ASSESSMENT | PLANNING | MANAGEMENT

Camden Haven Urban Release Area:

Part B – Area 15 Ecological Assessment

Report prepared for: Port Macquarie – Hastings Council (ELA Project No. 152 – 002 (Part B))

June 2009

ABN 87 096 512 088 | address 84 Albany Street Coffs Harbour NSW 2450 postal PO Box 484 Coffs Harbour NSW 2450 | phone 02 6651 5484 | fax 02 6651 6890 web www.ecoaus.com.au Camden Haven Assessment: Regional Corridor & Area 15 DRAFT 25/06/2009

Document Tracking

Item Detail Signature Project Camden Haven Ecological Assessment – stage 2 Name Project 152 - 002 Number Prepared by D. Scotts M. Stuart A. Von Chrismar Approved M. Chilcott by Status Final Version 2.1 Number

File location H:\Current_Projects\152- 002_Camden_Haven_Ecological_Assessment_stage2\Report\Camden_Haven_B_Area1 5.doc Last saved 25 June 2009 on

Acknowledgements This document has been prepared by Eco Logical Pty Ltd with support from Tony Blue, Blueprint Planning Consultants and Project Manager Area 15 for Port Macquarie Hastings Council. Eco Logical Australia would like to thank the land owners who provided access to their properties as part of this ecological assessment.

Disclaimer This document may only be used for the purpose for which it was commissioned and in accordance with the contract between Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd and the RTA. The scope of services was defined in consultation with the client, by time and budgetary constraints imposed by the client, and the availability of reports and other data relevant to the project. Changes to available information, legislation and schedules are made on an ongoing basis and readers should obtain up to date information.

Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for or in respect of any use of or reliance upon this report and its supporting material by any third party. Information provided is not intended to be a substitute for site specific assessment or legal advice in relation to any matter. Unauthorised use of this report in any form is prohibited.

ii Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd Ph - (02) 6651 5484 Ecological Assessment, GIS, Environmental Management and Planning Fax - (02) 6651 6890

Camden Haven Assessment: Regional Corridor & Area 15 DRAFT 25/06/2009

Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...... 5 1. INTRODUCTION...... 6

1.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT...... 6 1.2 STUDY OBJECTIVES...... 6 1.3 STUDY AREA AND SUBJECT SITE...... 7 2. LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT ...... 9 3. METHODS ...... 11

3.1 DATA AUDIT OF FLORA AND FAUNA VALUES ...... 11 3.2 FIELD ASSESSMENT ...... 11 3.2.1 Flora and vegetation ...... 11 3.2.2 Hollow-bearing trees ...... 12 3.2.3 Potential Koala habitat...... 12 3.2.4 Other faunal values...... 12 3.2.5 Limitations of the site assessment...... 12 3.3 OTHER COLLATED ECOLOGICAL VALUES ...... 12 3.3.1 Stream / riparian values...... 12 3.3.2 Condition / recoverability ...... 12 3.3.3 Local connectivity / corridors...... 13 3.4 CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS: INTEGRATION OF ECOLOGICAL OBJECTIVES AND CONSERVATION VALUES ....13 4. RESULTS...... 15

4.1 DATA AUDIT OF FLORA AND FAUNA VALUES ...... 15 4.2 VEGETATION...... 15 4.2.1 Swamp Mahogany – Melaleuca sieberi Swamp Sclerophyll Forest (EEC) ...... 15 4.2.2 White Stringybark – Red Bloodwood Dry Open Forest ...... 17 4.2.3 Blackbutt Moist Tall Open Forest...... 17 4.2.4 Blackbutt Dry Open Forest ...... 18 4.2.5 Red Mahogany – Tallowwood Moist Open Forest ...... 18 4.2.6 Partially cleared ...... 19 4.3 THREATENED FLORA HABITAT ...... 19 4.4 THREATENED FAUNA HABITAT ...... 19 4.5 HOLLOW-BEARING TREES ...... 22 4.6 AQUATIC / RIPARIAN / HYDROLOGICAL VALUES ...... 22 4.7 CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS ...... 24 4.7.1 Integrated on-site conservation values...... 24 4.7.2 Condition / recoverability ...... 24 4.7.3 Local connectivity / corridors...... 24 4.8 EPBC MATTERS OF NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE ...... 24 5. INTEGRATION OF IDENTIFIED CONSERVATION VALUES WITH ECOLOGICAL OBJECTIVES..... 26

5.1 PROTECT AREAS OF HIGH CONSERVATION VALUE VEGETATION AND HABITAT...... 27 5.2 PROTECT KEY CONSERVATION FEATURES BY INTEGRATING THEM INTO CONSERVATION LANDS ...... 27 5.3 ENHANCE THE SECURITY OF HIGH CONSERVATION LANDS...... 27 5.4 PROTECT AND ENHANCE LANDSCAPE CONNECTIVITY ...... 27 5.5 CONSOLIDATE CONSERVATION AREAS SEEKING VIABLE AREAS AND PRACTICAL MANAGEMENT BOUNDARIES ...... 28 5.6 OFFSET ANY LOSS OF HIGH AND MEDIUM VALUE CONSERVATION LANDS ...... 29

iii Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd Ph - (02) 6651 5484 Ecological Assessment, GIS, Environmental Management and Planning Fax - (02) 6651 6890

Camden Haven Assessment: Regional Corridor & Area 15 DRAFT 25/06/2009

6. RECOMMENDATIONS...... 30

6.1 A PROPOSED LOCAL CONSERVATION FRAMEWORK ...... 30 6.1.1 Non-conservation lands ...... 30 6.2 PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ...... 32 6.3 INVESTIGATION OF AN OFF-SETTING STRATEGY ...... 32 6.4 GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS (WHOLE SITE) ...... 32 7. REFERENCES ...... 34 APPENDIX 1 - TSC / EPBC ACT THREATENED SPECIES DATA SEARCH RESULTS ...... 35 APPENDIX 2. OTHER EPBC ACT MATTERS...... 39 APPENDIX 3. RESPONSE TO LAND OWNERS SUBMISSIONS...... 40 APPENDIX 4. COPIES OF LAND OWNERS SUBMISSIONS...... 54

iv Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd Ph - (02) 6651 5484 Ecological Assessment, GIS, Environmental Management and Planning Fax - (02) 6651 6890

