MCU14/0106 & OPW15/0001 Appendix F - Ecological and Bushfire Management Response

                                                                                  Information Request Response Report - Ecology
                                                                                                         Noosa Civic Expansion



 Issue - Bushfire                              Response
                                               increasing the vegetation score, other than in instances where only a small
                                               area of vegetation is present and in such cases the vegetation hazard score
                                               can be reduced.

                                               In any event applying a vegetation hazard score of 10, as opposed to the
                                               score of 8 used in the assessment, will not increase the overall hazard score
                                               from Medium to High when applying the SPP 1/03 Guideline methodology.


 The Assessment’s statement that the           Because the overall bushfire hazard levels in the locality are reduced by
 development will reduce the overall           reducing the amount of fuel available, it is self-evident that this will benefit
 bushfire hazard within the locality may       both the existing and proposed development. In addition the pattern of
 be relevant to the existing development       vegetation clearance combined with the establishment of a ring road and
 but is not relevant to the new                additional water supply infrastructure will mean that the proposed Noosa
 development.                                  Civic expansion will be exposed to a lower level of bushfire hazard than is
                                               the case for the existing Noosa Civic development.


 The suggestion that the completion of         Section 4.5 of the Bushfire Assessment Report Version 2 (Cardno 2015)
 Hofmann Drive will assist with reducing       contains additional material that addresses this issue and demonstrates that
 the level of bushfire risk is not supported   the health and safety of staff and patrons of the Noosa Civic development
 in the report. The report fails to            will not be placed at an unacceptable risk in the event of a bushfire due to
 acknowledge a significant portion of          the potential for hazardous smoke and flame conditions to be experienced
 Hofmann Drive abuts areas of                  on some sectors of the adjacent road network.
 hazardous vegetation that may restrict
 the safe traffic movement of traffic due
 to smoke or flame hazards in the event
 of bushfire.


 The report does not indicate that a fire      The updated Bushfire Management Plan presented in Appendix D of the
 management plan is required.                  Bushfire Assessment Report Version 2 (Cardno 2015) explicitly states the
                                               requirement for the existing Fire Management Plan (Version 1.04) - Noosa
                                               Civic Stage 1, Eenie Creek Road, Noosaville Queensland to be updated.



2.2             Koala Habitat Trees
2.2.1           Request Item 57
57. An amended Density Assessment of Koala Habitat Trees addressing the following:
a.      Conduct a Koala Habitat Tree survey using area transect counts within the disturbance footprint to
        provide an accurate estimate of Koala habitat trees requiring offsetting. A minimum 10 of (20mx20m)
        area transects be conducted to provide a suitable estimate; and
b.      Provide a figure showing the location of the Koala Habitat Tree area transects and associated data.

2.2.2           Response to Item 57
The applicant believes that it is not necessary to prepare an amended Density Assessment of Koala Habitat
Trees for the following reasons:
> Council may have a perception that the count is low owing to the density of woody vegetation rather than
  giving consideration to the density of Koala Habitat Trees (KHTs) alone. Large parts of the canopy are
  dominated by Syncarpia glomulifera subsp. glomulifera which is not a KHT (e.g. refer to transects S2s
  where 63% of the canopy is represented by this species and S6 where it is 40%).
> The adopted technique is a valid scientific approach for estimating densities that has been in use for close
  to 60 years (see Grant Cottam and J. T. Curtis 1956. The Use of Distance Measures in Phytosociological
  Sampling. Ecology 37:451–460).
> The KHT density count in the report serves as information only. While it could be potentially used to
  determine offset obligations in accordance with Section 2.3.1 of the Queensland Environmental Offsets
  Policy (Version 1.1), Section 2.3.2 specifically notes "A proponent can meet an offset requirement for


28 April 2015                                               Cardno                                                                3