperbark tea tree wetland community (RE 12.3.5) along the drainage lines
may demonstrate greater resilience to increased/intermittent surface water flows
and groundwater flows than the Endangered Scribbly Gum community (RE12.5.3).
Impacts to native fauna and vegetation communities from changes to groundwater
flows depend on the complex interplay of factors relating to surface and subsurface
flows; groundwater recharge; aquifer confinement and soil porosity; pH and salinity;
and temporal connectivity of coastal sand mass ecosystems.
It appears likely that both Swamp Crayfish and Wallum Froglet would tolerate a
moderate increase in water pH, i.e. both have been recorded in pH 6.0 water.
However, over time changes in amphibian faunal assemblages favouring the more
common competitor species (Eastern Sedgefrog, Striped Rocketfrog and Beeping
Froglet) may occur.
Species tolerance to changes in nutrient concentrations, heavy metal ion
concentrations and other pollutants (e.g. surfactants and detergents) are unknown.
However, lethal and sub-lethal effects of nitrogen enrichment and eutrophication of
aquatic systems on other amphibian species are well documented.
It appears likely that Land Zone 5 dry sclerophyll ecosystems would tolerate to a
certain degree the lowering of groundwater levels. However, if subject to receiving
additional groundwater flows from the groundwater drainage system, these
ecosystems may become more dense; develop a shrubbier understorey and
become more susceptible to weed invasion.
Land Zone 3 ecosystems are well adapted to wet conditions (surface and
subsurface) and any additional groundwater flows from the groundwater drainage
system may cause ponded water to remain for longer periods and allow sedges,
ferns and/or weeds to proliferate in the understorey.
Noosa Landfill & Resource Recovery Centre – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 3
59
Page 60
Native Foresters
6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are provided with respect to native vegetation
communities, fauna species and breeding habitats that occur in the proposed landfill
expansion area and the identified Impact Area.
6.1 Vegetation clearing
i. 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. If clearing is not commenced prior to 3/02/2022, then
a revised flora survey will be required.
ii. The alignment for the southern stormwater discharge drain should take into account
and avoid impacts to the large hollow bearing Scribbly Gums present where
possible.
iii. A Fauna Spotter catcher should be engaged prior to clearing to conduct a pre-clear
survey of hollows and nests in the clearing area. The Spotter catcher will also be
required during clearing and excavation works to relocate any native fauna found to
undisturbed habitat nearby.
6.2 Surface water
i. During the detailed concept design of the proposed new landfill cells, hydraulic
modeling, hydrological modeling, flowpath design, stormwater detention and
stormwater quality treatment systems need to consider the impacts associated with
increased flows to adjacent protected vegetation and changes to the quality of water
released into these ecosystems.
ii. To avoid impacts from increased/intermittent surface flows to the Endangered
Scribbly Gum vegetation community (RE12.5.3) consideration should be given to
minimising surface water discharges to this area.
iii. To fulfill the general environmental duty of care under the Environmental Protection
Act 1994, the use of wetlands, settling ponds and bioretention basins should be
incorporated to extract nutrients, sediment, heavy metals and/or surfactants prior to
surface flows entering the drainage lines and adjacent wetlands.
6.3 Groundwater flow and Groundwater dependent ecosystems
i. A hydrogeological assessment of the groundwater resources for the site and
hydrological modeling is required to assess the effects of cell construction on
groundwater levels to the east of the site and to determine whether the potential
exists for significant impacts on adjacent endangered ecosystems, confirmed
breeding habitat for Swamp Crayfish and Core mapped breeding habitat for Wallum
Frogs.