Camden Haven Assessment: Regional Corridor & Area 15 DRAFT 25/06/2009

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Eco Logical Australia (ELA) has undertaken a detailed assessment, including on-site identification, of the ecological values of lands comprising Area 15 of the Camden Haven urban release area. The study aims to provide a basis for the strategic management of those values within the framework of a broader, multi-disciplinary, local environment study (LES), including the development of re-zoning options for these lands. Area 15 is located on the mid-north coast of NSW, approximately 25 kilometres south of Port Macquarie and between the settlements of Kew and Camden Haven. It is approximately 157ha in size and contains seven principal vegetation communities. Seven threatened fauna species have also been recorded within Area 15. Six overarching objectives were identified as a basis for development of a recommended network of environmental land management units within Area 15. These were: 1. Protect areas of high conservation value vegetation; 2. Protect key conservation features; 3. Enhance the conservation security of high conservation value lands; 4. Protect and enhance landscape connectivity for priority species and vegetation communities; 5. Consolidate conservation lands, seeking viable areas that provide practical management boundaries; 6. Offset any loss of high and medium conservation lands. A recommended framework for environmental management of Area 15 ecological values is proposed. The framework identifies five classes of native vegetation within Area 15. It includes protection of approximately 73ha of Class one and three conservation lands, representing approximately 46% of the lands within Area 15. Under the proposed framework cleared land, partially cleared land and class 2 lands (some 54% of the site) would be available for development, subject to the provisions of the appropriate environmental legislation and guidelines. The concept of offsetting would be pivotal to consideration of development proposals concerning class 2 lands. The framework provides for long-term retention and management of on-site environmental values. It reflects the condition and recoverability of key environmental values, as well as their connectivity across the landscape. The establishment and long term management of conservation lands within Area 15, including restoration plans and the integration of stormwater management and bush fire Asset Protection Zones, will require the formulation of an Environmental Management Plan for these lands.

5 Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd Ph - (02) 6651 5484 Ecological Assessment, GIS, Environmental Management and Planning Fax - (02) 6651 6890 Camden Haven Assessment: Regional Corridor & Area 15 DRAFT 25/06/2009

1. Introduction 1.1 Description of the Project Port Macquarie Hastings Council (PMHC) has requested that Eco Logical Australia (ELA) carry out an ecological assessment of lands comprising Area 15 of the Camden Haven urban release area. This investigation is intended to inform, and form part of, a wider examination of re-zoning options relating to the Camden Haven urban release area, Area 15. This project forms part of a wider multi-disciplinary Local Environmental Study (LES) for PMHC’s proposed Laurieton urban release area, now known as Area 15. Area 15 is the main urban release area defined by Council’s adopted Camden Haven Urban Growth Strategy (CHUGS). In March 2005 PMHC resolved to prepare a Local Environmental Plan (LEP) to rezone lands within Area 15 for urban purposes. The preparation of an LES is an essential component of the LEP process. This report should be read in conjunction with the separate report on Part A of this study. That report concerns the assessment of regional corridor mapping within the broader study area (Figure 1). PMHC did not require systematic flora and fauna survey as part of this assessment as previous surveys had been carried out by ERM (Nov 2005) and PB (Sept 2006). However, it should be noted that incidental observations and records of threatened fauna were made during the course of the field component of this assessment.

1.2 Study Objectives

The overall objective adopted for this project was to assess the conservation values of Area 15 and plan for the strategic management of those values within the framework of a broader integrated local environment study. Specifically, ELA’s brief for this study (ie Part B of this project) was to: • Refine existing vegetation mapping; • Undertake a conservation assessment of vegetation communities (including the Endangered Ecological Community (EEC) Swamp sclerophyll forest on coastal floodplains of the NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner bioregions); • Map and assess hollow-bearing trees within privately owned lands; • Assess potential Koala habitat and other specific faunal values; • Assess local habitat corridor requirements (in light of Part A of this report); and • Make recommendations regarding the conservation priority (including retention and restoration) of future management areas. It should be noted that this assessment addresses the ecological values of Area 15. It does not address physical aspects of the area such as water quality and flooding issues. Nor does it address the economic and social values associated with the proposed rezoning. Integration of all these values falls to another process within the context of developing a LEP for Area 15.

6 Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd Ph - (02) 6651 5484 Ecological Assessment, GIS, Environmental Management and Planning Fax - (02) 6651 6890 Camden Haven Assessment: Regional Corridor & Area 15 DRAFT 25/06/2009

1.3 Study Area and Subject Site Area 15 is located on the mid-north coast of NSW, approximately 25 kilometres south of Port Macquarie and between the settlements of Kew and Camden Haven (Figure 1). It is within the Port Macquarie Hastings Local Government Area and Northern Rivers Catchment Management Authority. Area 15 comprises approximately 157 hectares (ha) and includes nine land parcels, Lot 33 DP 754405 (~36.8 ha), Lot 7 DP 775532 (~40.0 ha), Lot 11 DP 585667 (~8.1 ha), Lot 2 DP 24500 (~8.0 ha), Lot 3 DP 794077 (~6.6 ha), Lot 2 DP 504042 (~7.3 ha), Lot 5 DP 24500 (~8.1 ha), Lot 2 DP 594388 (~16.3 ha) and Lot 2 DP 739620 (~29.2 ha). There are two protected areas within three kilometres (km) of the Subject Site. Dooragan National Park lies about 1.5 km to the south-east and Queens Lake Nature Reserve is about 2.6 km to the north-east. Queens Lake, itself is an iconic coastal lake system, is of direct relevance to Area 15. Its wetlands and swamp sclerophyll forests are integral parts of the lake’s aquatic ecosystem and the open forests are part of its local catchment. For the purposes of data collation in this report, the study area adopted is the same as that usedfor regional corridor assessment in Part A of this project (ELA 2007a and Figure 1 below).

Figure 1. Study Area (Part A, see ELA July 2007a) and Subject Site (Part B).

7 Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd Ph - (02) 6651 5484 Ecological Assessment, GIS, Environmental Management and Planning Fax - (02) 6651 6890 Camden Haven Assessment: Regional Corridor & Area 15 DRAFT 25/06/2009

Figure 2. The Subject Site and constituent land parcels

8 Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd Ph - (02) 6651 5484 Ecological Assessment, GIS, Environmental Management and Planning Fax - (02) 6651 6890 Camden Haven Assessment: Regional Corridor & Area 15 DRAFT 25/06/2009

