Original source · versioned page text
Houghton env. report Dec 2014
Attached to the e-mail Iluka Covenant Application to clear vegetation 20 Serenity Close.msg.
Houghton Environmental Management Pty Ltd
11 Lookout Court , CAMP MOUNTAIN QLD 4520
Ph: 0417 757532
Fax: 07 32892219
email: [email protected]
PT216-L2
29th December 2014
Development Manager
Settlers Cove Project
PO Box 1923
Noosa Heads QLD 4567
Attention: Shannon Gillard
Dear Shannon
Re Fire Management Plan, Lot 5 (10 Serenity Close) Settlers Cove
Further to our discussions and site inspection on the 4th December 2014, the following letter provides
clarification on the intent of the Fire Management Plan prepared for Settlers Cove as well as my
evaluation of the existing fire risks and future actions that should be undertaken to mitigate this risk
to the building in this lot. I have prepared this letter following a review of existing information and
previous correspondence on the issue of fire management at the site.
As I have noted in previous correspondence, I was the author of the Fire Management Plan (FMP)
for the Settlers Cove Project (as well as other management plans for the project development). I
prepared this document in 2005 during my previous employment with WBM.
Intent and clarification of FMP matters
The FMP was prepared in full consultation with Council representatives and the Queensland Fire and
Rescue Service (QFRS). Sign-off by the QFRS was required by Council before the FMP could be
implemented (this was subsequently provided by QFRS representatives). A number of meetings were
held and drafts of the document were provided to both the QFRS and the Noosa Shire Council officers
prior to finalisation of the document in July 2005. All provisions of the final report had been agreed to
by Council and the QFRS. It was understood that the intent by Council was that the FMP would serve
as the primary reference document for management of the fire hazards at the site. No further
approvals were considered to be necessary for the management of vegetation to reduce fire risk in
this area as long as management measures complied with the FMP.
A key component of the FMP is the establishment of a fuel control area adjacent to the lots. This is
described in Section 3.1.2 of the FMP and is shown graphically in Section A –Proposed Site
Vegetation in the Ecological Restoration Plan.
C:/PT216-L2-Letter to Cape Bouvard re FMP 29th December 2014
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
The download may take up to a minute.
Full text of the other 3 pages
Page 2
As indicated, there are two key components of this fuel control area adjacent to the building footprints.
The intent of these areas is presented for clarification:
1. The 3.0m wide landscaped strip between the building structure and the lot boundary fence. This
area was to be cleared for the development and then landscaped with non-combustible material
including fire retardant plants where appropriate. Such plants were listed in Appendix C of the
FMP.
2. The 2.5m wide strip on the river-side of the lot boundary fence and within the Private Open Space
for Conservation and Waterways Protection (POSCWP) area. It was the understanding of all
involved that this area would be cleared of species that may present a significant fire risk in the
future (primarily tall-growing sclerophyll species) with under-plantings of fire retardant species
where appropriate. The retention of tall-growing species that could exacerbate any fire risk to the
development area in the future (such as Eucalyptus tereticornis - blue gum) was not an intended
outcome of this area in regard to fire management. In liaison conducted at the time of preparation
of the FMP, officers from the QFRS stressed the need to avoid retaining species that promoted
the vertical distribution of fuel in this strip (as would be the case with tall-growing eucalypt species).
While this was not specifically stated in the FMP, it was thus an expected and logical
consequential requirement that such species would be removed from this area. To retain such
species within this area would thus be in conflict with intent advised and agreed to by the QFRS.
Assessment of fire risk – outcome of site inspection
An inspection of the lot was undertaken on the 4th December 2014. The purpose of the inspection
was to assess the fire risk presented by the existing vegetation adjacent to the developed area in
light of the requirements and implementation of the FMP and whether action needed to be taken to
reduce this risk. This assessment is essentially a follow-up to the assessment undertaken by Taylor
Ecology as reported in their letter dated 18th August 2014. The findings of the Taylor Ecology report
are agreed with, including the recommendations presented.
The following comments are also made:
• The fuel load in that section of the POSCWP in front of this lot was generally acceptable and
likely to be below the 10t/ha criterion designated in the FMP. It was noted that the POSCWP
to the immediate south east of the subject lot had a fuel load that would be likely to be
substantially higher than 10t/ha, due in part to the disposal of woody debris in this area,
possibly derived from maintenance of the adjacent property. A coordinated control burn
covering the POSCWP area (undertaken with the approval and supervision of the QFRS) is
recommended to be undertaken in the near future. On-going monitoring (as a joint
responsibility for all high density lot bodies corporate) is necessary to evaluate the need for
further control burns in the longer term
• The 3.0 m landscaped strip on the building side of the fence has been well-established with
the exception of one tall eucalypt sapling (see Plate 1 attached). While this specimen
presents a minimal existing fire risk, its removal is strongly recommended before it grows to
a size that will present a significant future risk to the adjacent building. This tree is of
negligible ecological value.
• The 10 immature blue gums (some dual trunked) in the POSCWP immediately adjacent to
the perimeter fence (refer Plate 2) should be removed as soon as is practical. These trees
currently present a low fire risk. However, it is highly likely that these trees and their
associated canopy spread will grow to mature specimens to the extent that they pose an
unacceptable fire risk to the adjacent building. These trees are currently of minimal
ecological value and future structural control and thinning to reduce the fire hazard would
continue to reduce their ecological value. There is thus no ecological benefit associated with
C:/PT216-L2-Letter to Cape Bouvard re FMP 29th December 2014
Page 3
the retention of these trees but, conversely, there is a strong community safety benefit in reducing the fire risk through their removal. Such removal would accord with the intent of the FMP. Council approval would nevertheless be required to remove these trees. e Much of the other native woody vegetation that has been retained within this 2.5m strip in the POSCWP would not be considered to comprise fire retardant species per se, eg Bribie Island cypress and Acacia species. Nevertheless, such species are of some ecological value and, in my view, do not present a significant existing or future fire accelerant risk, given appropriate management of fuel load. .For this reason, these species should be retained intact. On-going monitoring of these species will nevertheless be necessary to ensure the fire hazard in this strip is maintained at acceptable levels. Summary Based on the site assessment and a review of existing information relevant to the site and clarification of the intent of the FMP: e The retention of the existing fire-accelerant trees (notably blue gums) within the 5.5m wide fuel control area is inconsistent with the intent of the FMP. It is a matter of common sense for reducing fire risk that such trees be removed from this area. This accords with the advice of representatives of the QFRS at the time of preparation of the FMP. e The fire risk to the building complex in Lot 5 is considered to be low at present, reflecting the existing management measures employed by the developer. This risk has the potential to increase significantly in the future should trees identified as being in need of removal be retained and allowed to grow to mature specimens. It is strongly recommended that these trees be removed to reduce this future risk. Should you require further information or clarification, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours faithfully, David Houghton BSc, GDURP, CEnvP Houghton Environmental Management C:/PT216-L2-Letter to Cape Bouvard re FMP 29" December 2014
Page 4
Plate 1 Eucalypt requiring removal Plate 2 Eucalypts in POSCWP fire control zone
requiring removal
C:/PT216-L2-Letter to Cape Bouvard re FMP 29th December 2014