Noosa Landfill & Resource Recovery Centre – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 3
60
Page 61
Native Foresters
6.4 Fauna
i. The provision of relevant hydrological information on the impacts to surface water
and groundwater within the potential Impact area will allow determinations of the
impact on EVNT fauna species specifically:
o Swamp Crayfish which has confirmed breeding habitat in the Impact Area.
o Wallum Froglet and Wallum Rocketfrog which have mapped breeding habitat
present in the Impact Area.
ii. If the further investigations of site hydrology indicate that potential impacts to the
breeding habitat of EVNT-listed fauna occurring in the Impact Area cannot be
avoided, a DES-approved Species Management Plan will be required under the
Queensland Nature Conservation (Wildlife Management) Regulation 2006.
iii. Clearing in the southern section of the Landfill Expansion area will result in the loss
of approximately 0.275 ha of Koala habitat that is within a mapped Koala Priority
Area (KPA).
iv. If works cannot avoid clearing of large hollow bearing Scribbly Gums a determination
of the presence of colonial breeding microbats and other least concern arboreal
fauna species will be required.
v. If impacts to roosting microbats cannot be avoided then a DES approved SMP for
these species will be required.
6.5 Invasive species
i. Regular and ongoing management and monitoring of invasive plant species along
landfill edges should be undertaken. Slashing of Singapore Daisy should be
discontinued, and spraying should be conducted during dry periods and outside of
amphibian breeding season.
ii. Clearing for boreholes should be limited and strict machinery hygiene protocols
enforced to prevent further undesirable spread of invasive species into adjacent
remnant ecosystems. Drilling using a hand auger will minimise access issues and
potential clearing required.
6.6 Matters of State Environmental Significance
A determination of the impacts on Matters of State Environmental Significance for the
following prescribed environmental matters may be required:
i. Regulated Vegetation:
Clearing of 0.170 ha of mapped Endangered RE 12.5.3 may require a SRI
assessment.
Groundwater drainage and surface runoff discharge into the Endangered RE
12.5.3 ecosystems may require an SRI assessment.
ii. Protected Wildlife Habitat:
Changes to surface water quantity and/or quality discharged into adjacent
ecosystems may impact Swamp Crayfish breeding habitat and mapped
breeding habitat for Wallum Frogs and may require a SRI assessment.
Clearing of Koala habitat may require a SRI assessment.
Noosa Landfill & Resource Recovery Centre – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 3
61
Page 62
Native Foresters
REFERENCES
Australian Government (2014) Aquifer connectivity within the Great Artesian Basin, and the
Surat, Bowen and Galilee Basins. Background Review, Office of Water Science, March
2014. Department of the Environment, Canberra.
Biodiversity Assessment and Management Pty Ltd (2012) Fauna & Flora Surveys –
Noosa Fire Trails, Report prepared for Callaghan & Toth.
Cuthbert, I.D. and del Giorgio, P. (1992). Toward a standard method of measuring colour
in freshwater. Limnology and Oceanography, 37(6), pp 1319-1326.
Dawkins, K. L. 2015.A study on Tenuibranchiurus and the burrowing clade of Australian
crayfish. PhD Thesis, Griffith University, Gold Coast.
Dawkins Kathryn L., Furse James M., Wild Clyde H., Hughes Jane M. (2010) Distribution
and population genetics of the threatened freshwater crayfish genus Tenuibranchiurus
(Decapoda: Parastacidae). Marine and Freshwater Research 61, 1048-1055.
Dawkins, K.L., Furse J. M., Wild C.H., Hughes J.M. (2017).A novel genus and cryptic
species harboured within the monotypic freshwater crayfish genus Tenuibranchiurus Riek,
1951 (Decapoda: Parastacidae). PeerJ 5:e3310; DOI 10.7717/peerj.3310
Earth Search (2019) Noosa Council Eumundi Road Landfill Groundwater Contour Plan
(dated 8th March 2019)
Egea-Serrano A, Relyea RA, Tejedo M, Torralva M. (2012) Understanding of the impact of
chemicals on amphibians: a meta-analytic review. Ecology and Evolution. 2012;2(7):1382–
1397. doi:10.1002/ece3.249.
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.
Frogs Australia Network 2017. Australian Frogs Database. www.frogsaustralia.net.au
Johnson, P.T., Chase, J.M., Dosch, K.L., Hartson, R.B., Gross, J.A., Larson,
D.J., Sutherland, D.R. and Carpenter, S.R. (2007) Aquatic eutrophication promotes
pathogenic infection in amphibians in Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences Oct 2007, 104 (40) 15781- 15786; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0707763104
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., Hero, J-M., Shoo, L. and Lewis, B. 2006. National recovery plan for the wallum
sedgefrog and other wallum-dependent frog species . Report to Department of the
Environment and Water Resources, Canberra. Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service,
Brisbane.