2. Legislative Context

This section outlines the statutory planning context and legislation relevant to the project and discusses those matters requiring consideration as part of this ecological assessment. Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) The Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) refers to matters of ‘National Environmental Significance’ (NES). Actions such as a project, development, undertaking or activity, that may affect NES matters, need to be referred to the Commonwealth. Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) is the principal planning legislation in NSW. Part 3 of the EP&A Act sets the framework for preparation of environmental planning instruments such as Local Environmental Plans (LEPs). Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act) A number of threatened species and Endangered Ecological Communities (EECs), listed under the TSC Act, are addressed in this report. The TSC Act applies to lands zoned for both rural and urban purposes. Native Vegetation Act 2003 The Native Vegetation Act 2003 (NV Act) aims to end broad-scale clearing of native vegetation and repair damaged rivers and landscapes. A person seeking to clear native vegetation under the NV Act needs development consent or a property vegetation plan (PVP). A PVP is a negotiated, legally binding agreement between the landholder(s) and the local Catchment Management Authority (CMAs). Development consent will only be given if clearing vegetation will improve or maintain environmental outcomes as measured by the PVP Developer (a decision support tool used by the CMAs). The NV Act applies to lands zoned for rural purposes but not to lands zoned for urban purposes. Area 15 is currently zoned 1(a) Rural but PMHC’s intent is to rezone for urban purposes. Rural Fires Act 1997 (RF Act) The Rural Fires Act 1997 is enacted through the Planning for Bushfire Protection guidelines (NSW Rural Fire Service and Planning NSW 2001). A Bushfire Safety Authority permits development to the extent that it complies with bushfire protection standards. Application for a Bushfire Safety Authority must be lodged as part of the development application process and must demonstrate compliance with the Planning for Bushfire Protection Guidelines (RFS and Planning NSW 2001). The Bushfire Safety Authority proposal will need to be consistent with the adopted ecological outcomes for the site.

9 Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd Ph - (02) 6651 5484 Ecological Assessment, GIS, Environmental Management and Planning Fax - (02) 6651 6890 Camden Haven Assessment: Regional Corridor & Area 15 DRAFT 25/06/2009

Rivers and Foreshores Improvement Act 1948 (RFI Act) The RFI Act aims to protect sensitive waterway and riparian environments. The Act has provisions that require a permit (Part 3A Permit) for excavations, fill and other works in or near rivers, estuaries and lakes as these can cause significant impacts on habitat, water quality, flooding and erosion. The Act requires that a buffer be applied to riparian areas, with width varying according to stream order. State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) No 14 – Coastal Wetlands SEPP 14 is aimed at ensuring coastal wetlands are preserved and protected in the environmental and economic interests of the state. A map shows the locations of every Coastal Wetland that is protected under this SEPP. There are no SEPP14 wetlands mapped within Area 15. State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) No 44 –Koala Habitat Protection Previous environmental investigations within Area 15 (ERM ( ) and PB ( ) have highlighted the occurrence of potential Koala habitat but have concluded that core Koala habitat, as defined by SEPP 44, is unlikely to occur. State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) No 71 – Coastal Protection SEPP 71 is Planning Policy targeted at protecting and managing the natural, cultural, recreational and economic attributes of the NSW coast and to ensure that the type, bulk, scale and size of development is appropriate for the location and protects and improves the natural scenic quality of the surrounding area. Area 15 falls just outside the area covered by SEPP 71. Port Macquarie Hastings Council Local Environment Plan (LEP) 2000 Lands within Area 15 are classified as Rural 1(a) (see Figure 3 in Part A of this report). PMHC is seeking to rezone within Area 15 for urban purposes.

10 Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd Ph - (02) 6651 5484 Ecological Assessment, GIS, Environmental Management and Planning Fax - (02) 6651 6890 Camden Haven Assessment: Regional Corridor & Area 15 DRAFT 25/06/2009

3. Methods Detailed on-site assessment of ecological values (vegetation and habitat) was carried out within seven of the nine land parcels comprising Area 15, namely, Lot 33 DP 754405, Lot 7 DP 775532, Lot 3 DP 794077, Lot 2 DP 504042, Lot 5 DP 24500, Lot 2 DP 594388 and Lot 2 DP 739620 (e.g. see Figure 3). Lot 11 DP 585667 and Lot 2 DP 24500 were not assessed in detail as the owners had not provided access for the study. These blocks were assessed remotely, through interpretation of aerial photographs. Some observations were also made in the field from perimeter boundaries. 3.1 Data audit of flora and fauna values A preliminary list of threatened flora and fauna species, populations and ecological communities likely to occur in the study area and subject site was prepared. This was based on searching the Department of Environment & Conservation (DEC) Wildlife Atlas records for species listed under the TSC Act, and the Department of Environment & Heritage (DEH) database for threatened species and Matters of National Environmental Significance listed under the EPBC Act. Data searches were undertaken on 7th May, 2007. The formal data searches covered a circle of 10km radius, from a point located at 31.63° south and 152.74° east. Derived lists were filtered to identify threatened species known from, or considered likely to occur within, or utilise, the study area, based upon available specific habitat information in the scientific literature as well as information obtained during the site inspection. The following classes of likelihood of occurrence were applied: Unlikely = Species or community is unlikely to occur, (vagrant individuals may occur infrequently). Potential = Species or community could potentially occur. Likely = Species or community is likely to occur. Known = Species or community known to occur on site. The resultant list of likely species was then further filtered to identify those species considered likely to utilise the available habitats within the Subject Site. Data from previous environmental investigations within Area 15 (ERM Nov 2005, PB Sep 2006) were collated as part of the data audit. Similarly, relevant information gathered for environmental assessment of adjoining lands (e.g. Chevron Veld by J. Berrigan, pers. comm.) was also reviewed. 3.2 Field assessment Field assessment of the subject site was undertaken over the period 14–18 May, 2007. Results of these assessments were as described in the following sections:

3.2.1 Flora and vegetation Flora survey was undertaken by Senior Botanist Phil Gilmour. Each property was traversed in detail in order to identify vegetation types, delineate community boundaries and search for threatened flora species.

11 Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd Ph - (02) 6651 5484 Ecological Assessment, GIS, Environmental Management and Planning Fax - (02) 6651 6890 Camden Haven Assessment: Regional Corridor & Area 15 DRAFT 25/06/2009

