MCU14/0056 Ecology Addendum report Att G - Information response

     
   In its current condition, the watercourse does not support enough features to provide habitat for native
         amphibian species.
     
   The area is dominated by introduced flora species and at the time of the assessment contained stagnant
         water in small ponded areas adjacent to the stormwater pipes.
     
   A number of common bird species including Cracticus nigrogularis (Pied Butcherbird), Dacelo novagguineae
         (Laughing Kookaburra), Grainilla cyanoleuca (Magpie), Lopholaimus antarticus (Pigeon), Platycercus adscitus
         (Pale-headed Rosella) and Trichoglossus haematodus (Rainbow Lorikeet) were also observed within large
         habitat trees within the waterway corridor.

Existing habitat for identified and potential terrestrial aquatic species will be retained by the development in its
current form and protected from edge effects of the proposed by development by an additional 10m buffer (refer
Attachment 1). Rehabilitation works, including the removal of weed species within the waterway area is also
proposed by the development to enhance potential habitat for native flora and fauna species. Rehabilitation works
will be undertaken in accordance with the approved Rehabilitation and Weed Management Plan. Further the SWMP
anticipates no change to existing hydrology and details appropriate treatment and management controls to filter
potential pollutants and ensure no worsening of water quality as a result of the development (refer to the SWMP by
VT Consulting Engineers for further detail).

    c)   How the proposal protects riparian zones by maintaining wildlife corridors along watercourses and drainage
         lines for fauna movement

The site was identified in a preliminary risk based assessment by Saunders Havill Group and in an Council’s
commissioned report by Ecotone Environmental Services “Fauna and its Associated Biodiversity Values in Noosa
Shire” as Low Conservation Priority and not as containing significant tracks for fauna movement. Further, site
surveys did not identify the presence of or habitat for significant Commonwealth, State or local species fauna or
flora species.

As discussed in the response to 32a and 32b, the project proposes no further clearing of riparian vegetation and an
additional 10m buffer to existing vegetation boundary (an average 30m total waterway buffer) to protect watercourse
values and potential habitat. The proposed development is restricted to already cleared areas of the site and intends
to retain potential habitat associated with the waterway corridor in its current form. It is however important to note
that Section 4.2.1 of the EAR identified that this corridor is fragmented by major arterial development (Mayall Street
to the north and Bruce Highway to the south) which restricts fauna movement to highly mobile species. Further,
broad assessment of the area identified that the waterway is not considered part of a strategic wildlife corridor.
Rehabilitation works, including the removal of weed species within the waterway area is also proposed by the
development to protect existing and enhance potential habitat for native flora and fauna species.

    d) How the proposal protects riparian zones by avoiding edge effects and incompatible uses in riparian zones

As discussed in the response to 32a-c, the project proposes no further clearing of riparian vegetation. The existing
waterway corridor is proposed to be retained in its current form, with an additional 10m buffer to existing vegetation
to mitigate edge effects from the development. This will result in an average 30m buffer to the waterway which is
identified as a highly modified and fragmented low level (Stream Order 1) watercourse. Further, soft treatments
including bioretention basins, a stormwater detention area and landscaping with native species will be located
adjacent to the protected waterway corridor to provide an addition buffer to edge effects. The proposed soft
treatments will provide a strengthened buffer to the waterway area reducing exposure to habitats within the
waterway corridor and likelihood of predators.

    e)   How the proposal protects riparian zones by maintaining water quality by maintaining bank stability by
         minimising bank erosion and slumping