Noosa Landfill & Resource Recovery Centre – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 3
62
Page 63
Native Foresters
Neldner, V.J., Wilson, B.A., Thompson, E.J. and Dillewaard, H.A. (2012) Methodology for
Survey and Mapping of Regional Ecosystems and Vegetation Communities in Queensland,
Version 3.2, Queensland Herbarium, Queensland Department
Ortiz-Santaliestra, M. E., A. Marco, M. J. Fernandez, and M. Lizana. 2006. Influence of
developmental stage on sensitivity to ammonium nitrate of aquatic stages of amphibians.
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 25:105–111. Viewed Online. Google Scholar
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) Habitat
suitability models series, licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 sourced on 01
March 2019
Queensland Government, Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (2015) Flora
Survey Guidelines – Protected Plants. Nature Conservation Act 1992.
Queensland Government (2006). Nature Conservation (Wildlife Management) Regulation
2006.
Queensland Herbarium (2016) Regional Ecosystem Description Database (REDD). Version
10.0 (December 2016) (DSITI: Brisbane).
Shinn, C., A. Marco, and L. Serrano. 2008. Inter- and intra-specific variation on sensitivity
of larval amphibians to nitrite. Chemosphere 71:507–514. Viewed online. Google Scholar.
State of Queensland (Department of Environment and Science) 2019. Updated data
available at
http://qldspatial.information.qld.gov.au/catalogue/custom/search.page?q=%22Habita
t suitability model - Crinia tinnula%22
State of Queensland (Department of Environment and Science) 2019. Updated data
available at
http://qldspatial.information.qld.gov.au/catalogue/custom/search.page?q=%22Habita
t suitability model - Litoria freycineti%22
Wijethunga ,U., Greenlees, M., Shine, R. (2015) The Acid Test: pH Tolerance of the Eggs
and Larvae of the Invasive Cane Toad (Rhinella marina) in Southeastern Australia.
Physiol Biochem Zool. 88(4):433-43. doi: 10.1086/681263. Epub 2015 Apr 16.
Noosa Landfill & Resource Recovery Centre – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 3
63
Page 64
Native Foresters
APPENDIX A – MAP OF AREA COVERED BY PERMIT A
Noosa Landfill & Resource Recovery Centre – Fauna and Flora Assessment – Revision 3
64
Page 65
Native Foresters APPENDIX B – NOOSA LANDFILL LAYOUT PLAN Noosa Landfill & Resource Recovery Centre – Fauna and Flora Assessment 65
Page 66
Native Foresters APPENDIX C - CURRENT AND PROPOSED SURFACE WATER FLOWS Noosa Landfill & Resource Recovery Centre – Fauna and Flora Assessment 66
Page 67
Native Foresters APPENDIX D - GROUNDWATER CONTOUR PLAN Noosa Landfill & Resource Recovery Centre – Fauna and Flora Assessment 67
Page 68
Native Foresters APPENDIX E – PROPOSED WORKS OVERLAYING RE TYPES ONSITE Noosa Landfill & Resource Recovery Centre – Fauna and Flora Assessment 68
Page 69
Native Foresters
APPENDIX F - CERTIFICATION OF SUITABLY QUALIFIED
PERSON - FLORA
Native Foresters flora surveys are undertaken by competent and trained personnel led by Dave
Burrows and Bill Flenady.
Dave has over 20 years’ experience in conducting botanical surveys, including identification of EVNT
species and extensive knowledge of local ecosystems in the Gympie, Noosa and Sunshine Coast
regions. Dave has a Diploma in Horticulture, and Conservation and Land Management. Examples of
botanical surveys include:
Flora and Fauna Assessment – Cooney Road, Bli Bli – Nambour Landfill Expansion (2015-
2017)
Flora and Fauna Assessment – Park Road, Noosa Boardwalk (2015)
Flora and Fauna Assessment – Daintree Estate, Tewantin (2014)
Dave has also authored the following publications:
“Vegetation of Noosa Shire, edition 2” – 2003, Noosa Shire Council planning scheme study
Various Bushland Management Plans for Noosa Council conservation Reserves.