All native vegetation on the subject site was assessed and compared with the vegetation mapping undertaken provided by ERM (Nov 2005), PB (Sep 2006) and Ecovision (1998). 3.2.2 Hollow-bearing trees The available hollow-bearing tree resource was assessed in detail on six of the seven Area 15 lots to which access was available. A broader overview of the presence of hollow-bearing trees was gained for the seventh, the PMHC-owned Lot 33 DP754405. Within the six lots, hollow-bearing trees were located and scored in order to quantify associated habitat resources and to allow for their consideration in rezoning and development applications. The scoring procedure was developed for a similar PMHC project (Area 13) and was made available to this project by T. Blue (pers. comm.). The procedure integrated the tree’s ecological character (alive or dead, diameter at breast height, number and size of visible hollows), location (in relation to habitat patches), and likely longevity. 3.2.3 Potential Koala habitat ERM (Nov 2005) and PB (Sept 2006) highlighted the occurrence of potential Koala habitat within Area 15. However, the targeted survey did not record the occurrence of this species within the Subject Site. Potential Koala habitat was assessed in this project through a thorough examination of a representative sample of potential feed trees. This included all scored hollow- bearing trees (see section 2.2.2) being assessed for signs of koalas, Koala claw marks, and Koala faeces (scats). 3.2.4 Other faunal values Other faunal habitat values were assessed opportunistically during traverses of the Subject Site. These included signs of Glossy Black-Cockatoo foraging, bird of prey nests, high nectar-producing habitats, as well as potential habitats, general signs and records of threatened fauna. 3.2.5 Limitations of the site assessment Systematic floristic plots were not employed as that was not the role of this project. It is likely that some understorey species were not detected during the assessment of vegetation community composition and extent. No systematic fauna survey was conducted as that was not the role of the project. Rather, the Subject Site was assessed for habitat potential for a range of threatened species deemed likely to occur (Appendix 1). 3.3 Other collated ecological values 3.3.1 Stream / riparian values In developing a local conservation framework for Area 15 the consideration of stream and riparian buffers provides a basis for consolidation and integration of environmental protection measures. 3.3.2 Condition / recoverability The disturbance of natural areas results in some level of habitat loss or degradation and potentially reduces relative conservation value. In assigning conservation values, for the development of local conservation frameworks, consideration of the

12 Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd Ph - (02) 6651 5484 Ecological Assessment, GIS, Environmental Management and Planning Fax - (02) 6651 6890 Camden Haven Assessment: Regional Corridor & Area 15 DRAFT 25/06/2009

relative condition and recoverability of vegetation and habitats is important. One important determinant of condition, in the context of forest ecosystems at least, relates to their structure and the provision of habitat resources that are best developed in the old growth state (e.g. Lindenmayer and Franklin 2002). Forest stands displaying old growth characteristics (e.g. prevalent hollow-bearing trees and high structural diversity) are accordingly allocated a high or very high condition ranking. In addition, the long term conservation of vegetation and habitat also relates to their recoverability, as opposed to their current condition. Recovery assumes directed management for conservation values and certain vegetation communities are typically more ‘recoverable’ than others. 3.3.3 Local connectivity / corridors At a regional scale corridor mapping undertaken for NPWS (now DECC) by Scotts (2003) highlighted the importance of landscape connectivity in the area. The values associated with the original regional corridor have been eroded somewhat (see Part A of this project, ELA 2007a) but the need to link and enhance the conservation potential of important habitat remnants remains paramount. At a local scale, Area 15 contributes to overall connectivity within the fragmented landscape. This local connectivity was not mapped by Scotts (2003), as that study took a regional perspective, leaving the strategic integration and consolidation of connectivity at local scales to more localised planning processes. The value of remaining habitats within this fragmented landscape, at regional, sub- regional and local scales, is increased exponentially due to the extent of impacts associated with previous clearing and habitat degradation. Strategic conservation planning and management, revolving around the protection of existing remnants and extending to adopt a strategic approach to restoration of habitat frameworks tailored to the landscape offers the best approach. Such measures, taken at the local scale, for example local corridors and the use of locally indigenous throughout the planned urban matrix, can supplement the function of the activities developed and applied at the regional scale. 3.4 Constraints analysis: integration of ecological objectives and conservation values Six overarching ecological objectives are relevant to the design of a local conservation framework for Area 15. These objectives provide a basis for the collation and integrated conservation of ecological values, and to the design of an environmental lands framework for Area 15. They are: 1. To protect areas of high conservation value vegetation (e.g. good condition EECs, EECs with high recovery potential, forest stands supporting old growth elements); 2. To protect key conservation features (e.g. hollow-bearing trees, Osprey nest) by integrating them into conservation lands wherever possible; 3. To enhance the conservation security of high conservation value lands; 4. To protect and enhance landscape connectivity for priority species and vegetation communities;

13 Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd Ph - (02) 6651 5484 Ecological Assessment, GIS, Environmental Management and Planning Fax - (02) 6651 6890 Camden Haven Assessment: Regional Corridor & Area 15 DRAFT 25/06/2009

5. To consolidate conservation lands seeking viable areas that provide practical management boundaries; 6. To offset any loss of high and medium conservation lands. Collated conservation values were combined and integrated to develop a local conservation framework for Area 15. This integration, which could also be considered as a constraints analysis, involved the subjective summation of relative values assigned for each of three key elements: • On-site values (high conservation value vegetation and habitats, hollow-bearing trees, stream buffers); • Condition / recoverability values; • Local landscape / connectivity values. Each of these is defined and mapped in the results section (section 4) below.

14 Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd Ph - (02) 6651 5484 Ecological Assessment, GIS, Environmental Management and Planning Fax - (02) 6651 6890 Camden Haven Assessment: Regional Corridor & Area 15 DRAFT 25/06/2009

4. Results 4.1 Data audit of flora and fauna values The data search for TSC Act and EPBC Act threatened species, populations and communities produced a total of 37 threatened fauna species, 10 threatened species and one Endangered Ecological Community (EEC) known to occur, or considered likely to occur, in the study area and subject site (note that fish, sea birds, marine mammals and marine reptiles were excluded from this search). These species are listed in Appendix 1, with those considered likely or potentially to occur on, or utilise, the study area and subject site (Area 15) (based on field-based habitat assessment), highlighted in bold. The Protected Matters Search concerning the EPBC Act also highlighted 11 migratory bird species that could occur in the study area (note that fish, sea birds, marine mammals and marine reptiles were excluded from this search). These species are listed in Appendix 2, with those considered likely or potentially to occur on, or utilise, the study area and subject site (Area 15) (based on field-based habitat assessment), highlighted in bold. 4.2 Vegetation Seven vegetation communities were identified on the Subject Site (Figure 3). These communities, their extent, and conservation status are discussed below. 4.2.1 Swamp Mahogany – Melaleuca sieberi Swamp Sclerophyll Forest (EEC) Area: 36.16 ha (19.39 ha intact; 11.39 ha modified; 5.38 ha severely modified)

