Environmental impacts

As well as being core koala habitat, there are other environmental impacts that are a likely result of development proceeding on the West Byron site. The vulnerable Masked Owl, Olongburra Frog and Wallum Froglet will also lose significant habitat.

The Ecological Report makes a raft of false claims and fails to adequately consider the impact of the proposal upon them:

• The claim that a “maximum 10.2 hectares of existing native remnants” (ie p.v) will be cleared is false in that it doesn’t account for the widening of the drain.

• The claim “No habitat for the Olongburra Frog would be removed and all known habitat retained” is intentionally false as the intent is to remove the largest of the two areas of primary habitat identified.
• The claim that only 0.47 ha habitat for the Koala would be removed is false in that it doesn’t account for the widening of the drain.
• The claim “Secondary habitat for the Bush-hen is limited to dense wet forest vegetation along part of the main drain. This habitat will be retained and no potential habitat loss would occur.” Is patently false is false in that it doesn’t account for the widening of the drain.
• The claim that only “0.47 ha Secondary habitat” for the Little Lorikeet would be removed is false in that it doesn’t account for the widening of the drain. Similarly claims of habitat loss for Common Blossom Bat, Grey-headed Flying Fox, Microbats do not account for the widening of the drain. Modelled habitat for Mitchell’s Rainforest Snail occurs on the property and records of Grass Owls occur all around the site (including on the estuary immediately adjacent to the proposal), yet despite the likelihood that both these species utilize the site the potential impacts of the development on them are ignored and not considered in the Threatened Species Impact Statement.
• It is recognized that the proposal will increase access to the shorebird roosting and nesting area at the mouth of the Belongil, though the impacts that this will have on a raft of threatened species is ignored. The claim that impacts of the shorebird site is managed by “provision of marshalls (by Byron Bird Buddies) during busy periods (eg. summer holidays)” is false in that BBB doesn’t have the resources to undertake this on a regular basis.