Coppabella Hills Precinct, Biodiversity Assessment 9 MODIFYING THE PROPOSAL Following consultation with nghenvironmental, modifications were made to the original infrastructure layout to address concerns highlighted in the biodiversity constraints and impact assessments presented above (Sections 7 and 8). The modifications seek to implement specific recommendations outlined in Section 8.1.5 to reduce habitat loss and modification of high constraint areas and values. They involved either avoiding areas of high constraint or microRsiting infrastructure. The modifications help to reduce overall impacts on biodiversity values as a result of the proposal and ensure that the development maintains or improves environmental outcomes. To demonstrate the amount of refinement the proposal has undergone, the original infrastructure layout is supplied in Appendix I. Where layouts have been refined, additional constraints mapping refinement has also been undertaken to assist avoidance or minimization of impacts in high and moderate constraint areas. All maps and impact area calculations within this report are based on the final infrastructure layout provided by the proponent. 9.1 REVISIONS, GENERAL While the majority of infrastructure avoids treed areas, the site's understorey is also of concern in many areas. The mosaic nature of better condition understorey, changing seasonally, means that it is impossible to entirely avoid. A commitment to using an ecologist to help microRsite the infrastructure away from better quality areas of understorey is required. This allows the Proponent the flexibility to move infrastructure within the envelope. The additional assessment would occur in the detailed design phase and may require minor route or location revisions. Specific areas where infrastructure layout revision was undertaken are discussed below. Areas 1R9 correspond to the constraints map sheets provided in Figure 7R1. For comparison, the original infrastructure layout is provided in Appendix I (map sheets 1R8). 9.2 REVISIONS, SPECIFIC ,Area 2 northern end of Cluster 3 Two tracks were indicated in areas of high constraint woodland at the northern end of this cluster (shown in Appendix I, map zone 2). Additionally, a transmission easement is required in this area. Widening the track is possible as the groundcover is not of significance in this area. Tree removal should be avoided, particularly impacts on hollow bearing trees. Track width should be minimized. Tracks and powerlines should be aligned to reduce the overall amount of clearing required. More detailed mapping was undertaken to facilitate microRsiting the tracks to minimize impacts. These tracks have now been rerouted to minimise impacts. ,Area 2 transmission easement east of Cluster 3 This easement heads north east from the centre of Cluster 3. If centred on the easement development envelope (shown in Appendix I, map zone 2), it would dissect a high constraint area. Potential exists ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Final July 2009 141 Coppabella Hills Precinct, Biodiversity Assessment here to straighten the transmission line and avoid high constraint areas by microRsiting the poles. Trees are the constraint in this area. The Area 2 constraints map now indicates the transmission line at the southern edge, rather than within this high constraint area. ,Area 4 transmission easement between Clusters 5 and 7 This easement heads south east between Clusters 5 and 7. If centred on the easement development envelope (shown in Appendix I, map zone 2), it would dissect a high constraint area. Clearing for tracks or power line poles or trenches would impact this area of EEC and it is strongly advised to avoid this area. Threatened fauna issues are also relevant here. The Area 4 constraints map now indicates the transmission line has been routed south to avoid this area. ,Area 7 Cluster 10 turbines The current layout shows that two turbines are located near hollowRbearing trees and rocky outcrops in this area (Area 7, Cluster 10). Clearing would be required for these turbines, affecting hollowR bearing trees and the rocky outcrops. Nearly all the trees in this area are hollow bearing and pose a threatened fauna issue; groundcover is not a constraint. The rocky outcrop has been assessed as a low constraint however, preclearance reptile surveys are recommended if this area cannot be avoided. It is strongly advised to avoid all hollow bearing trees. If these cannot be avoided, further work (stag watching, spotlighting and anabating) should be undertaken to determine the level of use of these hollows. Wildlife handlers would be required during the felling of hollows and hollows should be replaced with nest boxes at a more suitable distance from the turbine, to retain this resource type. Offsetting should also be undertaken. The Proponent has advised that the contours of the site in this area make avoidance impossible. An offsetting strategy, and the recommendations stated above would be undertaken in this area. Area, 7 middle of Cluster 10 track and turbine At the midsection of Cluster 10, a track and turbine are shown dissecting a high constraint area in the original layout (shown in Appendix I, map zone 7). The groundcover in this area is of high diversity and is a constraint. In the final turbine layout (Area 7), the track has moved east to avoid the constraint and an optional track is being investigated. If a track is required through the high constraint, it should be microRsited with an ecologist and minimised in width. It would require offsetting. ,Area 7 southern end of Cluster 10 turbine At the midsection of Cluster 10, a turbine is shown dissecting a high constraint area in the original layout (shown in Appendix I, map zone 7). It would be preferable to move this turbine into a cleared area to avoid the moderate condition LongRleaved BoxRRRed Stringybark woodland remnant. This area has no hollow bearing trees. This area is also very steep and rocky. In the final turbine layout (Area 7), the turbine has been moved to avoid the constraint. ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Final July 2009 142 Coppabella Hills Precinct, Biodiversity Assessment Area 6, southern end of Cluster 7b, turbines and track sThis area i of high constraint; it has been increased in area since the original constraints mapping (Appendix 1, Zone 6). The groundcover as well as the overstorey are a constraint in this area; minimising track width and avoiding trees are required. As the area would qualify as EEC there would be very large offset ratios required for any disturbance. Mitigation here would need to include minimised track width and disturbance if it cannot be avoided altogether. Furthermore, the location of a turbine within a woodland fragment increases collision risks. CloseRups in Figure 7R1, Area 6 have been used to show the ability of the turbines to be sited in clearings however, minimizing understorey disturbance will also be required. The Proponent has advised that the contours of the site in this area make avoidance impossible. An offsetting strategy, and the recommendations stated above in Section 8 would be undertaken in this area. ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Final July 2009 143 Coppabella Hills Precinct, Biodiversity Assessment 10 CONCLUSIONS 10.1 SUMMARY OF BIODIVERSITY VALUES Three threatened species: Yass Daisy, Superb Parrot and Diamond Firetail and a threatened ecological community BoxRGum Woodland were detected within the study area. Potential habitat for threatened species was also detected. Assessments of Significance (TSC and EPBC Act) were undertaken for 27 fauna, 2 flora species and 1 ecological community. The proposed project infrastructure layout largely avoids these areas, and therefore the proposal is not expected to have a significant impact on threatened flora species or ecological communities. Risk assessments identified two threatened species as being at high risk of significant populationRscale impacts arising from the development: Superb Parrot (habitat removal) and Eastern BentRwing Bat (barotrauma and collision impacts). There is also likely to be a high risk to local populations of the nonR threatened WedgeRtailed Eagle. Habitat avoidance and further monitoring and mitigation measures discussed will ensure that these impacts will be minimised to acceptable levels. The proposal is not considered likely to result in a significant impact on threatened or migratory fauna provided that the recommendations outlined in Section 8 of this report are effectively implemented. The Microbat Study undertaken in January and documented in a separate report will inform the adoption of measures specific to microbats at Coppabella Hills Precinct. 10.2 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS Direct and indirect impacts on flora, fauna and their habitats can be minimised by avoiding sensitive features and undertaking the recommended mitigation measures (Section 8). High constraint areas include moderate to good condition BoxRGum Woodland EEC, threatened species habitat, and mature woodland remnants. Areas of particular concern include: Within the transmission envelope between Clusters 5 and 7a