Description: This community is an open forest or very tall to extremely tall closed shrubland usually with a dense ground layer of sedges or ferns. robusta (Swamp Mahogany) is the most frequently occurring overstorey species with occasional Eucalyptus resinifera subsp. hemilampra (Red Mahogany) and Melaleuca quinquenervia (Broad-leaved Paperbark). The midstorey is dominated by Melaleuca sieberi with occasional Melaleuca linariifolia and Callistemon salignus (Willow Bottlebrush). Common shrub and ground layer species include Banksia spinulosa, Banksia robur, Gahnia clarkei (Tall Saw Sedge), Blechnum indicum (Swamp Water Fern) and Xanthorrhoea fulva (a grasstree). The community is associated with drainage lines and poorly drained areas and is best developed in the east and north east of the study site. This community is well developed within Area 15, which is a focus area for its local conservation. The area supports a broad gradient for this community from paperbark (M. sieberi) dominated shrublands to Swamp Mahogany dominated swamp forest to Red Mahogany dominated swamp forest. The neighbouring property adds more diversity; supporting paperbark (M. quinquenervia) dominated swamp forest. In combination this representation gradient provides important habitat for a suite for fauna, including threatened species. Condition / recoverability: High. Some areas of this community are in intact while others have been modified to varying degrees by clearing, grazing, slashing and nursery activities. Most of the modified areas are considered to be highly recoverable given appropriate management (removal of slashing and grazing by stock).

15 Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd Ph - (02) 6651 5484 Ecological Assessment, GIS, Environmental Management and Planning Fax - (02) 6651 6890 Camden Haven Assessment: Regional Corridor & Area 15 DRAFT 25/06/2009

Comparison with previous mapping: ELA’s mapping of this community broadly concurs with previous detailed mapping except for small areas in the north of portions 3/794077 and 2/504042, which were not mapped by PB (Sep 2006). The mapping of CRA Forest Ecosystems maps this as FE 141 Swamp. CRA mapping equivalent: This community is equivalent to the CRA Forest Ecosystem 142 Swamp Mahogany. Conservation Status: Intact and modified areas are considered to be of high conservation value. The community is listed under the TSC Act as an Endangered Ecological Community (EEC) Swamp sclerophyll forest on coastal floodplains of the NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner bioregions. The CRA target for conservation has not been met due to the level to which this community (and floodplains generally) has been previously cleared and degraded. This community is a priority for conservation on private lands. Known local habitat of the Wallum Froglet; potential habitat of the Green & Golden Bell-Frog, Swift Parrot, Regent Honeyeater, Koala, Squirrel Glider, Eastern Chestnut- mouse, several threatened bat species. Part of the wider wetland / swamp forest ecosystem draining to Queens Lake and forming a conservation focus for the study area. Figure 3. Vegetation communities on the subject site

16 Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd Ph - (02) 6651 5484 Ecological Assessment, GIS, Environmental Management and Planning Fax - (02) 6651 6890 Camden Haven Assessment: Regional Corridor & Area 15 DRAFT 25/06/2009

DECC’s Priority Actions for this EEC (DECC Threatened Species website) include: 1. Protect habitat by minimising further clearing. Recognise values of all remnants in the land use planning process, particularly development consents, re-zonings and regional planning; 2. Promote regeneration by avoiding prolonged or heavy grazing; 3. Undertake restoration including bush regeneration, revegetation and weed control. 4.2.2 White Stringybark – Red Bloodwood Dry Open Forest Area: 33.17 ha Description: This community is an open or tall open forest dominated by Eucalyptus globoidea (White Stringybark) and (Red Bloodwood). Several other tree species including Eucalyptus microcorys (Tallowwood), Eucalyptus resinifera subsp. hemilampra (Red Mahogany), Eucalyptus pilularis (Blackbutt) and (Turpentine) also occur less frequently. The understorey is mainly shrubby and the ground layer is variable. Common species include Allocasuarina littoralis (Black Oak), Banksia species, Persoonia linearis, Dodonaea triquetra, Lomandra longifolia and Pteridium esculentum (Bracken). This community occurs on low rises and lower slopes and is relatively widespread within the subject site. Condition / recoverability: High to moderate. In the central and eastern parts of the subject site this community is in very good condition. Parts of portion 3/794077, which has been logged recently, and 2/739620, which have been degraded by under scrubbing, logging and grazing can only be considered to be in moderate condition. Comparison with previous mapping: This community is more or less equivalent to the Dry White Mahogany – Tallowwood community of PB (Sept 2006) and the mapping is broadly in accordance. CRA mapping equivalent: There is no clear equivalent in the CRA Forest Ecosystem classification. Conservation status: Ecovision (1998) considered this vegetation type to be inadequately reserved and recommended conservation west of Queens Lake, making Area 15 a focus for that purpose. The eastern parts of Area 15, particularly Lot 7 DP 775532 and the northern halves of portions 11/585667, 2/24500 and 3/794077 support high conservation value forests of this type. Hollow-bearing trees are prevalent in these areas and the community provides habitat for threatened fauna such as the Yellow-bellied Glider, Brush-tailed Phascogale, Glossy Black-Cockatoo, owls and bats. 4.2.3 Blackbutt Moist Tall Open Forest Area: 9.38 ha (Very Good Condition 8.21 ha; Good Condition 1.17 ha)

Description: Open or tall open forest dominated by Eucalyptus pilularis (Blackbutt) with occasional Eucalyptus microcorys (Tallowwood), (Pink Bloodwood), Corymbia gummifera (Red Bloodwood), Eucalyptus resinifera subsp. hemilampra (Red Mahogany) and Syncarpia glomulifera (Turpentine). The understorey includes (Forest Oak), Leptospermum

17 Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd Ph - (02) 6651 5484 Ecological Assessment, GIS, Environmental Management and Planning Fax - (02) 6651 6890 Camden Haven Assessment: Regional Corridor & Area 15 DRAFT 25/06/2009

