000A88A4.0D3.tif · 132003.221037

CONCLUSIONS

All of the vegetation on the site is common to the region, although the status
of Ecosystem 2 (equivalent to RE 12.2.7) is “of concern”. This ecosystem
occurs in small patches on the site, chiefly in the south-west (as shown on the
existing RE map) and along the eastern boundary of the site (erroneously
mapped on the RE map as eucalypt dominated RE 12.9-10.4). Another patch
of RE 12.2.7 mapped on the RE map along the southern boundary was found
to consist largely of RE 12.9-10.4.

No threatened plant species were encountered on the site, although further
surveys for some of the less conspicuous species would need to be conducted
during the flowering season. However, threatened species are most likely to
occur within or adjacent to the heathland areas, as these areas correspond to
their preferred habitat and because these are the least disturbed areas of the
site.

The only threatened fauna species encountered was the Grey-headed Flying
Fox (Pteropus poliocephalus), which was found as a single individual feeding in
a flowering Eucalypt tree adjacent to the pond in the north-western part of the
site. However, several other threatened species have the potential to occur
within the site. In particular, the swampy heathland areas may provide
habitat for a number of listed frog species including the Wallum Froglet
(Crinia tinnula) and the Wallum Sedgefrog (Litoria olongburensis). The
Paperbarked woodland/ Heathland also provides habitat numerous bird
species as well as a number of native small mammal species which are reliant
on the dense cover provided by this vegetation type. Although the Eucalypt
open forest/woodland is degraded in some areas due to grazing by camels
and horses, the central section of this vegetation type is relatively undisturbed
and has a relatively high ecological value.

On the basis of the existing data and the habitat requirements of threatened
species potentially occurring on the site, the optimal locations for
development to meet the requirements of Noosa’s planning scheme are:

@ More intense development within the currently cleared and surrounding
areas, but avoiding the Paperbarked Teatree and heathland areas; and

e Less intense development in the western and eastern ridge areas, which are
strongly affected by current and/or previous grazing by horses and camels.

The central core of the study area and the eastern fringes (including the stand
of Paperbarked Teatree marked as H/M2 on Figure 2.1) should be avoided as
much as possible, although these would still be suitable for recreational
opportunities, for example, through the use of walking tracks and trails and
location. of picnic tables.

 

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AUSTRALIA 8030724 ECOLOGICAL REPORT/FINAL/17 SEPTEMBER 2003

19