“Seed production and litterfall in some Eucalyptus communities in Central Queensland”
Australian Journal of Botany, Vol 40, 1992.
“Regeneration and survival of Desmanthus virgatus 78382 in grazed and ungrazed
pastures”. Tropical Grasslands. Vol 27, 1993.
“Performance and palatability of some Australian Trees and Shrubs”. Nitrogen fixing tree
research reports, 1991.
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 – Bundaroo Creek Bridge, Conondale National Park (2018)
Population survey of Pararistolochia praevenosa - Nambour Landfill (2015-2017)
Population survey of Macrozamia pauli-guilielmi at Anderleigh Road, Gunalda (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 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 Sunshine Coast Council.
Name: Dave Burrows Signature:
Date: 15th March 2019
Noosa Landfill & Resource Recovery Centre – Fauna and Flora Assessment 69
Page 70
Native Foresters APPENDIX G - JUSTIFICATION OF SUITABLY QUALIFIED AND EXPERIENCED PERSON - FAUNA 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. Vanessa (Bsc) is an ecological consultant and recreational reptile-keeper with over 20 years’ experience in the following: conducting ecological research, field surveys and searches for animal breeding places; habitat restoration and revegetation; and fauna relocation / Spotter-catching. Noosa Landfill & Resource Recovery Centre – Fauna and Flora Assessment 70
Page 71
Native Foresters
APPENDIX H – SURFACE WATER / GROUND WATER MONTORING AND FIELD
OBSERVATIONS
WAY LAT LONG LOCATION SURFACE WATER VEGETATION AQUATIC WATER pH SALINITY TANNIN- NOTES ON
POINT (Decimal (Decimal FAUNA QUALITY (ppt) STAINING HYDROLOGY
degrees) degrees) OBSERVATIONS (mg/L
tannic acid
equiv.)
2004 -26.437 153.0297 Eastern Shallow surface water Regrowth M. Mid-stage Water clear, with 6.7 0.5 4.072 Water in drainage line
boundary of tip, along drainage line quinquenervia Limnodynast light tannin- most likely surface
near northern running along north- with weedy es peronii staining runoff from tip.
end of Impact eastern boundary of grasses and tadpoles
Area tip, upstream of Persicaria sp. present
confluence with
weedy drainage
carrying runoff
eastwards from tip.
2005 -26.4366 153.0294 Eastern Shallow water Regrowth M. Water clear, with 7.1 NA NA Water in drainage line
boundary of tip, drainage line running quinquenervia light tannin- most likely surface
near northern along north-eastern with weedy staining runoff from tip.
end of Impact boundary of tip, grasses and
Area immediately Persicaria sp.
downstream of
confluence with
weedy drainage line
carrying runoff from
tip.
2008 -26.4357 153.0295 Regrowth at Shallow ponding Regrowth M. Water mildly 6.8 NA NA Area receiving surface
northern end of water at eastern edge quinquenervia turbid runoff from drainage line
Impact Area of weedy disturbance with various along eastern boundary
area receiving runoff dicotyledonous of tip. Ponding water
from drainage line weeds (including possibly due to impeded
along eastern Singapore daisy drainage through poorly-
boundary of tip site. and Solanum drained/water-logged
Coarse litter (foam spp.) soil.
and plastic bottles)
throughout much of
disturbance area.
Noosa Landfill & Resource Recovery Centre – Fauna and Flora Assessment 71
Page 72
Native Foresters
WAY LAT LONG LOCATION SURFACE WATER VEGETATION AQUATIC WATER pH SALINITY TANNIN- NOTES ON
POINT (Decimal (Decimal FAUNA QUALITY (ppt) STAINING HYDROLOGY
degrees) degrees) OBSERVATIONS (mg/L
tannic acid
equiv.)
