Appendix B - Ecological Advice · 132008.1128

Page 2

northern portion of Lot 1 SP177650 is also designated as Urban Footprint, with the balance of Lot 1
classified as Regional Landscape and Rural Production Area.

Under the Nature Conservation (Koala) Conservation Plan 2006 and Management Program 2006-2016
the development area is classified as Urban Koala Area and Koala Sustainability Area.

The Regional Ecosystem Map for the locality indicates that much of the subject site is mapped as an
indiscernible combination (50:50) of Regional Ecosystem 12.2.9 and 12.2.13. The balance of the
investigation area is currently mapped as non-remnant vegetation. These areas represent parcels of
land immediately associated with Grass Tree Court and established infrastructure.

While the proposed development will result in loss of disturbed native vegetation, this outcome has
been envisaged by the Planning Scheme (which designates the area proposed for development as
suitable for this purpose). The Site’s most significant habitats (in the south) will be retained, as will a
buffer to Noosa National Park.

Recorded populations of the rare small wedge pea (Gompholobium virgatum var. emarginatum) on
site and in locality. Lewin’s Rail (rare), Ground Parrot (vulnerable) and Glossy Black-cockatoo
(vulnerable) and Grey-headed Flying-fox (vulnerable - Commonwealth). It is noted that the assessment
discounts koala, acid frogs and does not mention other threatened flora that may occur on site or in
the locality.

Extracts of the Council and State mapping as at the 2007 assessment are provided below, respectively.




Ecology Notes – Grasstree Court – Blue Care         2

Page 3

                                                               2007 STATE-mapped remnant vegetation and essential habitat
 2007 STATE
Koala Mapping




        2.2 Summary - Optimisation Strategy (2009)

        Report appears to repeat/update some of the work previously completed by Place. Primarily a
        desktop analysis. I note the report addresses a greater number of allotments. A Cardno plan (235301-
        SK01 is provided on pg 70.) illustrates a development layout. The DA supersedes the date of this report
        and as such have not given a lot of weight to this document. However, would need to assume that
        some of the offset recommendations in this report have been incorporated or considered in Council’s
        DA.

        Report acknowledges/identifies the mapping and habitat for ground parrot, three threatened acid
        frogs and a heathland herb Macarthuria complanata.

        Consideration of updated Koala legislation with identification of koala mapping and development
        consequences.

        Recommendations in report “Essential Habitat associated with the non-urban area of the proposed
        Lot 9 and the Interim Koala Habitat Protection designation over all allotments, will potentially require
        the current development layout be redesigned to avoid development within this area or that offsets be
        provided.”

        The report includes a figure “Biodiversity Strategy Plan” - extracted below.




        Ecology Notes – Grasstree Court – Blue Care        3

Page 4

3. CONSIDERATION OF A NEW PROPOSAL

If a new proposal is to be considered it would be assessed by Council under the 2016 Noosa planning
scheme. I understand separate town planning advice is being sought.

Council Scheme 2016: A number of ecological constraints are mapped/evident (refer mapping extracts
below) for the site as follows:

•   Lot 9 and Lot 6 identified as community services. Land to the west and south is mapped as open
    space conservation.
•   All the land south of Grasstree Court is identified as environmental reserve on the open space
    mapping layer.
•   Part Lot 9 (similar to State mapping) is identified as environmental protection. Area identified as
    Koala Conservation Areas to south and Koala Sustainability Area in Lot 9 with Urban Koala Area in
    Lot 6.

State and Commonwealth: I have not reviewed any State or Commonwealth approvals. At this stage
I assume the State and Commonwealth have approved the development as per Council’s DA (i.e.
assumes development on Lot 6 and new Lot 9). A new application would be subject to the relevant
legislation at the time of the assessment. It should be appreciated that this area (generally) is well
known to support high biodiversity and a range of threatened species (i.e. flora and fauna).