polygalifolium, Ceratopetalum gummiferum (Christmas Bush) and Gahnia clarkei (Tall Saw Sedge). It occurs on sheltered slopes in the vicinity of the old quarry in the west of the study site (Lot 7 DP 775532). Ground orchids such as Acianthus spp, Corybas barbarae, Chiloglottis spp. and Pterostylis spp. are common in this community. Condition / recoverability: High; this community is in very good condition. Comparison with previous mapping: This community was not mapped by PB (Sept 2006) who included the relevant area within the Dry Coastal Blackbutt Forest and Dry White Mahogany – Tallowwood communities. CRA mapping equivalent: probably equivalent to CRA Forest Ecosystem 72: Low Relief Coastal Blackbutt. Conservation status: At a regional level FE 72 is considered inadequately reserved and a private land priority. This community is of high conservation value. It supports old growth characteristics, including a high number of hollow-bearing trees, and provides habitat for threatened fauna such as the Yellow-bellied Glider, Brush-tailed Phascogale, Glossy Black-Cockatoo, owls and bats. 4.2.4 Blackbutt Dry Open Forest Area: 20.18 ha Description: This community is an open forest dominated by Eucalyptus pilularis (Blackbutt) with occasional Eucalyptus carnea (Broad-leaved White Mahogany), Corymbia gummifera (Red Bloodwood) and Eucalyptus microcorys (Tallowwood). The understorey includes Allocasuarina littoralis (Black Oak), Leptospermum polygalifolium, (Blady Grass), Themeda australis (Kangaroo Grass) and Pteridium esculentum (Bracken). It occurs on exposed slopes to the west of the old quarry in the west of the study site (Lot 7 DP 775532) and on the hill in the north-west corner of Lot 33 DP 754405. Condition / recoverability: This community is in good condition within Lot 7 DP 775532 and in moderate condition within Lot 33 DP 754405. Comparison with previous mapping: This community is included within the Dry Coastal Blackbutt Forest community in PB (Sept 2006). CRA mapping equivalent: There does not appear to be clear CRA Forest Ecosystem equivalent but it could be included in either FE 72: Low Relief Coastal Blackbutt, FE 32 Dry Foothills Blackbutt – Turpentine or FE 34 Dry grassy Blackbutt – Tallowwood. Conservation status: Ecovision (1998) consider this vegetation association to be adequately reserved but stress that stands with old growth characteristics are of high conservation value. Within Lot 7 DP 775532 this community supports a number of hollow bearing trees and a structural diversity conveying many old growth characteristics. These stands provide habitat for threatened fauna such as the Yellow-bellied Glider, Brush-tailed Phascogale, Glossy Black-Cockatoo, owls and bats. 4.2.5 Red Mahogany – Tallowwood Moist Open Forest Area: 1.21 ha Description: This community is a an open or tall open forest dominated by Eucalyptus microcorys (Tallowwood) and Eucalyptus resinifera subsp. hemilampra (Red

18 Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd Ph - (02) 6651 5484 Ecological Assessment, GIS, Environmental Management and Planning Fax - (02) 6651 6890 Camden Haven Assessment: Regional Corridor & Area 15 DRAFT 25/06/2009

Mahogany) with occasional Corymbia intermedia (Pink Bloodwood), Corymbia gummifera (Red Bloodwood), Eucalyptus pilularis (Blackbutt) and Syncarpia glomulifera (Turpentine). The understorey includes Allocasuarina torulosa (Forest Oak), Leptospermum polygalifolium, Ceratopetalum gummiferum (Christmas Bush) and Gahnia clarkei (Tall Saw Sedge). It is restricted to a small area of sheltered slope to the west of the old quarry site in the west of the study area (Lot 7 DP 775532). Condition / recoverability: High. This community is in very good condition. Comparison with previous mapping: This community is included within the Dry Coastal Blackbutt Forest and Dry White Mahogany – Tallowwood communities in PB (Sept 2006). CRA mapping equivalent: This community may be considered as a variant of CRA Forest Ecosystem 153 Wet Coastal Tallowwood – Brushbox. Conservation status: This community is of high conservation value. It supports a number of hollow-bearing trees and high structural diversity. It supports old growth forest values including the provision of habitat for threatened fauna such as Yellow- bellied Glider, Brush-tailed Phascogale, Glossy Black-Cockatoo, owls and bats. 4.2.6 Partially cleared Area: 36.13 ha

There are several areas of the study site that have been partially cleared, with scattered trees remaining. These areas have been degraded, from an ecological viewpoint, but still support some remnant values. For example, hollow-bearing trees which provide roosting and nesting resources for fauna are found sporadically throughout the partially cleared areas of the subject site (see Figure 5). The balance of the subject site is, for all intents and purposes cleared. 4.3 Threatened flora habitat The Subject site is considered to contain potential habitat for one threatened plant species, the orchid Cryptostylis hunteriana. Other threatened species known form the locality are considered unlikely to occur (see Appendix 1). No threatened flora species were recorded on site by ELA, or during previous flora surveys by ERM (Nov 2005) and PB (Sep 2006). 4.4 Threatened Fauna habitat Seven threatened fauna species have been recorded within Area 15. Twenty-one additional threatened species are considered likely to occur based on the range of habitats available. The habitat requirements of these 28 species are thus reviewed briefly below: Wallum Froglet The Wallum Froglet is known to occur within Area 15 (Figure 4) and suitable habitat exists throughout the wetland – swamp forest habitats of the subject site. Chevron Veld, immediately to the east of Area 15, supports a regionally significant population of this species (J. Berrigan pers. comm.). The two areas are naturally and functionally linked. Osprey

19 Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd Ph - (02) 6651 5484 Ecological Assessment, GIS, Environmental Management and Planning Fax - (02) 6651 6890 Camden Haven Assessment: Regional Corridor & Area 15 DRAFT 25/06/2009

An active Osprey nest occurs within Area 15 (Figure 4). These ospreys are known to forage locally over Queens Lake, Camden Haven River and beyond. Large trees, in addition to the nest tree, are used for roosting and perching and are important habitat features for this species. Figure 4. Threatened species records from within Area 15. Note that records of Grey-headed Flying-fox are not included as they are quite numerous and that records of Wallum Froglet and Glossy Black-Cockatoo tabled by ERM (Nov 2005) are not included as exact locations were not provided in the report.

Square-tailed Kite This species is known to occur within Area 15 (Figure 4). It was observed foraging along the edge of swamp sclerophyll forest and suitable habitat exists throughout the subject site. Glossy Black-Cockatoo This species has been recorded from a number of locations throughout Area 15 (Figure 4). The dry open forests, where Forest Oak (Allocasuarina torulosa) and Black Oak (A. littoralis) are found, offer potential habitat to this specialist species. Nomadic nectarivores (Swift Parrot, Regent Honeyeater, Grey-headed Flying-Fox and Common Blossom-bat Area 15 offers potential habitat for these highly mobile nomadic nectarivores. The flying-fox has been recorded throughout Area 15 and the other three have been recorded within the general area. All can potentially utilise the seasonally abundant