2012 -26.4362 153.0302 Remnant Shallow water within Remnant Young of- Water clear with 5.6 0.2 9.3 Ponding of surface
vegetation at naturally-formed vegetation year juvenile moderate tannin- water possibly due to
northern end of depression. dominated by Tenuibranchi staining impeded drainage; more
Impact Area, at sedges, M. urus glypticus likely due to surface
Land Zone 5 / quinquenervia and subadult expression of shallow
Land Zone 3 and Banksia robur Cherax sp cf. groundwater above
interface. mapped as RE depressus. indurated layer.
12.3.5/12.3.13.
2013 -26.4362 153.0316 Remnant Shallow ponding Remnant wet Adult T. Water clear with 4.5 0.1 6.82 Ponding of surface
vegetation at water in naturally- heath mapped as glypticus. mild-to-moderate water possibly due to
northern end of formed depression RE 12.3.5/12.3.13 Several C. tannin-staining impeded drainage; more
Impact Area with amidst remnant with sparse to tinnula heard likely due to surface
wet heath mid-dense shrub calling 20-30 expression of shallow
layer including m ENE of this groundwater above
Hakea actites point. indurated layer.
2015 -26.4405 153.033 Remnant/ Small area of shallow Regrowth M. Water clear with 5.2 0.1 9.9 Ponding of surface
regrowth surface water quinquenervia moderate tannin- water suggesting
vegetation immediately staining impeded drainage
along eastern adjacent remnant through soil, possibly
boundary of tip, E. racemosa open due to waterlogging
at southern end forest, to the near and/or presence of
of Impact Area. south of shallow indurated layer.
discharge point
along eastern
boundary of tip.
Noosa Landfill & Resource Recovery Centre – Fauna and Flora Assessment 72
Page 73
Native Foresters
WAY LAT LONG LOCATION SURFACE WATER VEGETATION AQUATIC WATER pH SALINITY TANNIN- NOTES ON
POINT (Decimal (Decimal FAUNA QUALITY (ppt) STAINING HYDROLOGY
degrees) degrees) OBSERVATIONS (mg/L
tannic acid
equiv.)
2018 -26.4402 153.0326 Remnant/regro Area of shallow Regrowth M. Water clear with 5.8 NA NA Water possibly
wth vegetation surface water quinquenervia light tannin- originating from
along eastern downstream of immediately staining and subterranean movement
boundary of tip, discharge point, near adjacent remnant of surface runoff from
at southern end Bore 18 E. racemosa open tip.
of Impact Area. forest, to the near
south of
discharge point
along eastern
boundary of tip.
2019 -26.4399 153.0329 Remnant/regro Narrow, shallow Regrowth M. Water slightly 5.7 0.1 4.31 Water along drainage
wth vegetation drainage line east of quinquenervia turbid with light line possibly originating
along eastern discharge point with scattered tannin-staining from subterranean
boundary of tip, Gahnia and movement of surface
at southern end Banksia robur. runoff from further
of Impact Area. upslope
2020 -26.44 153.0334 Remnant/regro Area of shallow M. quinquenervia Water clear with 7 NA NA Water along drainage
wth vegetation ponding water amidst woodland with light tannin- line possibly originating
east of tip, at sedges and Parsonsia sedges and staining from subterranean
southern end of sp. cf. straminea. extensive growth movement of surface
Impact Area; of Parsonsia. runoff from drainage line
east-south-east on eastern boundary of
and downslope tip
of discharge
point along
eastern
boundary of tip.
Noosa Landfill & Resource Recovery Centre – Fauna and Flora Assessment 73
Page 74
Native Foresters
WAY LAT LONG LOCATION SURFACE WATER VEGETATION AQUATIC WATER pH SALINITY TANNIN- NOTES ON
POINT (Decimal (Decimal FAUNA QUALITY (ppt) STAINING HYDROLOGY
degrees) degrees) OBSERVATIONS (mg/L
tannic acid
equiv.)
2022 -26.4403 153.0339 Remnant/regrowth Area of shallow M. quinquenervia Water clear with 4.6 NA NA Ponding of surface
vegetation east of ponding water woodland with light-to-moderate water possibly due to
tip, at southern end amidst sedges, to mid-dense sedge tannin-staining impeded drainage; more
of Impact Area, on the south of area cover. likely due to surface
edge of RE12.5.3 / infested with expression of shallow
12.5.4. Parsonsia. groundwater above
indurated layer.
