MCU 14/0106 Appendix F - Ecological Assessment

State and Local Government Ecological Assessment
Noosa Civic Expansion



Habitat was value ranked according to the following criteria (Table 2-3) as well as ground truthed vegetation
assessment and mapping (i.e. remnant/non-remnant/disturbed) in earlier sections of this report.

Table 2-3               General Habitat Assessment Matrix
ASSESSMENT                                                                Habitat Ranking
MATRIX
                             Very High                    High                 Moderate                Low              Very Low
  Broad Fauna
  Group/Type
 Arboreal and or            Abundant or            Common or high        Common to                 Occasional or      Absent, rare or
     hollow              very high quality         quality for factors   Occasional or             low quality for    very low quality
   dependent             for factors 1 & 3         1 & 3 (factors 2 &    medium quality for          factors 1 & 3   for factors 1 & 3
                           (factors 2 & 4          4 may or may not      factors 1 & 3 (factors     (factors 2 & 4     (factors 2 & 4
                          may or may not           be present). Low      2 & 4 may or may         may or may not      may or may not
                            be present).                  for 5.         not be present). Low        be present).       be present).
                          Very low for 5.                                to moderate for 5.           High for 5.     Very high for 5.
 Terrestrial &              Abundant or            Common or high        Common to                 Occasional or      Absent, rare or
Ground dwelling          very high quality         quality for factors   Occasional or             low quality for    very low quality
   (reptiles,            for factors 1, 2 &        1, 2 & 3 (factor 4    medium quality for       factors 1, 2 & 3   for factors 1, 2 &
 mammals and              3 (factor 4 may           may or may not       factors 1, 2 & 3         (factor 4 may or    3 (factor 4 may
     birds)                or may not be           be present). Low      (factor 4 may or may         may not be       or may not be
                          present). Very                  for 5.         not be present). Low      present). High      present). Very
                              low for 5.                                 to moderate for 5.              for 5.          high for 5.
   Amphibious or            Abundant or            Common or high        Common to                 Occasional or      Absent, rare or
 water dependent         very high quality         quality for factors   Occasional or             low quality for    very low quality
life stage/wetland       for factors 1, 2 &        1, 2 & 4 (factor 3    medium quality for       factors 1, 2 & 4   for factors 1, 2 &
     dependent            4 (factor 3 may           may or may not       factors 1, 2 & 4         (factor 3 may or    4 (factor 3 may
                           or may not be           be present). Low      (factor 3 may or may         may not be       or may not be
                          present). Very                  for 5.         not be present). Low      present). High      present). Very
                              low for 5.                                 to moderate for 5.              for 5.          high for 5.
Factors
1 - Vegetation Integrity and connectivity

2 - Diversity in Ground Layer components (logs, leaf litter, rocks, boulders)
3 - Hollows (ground or arboreal in trees, stags, decorticating bark, rock crevices)
4 - Wetlands and/or Waterways

5 - Disturbance Levels (weeds, clearing, fire, grazing)
Note: Specific habitat factors for individual species (especially threatened species) are dealt with separately.



2.1.4.13           Targeted Searches
Appendix I includes a review of the species that have potential to utilise the area based on their habitat
preferences.
Threatened species identified in database searches as ‘Known’, ‘Possible’ or ‘Likely’ were specifically
targeted. Species were targeted using methods identified in State guidelines (guidelines were taken into
account at the fauna survey planning stage). In addition, the species habit and potential use of the Study
Area was taken into account when planning the targeted searches. Search methods summarised in Table 2-
4 show how these threatened species were targeted during site surveys.

Table 2-4               Targeted Methods
   Species                                          Common Name                           Target Search Method
   Adelotus brevis                                  Tusked Frog                           Pitfall trapping / call / habitat assessment
   Calyptorhynchus lathami                          Glossy black-cockatoo                 Ort search / Casuarina feed tree search
   Crinia tinnula                                   Wallum froglet                        Pitfall trapping / call / habitat assessment
   Ephippiorhynchus asiaticus                       Black-necked stork                    Active search for and of potential habitat
   Eroticoscincus graciloides                       Elf skink                             Pitfall trapping / habitat assessment / active
                                                                                          searches
   Lewinia pectoralis                               Lewin's rail                          Active search for and of potential habitat
   Litoria brevipalmata                             Green thighed frog                    Pitfall trapping / call / habitat assessment

QIC Noosa Civic Pty Ltd                                                  Version 1                                                5 December 2014
J13041_Ecological Assessment State Local_V1.docx                   Commercial in Confidence                                              Page 11