20 Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd Ph - (02) 6651 5484 Ecological Assessment, GIS, Environmental Management and Planning Fax - (02) 6651 6890 Camden Haven Assessment: Regional Corridor & Area 15 DRAFT 25/06/2009

nectar resources offered by overstorey species such as Swamp Mahogany (Eucalyptus robusta), Melaleuca quinquenervia, M. sieberi, Callistemon salignus and Banksia species occurring within the swamp sclerophyll forest stands of the subject site. Red Bloodwood (Corymbia gummifera) and Pink Bloodwood (C. intermedia) offer seasonally abundant nectar within some of the open forest habitats. The incremental loss of foraging habitat is an on-going concern for these species. As more habitat is cleared and fragmented foraging efficiencies are impacted. Strategic protection, enhancement, integration and consolidation of foraging habitat within tailored protected area frameworks is an important component of conservation planning for nomadic and highly mobile species across their ranges. The species are likely to benefit from such strategic conservation measures applied on-site and within the vicinity as part of a wider landscape focus. Barking Owl, Powerful Owl, Masked Owl The Powerful Owl and Masked Owl are both known from Area 15 (Figure 4) while the Barking Owl may also occur. It is not known whether these broad ranging birds nest on-site but hollow-bearing trees of sufficient size are available. Home ranges for these species will extend well beyond the boundaries of Area 15 but the area is likely to be important as part of a wider habitat complex. Brush-tailed Phascogale This specialised species has been recorded from Chevron Veld, immediately east of Area 15. Given that suitable habitat exists within Area 15 it is considered highly likely to occur. The Brush-tailed Phascogale utilises tree hollows for roosting and within the subject site would be most closely tied to the dry open forests. Common Planigale This cryptic species is generally only recorded when targeted by a sampling program incorporating pit fall buckets. This technique has not been employed within Area 15 and it is considered that this species has been overlooked as a result. The Common Planigale could potentially occur throughout the swamp sclerophyll forests and dry open forests of the area. Koala Area 15’s dry and moist open forests offer potential Koala habitat (ERM Nov 2005, PB Sept 2006) but, despite considerable search effort being applied by those two studies they did not locate signs of Koala habitation. Koala scats were found at two locations during this assessment, one within Area 15 (Figure 4) and another immediately north of Area 15 within lands owned by PMHC. While, based on the evidence of studies conducted, Area 15 cannot be considered to support core Koala habitat the species does occur and must be considered in re-zoning and development applications. Yellow-bellied Glider The Yellow-bellied Glider is known to occur within Area 15 (Figure 4) and has been reported from other locations within the wider study area (e.g. lands owner by PMHC to the north of Area 15). This specialist species inhabits dry and moist open forests and its presence confers a high conservation value ranking on suitable forest stands, particularly where old hollow-bearing trees are prevalent (e.g. PMHC-owned Lot 7

21 Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd Ph - (02) 6651 5484 Ecological Assessment, GIS, Environmental Management and Planning Fax - (02) 6651 6890 Camden Haven Assessment: Regional Corridor & Area 15 DRAFT 25/06/2009

DP 775532). It is important that this species’ spatial requirements are considered when designing a conservation framework for the subject site. Squirrel Glider This specialised species has been recorded from Chevron Veld, immediately east of Area 15. Given that suitable habitat exists within Area 15 it is considered highly likely to occur. The Squirrel Glider utilises tree hollows for roosting and within the subject site would be most closely tied to the dry open forests and swamp sclerophyll forests.

Eastern Freetail Bat, Little & Eastern Bent-wing Bats, Greater Broad-nosed Bat Each of these species is known from the general study area and each is likely to forage above the canopy and amid canopy gaps throughout the subject site. It is highly surprising that none of these was recorded during Anabat surveys undertaken by ERM (Nov 2005) and PB (Sept 2006). All are known to utilise tree hollows as roosts, although the bent-wing bats are usually more closely associated with other voids such as caves, tunnels and old bridges. The protection and recruitment of large hollow trees is always important for these species and other bats. It is important that this habitat resource is well managed throughout Area 15 Eastern Chestnut Mouse The general vicinity around Queens Lake (including PMHC-owned lands to the north of Area 15) is a known significant area for this specialised rodent. Despite the lack of records for this species reported in ERM (Nov 2005) and PB (Sept 2006) it is considered highly likely that this species occurs within Area 15. Swamp Sclerophyll Forests and adjacent open forest edges are important potential habitats throughout the subject site and the species should be assumed to present when considering the development of a strategic conservation framework for the area. 4.5 Hollow-bearing trees Hollow-bearing trees were recorded, and scored throughout the privately owned portions of Area 15 (Figure 5). The protection and recruitment of these important habitat features should be a central consideration in developing a strategic conservation framework for the area. Not all hollow-bearing trees can be incorporated within the conservation footprint so it is also important that their on- going ecological function is planned for and managed within future development areas. 4.6 Aquatic / Riparian / Hydrological values The swamp sclerophyll forests of Area 15 are intimately associated with drainage lines and low lying lands that drain directly or indirectly to Queens Lake. The protection and enhancement of aquatic, riparian and hydrological values associated with these areas is a required. Potential stream buffers, of the order of 10 metres, have been suggested as the minimum requirement for the first order streams found within Area 15. These are illustrated in Figure 6. The development of a local conservation framework for Area 15 was undertaken in cognisance of the stream / riparian stream buffers.

22 Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd Ph - (02) 6651 5484 Ecological Assessment, GIS, Environmental Management and Planning Fax - (02) 6651 6890 Camden Haven Assessment: Regional Corridor & Area 15 DRAFT 25/06/2009

Figure 5. Hollow-bearing trees that were mapped within Area 15. Note that a broad overview of the presence of hollow-bearing trees was gained for the PMHC-owned Lot 33 DP754405.

Figure 6. Preliminary stream / riparian buffers within Area 15. Note this figure was provided by T. Blue (PMHC).

23 Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd Ph - (02) 6651 5484 Ecological Assessment, GIS, Environmental Management and Planning Fax - (02) 6651 6890 Camden Haven Assessment: Regional Corridor & Area 15 DRAFT 25/06/2009

4.7 Constraints analysis 4.7.1 Integrated on-site conservation values The protection and consolidation of conservation values occurring on-site (within Area 15) is considered the number one conservation priority. The assigned relative on-site conservation values within Area 15 are depicted in Figure 7. 4.7.2 Condition / recoverability The assigned relative condition / recoverability values within Area 15 are depicted in Figure 8. 4.7.3 Local connectivity / corridors Area 15 supports remnant habitats contributing to landscape connectivity at local and regional scales within a broader landscape that has been severely impacted by previous and on-going vegetation clearing, degradation and fragmentation. The fate of natural systems and ecological integrity within this landscape may hinge upon the levels of habitat connectivity that are planned for and integrated into general planning for area. To that end, local connectivity was subjectively assessed by identifying important nodes and remnants of high conservation value habitat and then designing a local landscape framework to link those habitats within and beyond Area 15. The assigned relative landscape / connectivity values within Area 15 are depicted in Figure 9. 4.8 EPBC Matters of National Significance Migratory species highlighted in bold type in Appendix 3 are likely to occasionally utilise the subject site. However, it is considered that none of these species, or Commonwealth lands supporting these species, are likely to be affected by re- zoning proposals concerning Area15.