2025 -26.4394 153.0345 Remnant/regrowt Shallow ponding Wet heath with Water clear with 6.7 NA NA Water possibly
h vegetation east water amidst emergent M. light tannin- originating from
of tip, at southern sedges and quinquenervia staining extensive subterranean
end of Impact Parsonsia. and M. sieberi movement of surface
Area. and extensive runoff from drainage line
growth of on eastern boundary of
Parsonsia. tip. The dense growth of
Parsonsia may reflect
alterations to hydrology
and/or water chemistry
due to discharge of
surface runoff from tip
(including increased pH
and, potentially, nutrient
levels).
Noosa Landfill & Resource Recovery Centre – Fauna and Flora Assessment 74
Page 75
Native Foresters
WAY LAT LONG LOCATION SURFACE WATER VEGETATION AQUATIC WATER pH SALINITY TANNIN- NOTES ON
POINT (Decimal (Decimal FAUNA QUALITY (ppt) STAINING HYDROLOGY
degrees) degrees) OBSERVATIONS (mg/L
tannic acid
equiv.)
2026 -26.4403 153.0332 Remnant/regrowt Shallow ponding M. quinquenervia Water clear with NA NA NA Water possibly
h vegetation east water amidst woodland with orange sludge originating from
of tip, at southern sedges and sedges and iron-oxidizing extensive subterranean
end of Impact Parsonsia. extensive growth bacteria movement of surface
Area; within of Parsonsia. runoff from drainage line
Parsonsia on eastern boundary.
infestation. Presence of iron-
oxidising bacteria
suggests possible
elevated iron (FeII)
levels in emerging
groundwater and/or
more anoxic ground
water.
2027 -26.4404 153.0326 Eastern boundary Rocky drainage line Various Late-stage Water clear with 7.3 NA NA Drainage line containing
of tip, at southern carrying runoff from herbaceous Cane toad light tannin- surface runoff from tip.
end of Impact tip to discharge weeds and exotic tadpoles. staining
Area. point along eastern grasses. Numerous
boundary. recently-
metamorphos
ed toads on
vehicle track.
2028 -26.4421 153.0339 Remnant/regrowt Shallow water along Allocasuarina Water slightly 7.2 NA NA Drainage line carrying
h vegetation east narrow drainage littoralis turbid with light surface runoff from
of tip, at far line. woodland tannin-staining further upslope.
southern end of adjoining remnant
Impact Area. E. racemosa open
forest.
Noosa Landfill & Resource Recovery Centre – Fauna and Flora Assessment 75
Page 76
Native Foresters
APPENDIX I – FLORA SPECIES LIST
SITE: Noosa Landfill eastern edge and 100 metre Buffer
GPS: -26.438293, 153.030988
BOTANIST: Dave Burrows and Vanessa Moscato
KEY Form: T-tree, S/T-small tree, S-shrub, H-herb, V-vine, G-grass/sedge, O-orchid, F-fern, P-palm
Strata - C - Canopy, M -mid strata, S -Shrub, G – ground
Species Family Common name Form RE 12.3.4 RE 12.5.3 RE 12.3.13 RE 12.5.4
Acacia cincinnata Mimosaceae Coil-pod Wattle S/T C, edge C
Acacia disparrima Mimosaceae Hickory Wattle T M
Acacia flavescens Mimosaceae Broad-leaf Wattle S/T M,S
Acacia hubbardiana Mimosaceae Hubbards Wattle S S S
Acacia leiocalyx Mimosaceae Early-flowering Black Wattle S/T M
Acacia melanoxylon Mimosaceae Blackwood T M M M
Acacia penninervis Mimosaceae Mountain Hickory Wattle S S
Acacia suaveolens Mimosaceae Sweet Scented Wattle S S S
Allocasuarina littoralis Casuarinaceae Black She-oak S/T M
Alphitonia excelsa Rhamnaceae Red Ash T M M
Austromyrtus dulcis Myrtaceae Midjim Berry S S
Banksia robur Proteaceae Swamp Banksia S M M
Banksia spinulosa Proteaceae Hill Banksia S S