•   At Commonwealth level – 69 threatened species, two threatened communities, two nationally
    important wetlands and 64 migratory species are known or habitat is known from with 5km. Grey-
    headed Flying-fox, Wallum Sedge Frog, Koala and some heathland plants would be need to be
    considered as known or possible occurrence or potential impact.
•   The site falls within a “flora survey trigger” area – requires high level botanical survey with separate
    State assessment process by the State (if State-listed flora are located/known this process can be


Ecology Notes – Grasstree Court – Blue Care          4

Page 5

    lengthy and complicated). The State confirmed (2 August 2016) that the past approval would have
    no relevance in this regard and the State would still need to approve future clearing.
•   Remnant vegetation is mapped to the west and south of the subject land, including parts (80%
    estimate) of Lot 9.
•   No remnant vegetation on Lot 6. The vegetation on Lot 9 is mapped as “of concern at present”
    (category B) under the Vegetation Management Act 1999 and contains RE12.2.13 and RE12.2.9
    (i.e. open/dry heath and Banksia low woodland - both communities known to support threatened
    species).
•   Clearing in Category B requires a development approval, exemption, or self-assessable clearing
    code or area management plan notification. In most circumstances the State is part of the
    assessment when sites have remnant vegetation and are greater than 5ha. A development for an
    urban purpose in an urban area it is likely to exclude the State involvement (in this respect). Town
    planners to advise.
•   The remnant vegetation in the south is mapped as “essential habitat” or as a MSES (Matter of State
    Environmental Significance) for threatened species (three frogs, ground parrot and Mt Emu She-
    oak). Wallum Rocketfrog and Ground Parrot habitat mapped on part of Lot 9.
•   There are known records (i.e. as per the Biodiversity & Conservation Values, within 4km) for at
    least 32 threatened species (plants, birds, mammals, frogs, fish, butterfly) listed under the State
    and Commonwealth legislation.
•   There are known records for 18 species listed as priority species under the State Biodiversity
    Planning Assessment.
•   There are known records for 21 and 27 species listed as riverine priority and non-riverine priority,
    respectively (under the State Aquatic Conservation Assessment).
•   There are 38 species with known recent records from within 10km of the subject land.
•   The site lies within the Koala Assessable Development Area under the State Planning Regulatory
    Provisions. The remnant vegetation in Lot 9 is also mapped as low value koala bushland.
Council & State Mapping Extracts:




          COUNCIL = Eastern Beaches Zone Map                  COUNCIL = Open Space Mapping




Ecology Notes – Grasstree Court – Blue Care        5

Page 6

               COUNCIL = Biodiversity Overlay
                                                             STATE = Remnant/Regulated Vegetation
                                                                       Orange shading = category B
                                                    Essential habitat hatching (Wallum Rocketfrog & Ground Parrot)
                                                    Wetland cross hatching (which is also essential habitat) to west
                                                               Watercourse blue mapped to north of Lot 6




               STATE = SPRP – Koala Mapping                          COUNCIL = Koala Mapping




Ecology Notes – Grasstree Court – Blue Care     6

Page 7

Ecological “first” principles: As always, first principles would not necessarily have any statutory weight,
but certain issues would be considered by the Council officers during any assessment. This might be
pertinent given the location and habitat of the site and surrounds. Cockatoos, parrots, acid frogs,
koalas and heathland flora are all iconic ecological issues/concerns in Noosa for both Council and the
public. These issues may generate public interest and additional issues.

4. DISCUSSIONS WITH COUNCIL

As requested I had discussions with Council ecologist, Connor Neville (19 August 2016) and he
confirmed that the conditions had been prepared by himself.

The conditions under Landscape and Ecology (Flora and Fauna) were generally discussed, noting that
the Bushfire SPP has also changed and would need to be considered.

It was identified that the information requested in the conditions needed to be provided with an
operational works application. The conditions were (are) written to address the “relevant/applicable”
requirements at the time, e.g. whichever guidelines are in place at time of operational works
application. This suggests that even if the current approval was enacted now, rather than delayed,
the current (2016) guidelines would apply. He initially commented that Council would need to
consider the relevant guidelines at the time of the new application – then noted the wording in the
existing approval (which essentially states the same). Mr Neville was not certain whether Council
planners had suggested financial offset payment related to koalas only or the other offset
requirements.

Further, based on discussions with Council and an understanding of what could be expected for the
development, the following provides a summary of the relevant conditions (bolding added of what
would be required initially to appreciate the required works/scale of matter):

•   12.1 identify Black-cockatoo feed trees (site survey, map and count)
•   12.2 vegetation clearing offset program (maintained for 5 years) – Mr Neville indicated there was
    land nearby (Girraween National Park near sewerage works) that was degraded and could be used
•   12.3.1 -12.3.7 transfer of soil/seed bank material (mulching of subject site and removal of
    mulch/organic material and soil with seed bank to the offset site)
•   12.3.3 transfer of rare plants (none listed but Mr Neville indicated he knew others occurred, it may
    be a difficult exercise but depends on which species occur and need to be relocated – relocation
    site can be the same as offset site and would be in the single vegetation plan) - (site survey, identify
    species, assess translocation options and possibly initiate in advance)
•   13-14 standard conditions regarding vegetation protection and clearing
•   15 fauna management plan standard for clearing practices
•   16 Black-cockatoo feed trees to be propagated at 8:1 from parent tree planted on site (survey to
    determine feed trees, if some occur, organise seed collection and start propagation exercise in
    advance)
•   17 koalas – noting the offset of koala trees to be in accordance with relevant guidelines at time of
    operational works application (this could be financial or tree planting ratio –Environmental Offsets
    Act) – (survey site, count trees, calculate offset options)
•   18-20 appears to be standard conditions relating to fencing and lighting.