Billardiera scandens Pittosporaceae Apple Berry V G
Cassytha glabella Lauraceae Smooth Dodder Laurel V G G G
Caustis blakei Restionaceae Foxtails G G
Corymbia gummifera? (no
Myrtaceae Red Bloodwood T C
fertile material)
Corymbia intermedia Myrtaceae Pink Bloodwood T C
Corymbia trachyphloia Myrtaceae Brown Bloodwood T C
Cymbidium suave Orchidaceae Sweet Cymbidium O M
Noosa Landfill & Resource Recovery Centre – Fauna and Flora Assessment 76
Page 77
Native Foresters Species Family Common name Form RE 12.3.4 RE 12.5.3 RE 12.3.13 RE 12.5.4 Dodonaea triquetra Sapindaceae Hopbush S S Elaeocarpus obovatus Elaeocarpaceae Hard Quandong T M Entolasia stricta Poaceae Wiry Panic G G G Epacris microphylla Epacridaceae Stem clasping S S S Eucalyptus latisinensis Myrtaceae Broad-leaf White Mahogany T M C Eucalyptus racemosa Myrtaceae Scribbly Gum T C Eucalyptus resinifera Myrtaceae Red Mahogany T M C M Eucalyptus robusta Myrtaceae Swamp Mahogany T C Eucalyptus tindaliae Myrtaceae Qld White Mahogany T C Ficus platypoda Moraceae Rock Fig T M Gahnia sieberiana Cyperaceae Tall Sword Grass G S S S S Geitonoplesium cymosum Philesiaceae Scrambling Lily V G Gleichenia dicarpa Gleicheniaceae Pouched Coral Fern F G G Glochidion ferdinandi Euphorbiaceae Cheese Tree T S Glochidion sumatranum Euphorbiaceae Umbrella Cheese Tree T M Hakea actites Proteaceae S S S S Hakea florulenta Proteaceae S S S Hibbertia scandens Dilleniaceae Snake Vine, Guinea Flower V G G Hibiscus diversifolia Malvaceae Swamp Hibiscus T S Hovea acutifolia Fabaceae Pointed-leaf Hovea S S Imperata cylindrica Poaceae Blady Grass G G G Lepidosperma laterale Cyperaceae Variable Swordsedge G G G G G Lomandra longifolia Laxmanniaceae Mat Rush G G G Leptospermum liversidgei Myrtaceae Lemon-scented Tea Tree S M M Lomandra multiflora Laxmanniaceae Many-flowered Mat Rush G G Lophostemon suaveolens Myrtaceae Swamp Box T C,M M C Lycopodiella cernua Lycopodiaceae Coral Fern F G Lygodium microphyllum Schizaeaceae Climbing Maiden Hair Fern F G Melaleuca pachyphylla Myrtaceae Wallum Bottle brush S/T S S Melaleuca quinquenervia Myrtaceae Paper Barked Tea Tree S/T C,M C,M C, scattered C,M Noosa Landfill & Resource Recovery Centre – Fauna and Flora Assessment 77
Page 78
Native Foresters
Species Family Common name Form RE 12.3.4 RE 12.5.3 RE 12.3.13 RE 12.5.4
Melaleuca sieberi Myrtaceae Small-leaved Paperbark S/T M M M
Melastoma malabathricum Melastomaceae Blue Tongue S S S S
Monotoca scoparia Epacridaceae Prickly Broom Heath S M M
Nymphoides indica Menyanthaceae Water Snowflake W
Ottochloa nodosa Poaceae G G
Parsonsia straminea Apocynaceae Monkey Rope V G,M G,M G,M
Patersonia fragilis Iridaceae Swamp Iris L G
Persoonia virgata Proteaceae Narrow-leaf Geebung S S S S
Petalostigma triloculare Euphorbiaceae Quinine Bush S M
Pteridium esculentum Dennstaedtiaceae Bracken Fern F G G
Philotheca queenslandica Rutaceae Qld Wax Flower S S S
Pultenaea villosa Fabaceae Bacon and Eggs S S
Schizaea bifida Schizaeaceae Forked Comb Fern F G
Schoenus melanostachys Cyperaceae Black Bogrush G G G G G
Smilax glyciphylla Smilacaceae Native Sarsparilla V G G
Stephania japonica Menispermaceae Tape Vine V G
Symplocos stawellii Symplocaceae Hazelwood T M
Syncarpia glomulifera Myrtaceae Turpentine T C,M
Themeda triandra Poaceae Kangaroo Grass G G
Xanthorrhoea fulva Xanthorrhoeaceae Swamp Grasstree G S S
Xanthorrhoea latifolia ssp.
Xanthorrhoeaceae Grasstree G S
latifolia
Zieria laxiflora Rutaceae Coastal Zieria S S
Total number of native plant species: 72
Noosa Landfill & Resource Recovery Centre – Fauna and Flora Assessment 78
Page 79
Native Foresters APPENDIX J – ENDANGERED RE 12.5.3 GROUND- TRUTHED EXTENT Noosa Landfill & Resource Recovery Centre – Fauna and Flora Assessment 79
Page 80
Native Foresters APPENDIX K - FAUNA SPECIES LIST SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME MAMMALS Petaurus norfolkensis or P. breviceps Squirrel Glider or Sugar Glider Macropus giganteus Eastern Grey Kangaroo Rattus rattus* Black Rat Trichosurus vulpecula Common Brushtail Possum BIRDS Alectura lathami Brush Turkey Ardea intermedia Intermediate Egret Chenonetta jubata Australian Wood Duck Coracina novaehollandiae Black-faced Cuckoo-shrike Corvus orru Torresian Crow Coturnix ypsilophora Brown Quail Cracticus tibicen Australian Magpie Cracticus nigrogularis Pied Butcherbird Dacelo novaehollandiae Laughing Kookaburra Elseyornis melanops Black-fronted Dotterel Eopsaltria australis Eastern Yellow Robin Gallinula tenebrosa Dusky Moorhen Gerygone olivacea White-throated Gerygone Grallina cyanoleuca Magpie Lark Haliastur indus Brahminy Kite Haliaeetus leucogaster White-bellied Sea Eagle Lichmera indistincta Brown Honeyeater Manorina melanocephala Noisy Miner Meliphaga lewinii Lewin’s Honeyeater Milvus migrans Black Kite Phaps chalcoptera Common Bronze wing Psophodes olivaceus Eastern Whipbird Rhipidura leucophrys Willie Wagtail Strepera graculina Pied Currawong Threskiornis molucca Australian White Ibis Trichoglossus haematodus moluccanus Rainbow Lorikeet Trichoglossus chlorolepidotus Scaly-breasted Lorikeet REPTILES Dendrelaphis punctulatus Green Tree Snake Varanus varius Lace Monitor Pseudonaja textilis Eastern Brown Snake Pseudechis porphyriacus Red Belly Black Carlia vivax Lively Rainbow Skink AMPHIBIANS Noosa Landfill & Resource Recovery Centre – Fauna and Flora Assessment 80
Page 81
Native Foresters Crinia tinnulaV Wallum Froglet Limnodynastes peronii Striped Marsh Frog Litoria dentata Bleating Tree Frog Litoria fallax Eastern Sedgefrog Litoria gracilenta Graceful Tree Frog Litoria nasuta Striped Rocketfrog Rhinella marina* Cane Toad INVERTEBRATES Cherax depressus Orange-fingered Yabby Tenuibranchiurus glypticusE Swamp Crayfish KEY E Endangered species V Vulnerable species * Introduced species Noosa Landfill & Resource Recovery Centre – Fauna and Flora Assessment 81
Page 82
Native Foresters
APPENDIX L – LOCATION OF RECENT KOALA ACTIVITY
SOURCE: USC Koala Detection Dogs for Conservation
KEY
Survey conducted – presence not detected
Survey conducted – presence detected
Noosa Landfill & Resource Recovery Centre – Fauna and Flora Assessment 82