The conditions, as I understand, that are likely to require the following “offsets”:

     1. Glossy Black-cockatoo feed trees – to be planted on site.
     2. Koala trees (offset to be determined in accordance with SPRP and offset legislation) – could
        be planting on site.
     3. Relocation/translocation of threatened plants (likely incorporated in the vegetation offset
        plan).
     4. Vegetation Offset Plan (this offset is for the “vegetation communities” e.g. heathland etc.).

Ecology Notes – Grasstree Court – Blue Care          7

Page 8

A site inspection at some stage to provide more certainty regarding what the actual/practical offset
requirements may be would be necessary. Calculation of offsets (e.g. koala) will need to be in
accordance with current regulations/legislation at the time of lodgement.

5. CONCLUSION

Assessment and conclusions based on preliminary analysis and assessment of two reports provided
and review of current State and Council mapping. Legal advice would be recommended prior to
further decisions.

General ecology:

The area is known to support threatened species and habitats and is adjacent to a sensitive
biodiversity area and National Park.

The two reports appear to have broadly covered the ecological considerations relevant at the time
and it is assumed that Council must have accepted this report (Place) as part of the approval
documents. The Orogen (2009) report appears to have considered the possible offset requirements.
There are some discrepancies between the two ecological reports regarding significant species, i.e.
which do occur and which could occur. Neither report provided a comprehensive assessment of
likelihood of occurrence – it is possible a new application may require a more detailed/comprehensive
assessment/analysis (i.e. by Council and the State). From review of databases and local knowledge it
is likely four threatened frogs, at least two threatened birds, one mammal and a number of heathland
plants have reasonable potential to occur on the site or in similar habitats that have been described
for the site.

Council mapping:

     •    Under the DA, a greater area is identified as Community Use, while the 2016 plan only has Lot
          9 as community use (it would appear that Council have reduced the community zone in
          accordance with the new Lot 9).
     •    The Biodiversity Overlay (as per DA) has an area identified as environmental protection on Lot
          9. The same area is mapped under the 2016 plan as environmental protection.
     •    Cursory review of the Noosa Plan Biodiversity Overlay (Table 13.2) indicates that the
          same/similar requirements would be enforced as previously applied (also - if new lots where
          to be created this would compromise the environmental protection outcomes).

In the absence of DA plans, I might suggest that if Council have approved development for all of Lot 6
and new Lot 1 it could reasonably be expected they would approve the same given the overlay
mapping does not significantly differ. The current DA requires the “offsetting” of vegetation,
threatened plan translocation and Black-cockatoo trees on a suitable site and within the development
site. A similar (or same) offset would be expected for a new application. If additional threatened flora
species are identified, these would need to be addressed further.

State mapping:

Assuming the development is wholly within an urban area/urban footprint for an urban purpose
(assumed) it is believed clearing of the remnant (category B) vegetation would be acceptable. The site
is within a koala development area, however koala trees that need to be removed within bushland
habitat would need to be offset. Offsets for koala trees and other matters of state environmental
significance (including remnant vegetation and threatened species) would need to be completed
under the Environmental Offsets Act 2014. It is possible that additional offsets may be necessary that
currently are not required. Note: Given the site is within a “high risk area – flora trigger”, no clearing
is to occur without the relevant State approvals in this regard.


Ecology Notes – Grasstree Court – Blue Care         8

Page 9

Commonwealth:

I understand the current application was not referred to the Commonwealth. It is highly unlikely a
new application would need to be referred. The databases and mapping do not indicate any additional
matters of national environmental significance that may not have been considered as part of the
assessments reviewed. If MNES are different at the time of lodgement, further consideration of this
legislation may be necessary.

Please do not hesitate to give me a call on 0407 410 099 if you need further information.

Kind regards




Justin Watson (Assoc.Prof.; PhD; CEnvP.)
Director/Principal Ecologist
Gondwana Ecology Group




Ecology Notes – Grasstree Court – Blue Care       9