Figure 7. Relative on-site conservation values within Area 15

24 Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd Ph - (02) 6651 5484 Ecological Assessment, GIS, Environmental Management and Planning Fax - (02) 6651 6890 Camden Haven Assessment: Regional Corridor & Area 15 DRAFT 25/06/2009

Figure 8. Relative Condition / Recoverability values within Area 15

25 Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd Ph - (02) 6651 5484 Ecological Assessment, GIS, Environmental Management and Planning Fax - (02) 6651 6890 Camden Haven Assessment: Regional Corridor & Area 15 DRAFT 25/06/2009

Figure 9. Relative local landscape / connectivity values within Area 15

5. Integration of identified conservation values with ecological objectives Six overarching ecological objectives were highlighted earlier as being directly relevant to the design of a local conservation framework for Area 15. They provide a context for the integrated conservation of ecological values. The objectives are: 1. To protect areas of high conservation value vegetation (e.g. good condition EECs, EECs with high recovery potential, forest stands supporting old growth elements); 2. To protect key conservation features (e.g. hollow-bearing trees, Osprey nest) by integrating them into conservation lands wherever possible; 3. To enhance the conservation security of high conservation value lands; 4. To protect and enhance landscape connectivity for priority species and vegetation communities; 5. To consolidate conservation lands seeking viable areas and practical management boundaries; 6. To offset any loss of high and medium conservation lands.

26 Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd Ph - (02) 6651 5484 Ecological Assessment, GIS, Environmental Management and Planning Fax - (02) 6651 6890 Camden Haven Assessment: Regional Corridor & Area 15 DRAFT 25/06/2009

5.1 Protect areas of high conservation value vegetation and habitat Native vegetation and habitats considered to be of high and very high on-site conservation value are mapped in Figure 7. These include all intact EEC, modified EEC with high recovery potential (Figure 8) or with pivotal local connectivity importance (Figure 9), and open forest habitats supporting high structural diversity and significant numbers of hollow-bearing trees. It is important to note that Area 15 is a modified landscape. All remaining vegetation within the area has been impacted to some degree by processes associated with vegetation loss, modification and fragmentation.

Edge effects (the generally negative effects of weeds, predators, wind and humans) pervade the remnant habitats. But high conservation value habitats, and their associated biota still occur within the area and it falls to planners and land managers to promote strategic efforts aimed at maximizing the long term viability of biodiversity at the local level, but also as part of a broader effort covering broader landscapes (see numerous references in Lindenmayer and Franklin (2002), Lindenmayer and Fischer (2006).

5.2 Protect key conservation features by integrating them into conservation lands Key conservation features such as hollow-bearing trees (Figure 5), Osprey nest, known threatened species habitat (Figure 4), and stream buffers (Figure 6) were integrated into proposed conservation lands where possible. Some adjustments to this have been made in the interests of maximizing the efficiency of the proposed local conservation framework and providing practical management boundaries (see section 5.5). 5.3 Enhance the security of high conservation lands Area 15 supports high conservation values but is also part of a wider landscape that has been progressively impacted by activities that threaten those values. Certain habitats have been impacted by clearing and under-scrubbing, stock grazing (including goats within EEC), burning and logging. These activities have moved areas that would previously have been considered to be high value into medium and low value categories. The security of remaining high conservation value lands will be enhanced through strategic design of a local conservation framework that incorporates important values and features. In addition, a recommendation of the project is that PMHC prepares an Environmental Management Strategy for conservation lands within Area 15. 5.4 Protect and enhance landscape connectivity Strategic planning within Area 15 (and beyond) must incorporate systematic and targeted habitat protection and restoration aimed at the maintenance and enhancement of ecological processes and connectivity. To that end, the proposed local landscape conservation framework has been designed to incorporate high conservation value vegetation and habitats within

27 Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd Ph - (02) 6651 5484 Ecological Assessment, GIS, Environmental Management and Planning Fax - (02) 6651 6890 Camden Haven Assessment: Regional Corridor & Area 15 DRAFT 25/06/2009

conservation lands and to link their management with other local efforts and with the broader landscape. Local landscape connectivity has been characterised and mapped in Figure 9. This mapping has addressed the need to maintain and link areas of high conservation value within Area 15 as well as considering potential links to neighbouring lands and the broader landscape. Local connectivity is focused on the northern parts of Area 15 with a northern corridor proposed to link high conservation value open forests and EEC from PMHC lands in the west to the Crighton lands in the east. In this location landscape connectivity could be significantly enhanced through promotion of opportunities to extend linkage through to the neighbouring Chevron Veld lands. Local connectivity is also promoted within the SAF land, in the north-east of Area 15, by consolidating the protection and enhancement of high conservation value modified EEC with stream / riparian buffers. Again, landscape connectivity could be significantly enhanced here through promotion of opportunities to extend linkage through to the neighbouring Chevron Veld lands and beyond to a proposed regional corridor on the western side of Queens Lake (see Part A of this project, ELA July 2007a).

5.5 Consolidate conservation areas seeking viable areas and practical management boundaries In the interests of consolidating conservation lands, the mapping of stream and riparian buffers (Figure 6) has underpinned the selection of conservation areas but compromises have been made in the interests of maximising design efficiency and providing practical and manageable boundaries for conservation lands. For example, the stream buffer in the central-south of Area 15 (Figure 6) has been excluded from the landscape conservation framework (Figure 10). This stream flows through local landscapes varying from very low to low, medium and high conservation value. The inclusion of a southern corridor here would have resulted in an impractical management boundary and would have required the restoration of a relatively large patch of currently cleared land. It would also have resulted in a significantly lower development opportunity, without any clear conservation benefit. By consolidating conservation lands to the north of this creek (Figure 10) a more viable and practical management boundary has resulted. In developing the proposed conservation framework it has not always been possible to maximise the consolidation of conservation areas. For example, in line with the perceived intent of the TSC Act intact areas EEC (Swamp sclerophyll forest on the floodplains) are considered to be high conservation value lands requiring protection within the proposed conservation framework. Some of these patches were easily consolidated within practical management boundaries but others were not. The intact EEC patches in the south and east of Area 15 are examples of the latter (Figure 10). These patches are functionally linked to the rest of the conservation

28 Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd Ph - (02) 6651 5484 Ecological Assessment, GIS, Environmental Management and Planning Fax - (02) 6651 6890 Camden Haven Assessment: Regional Corridor & Area 15 DRAFT 25/06/2009

lands and their protection and management can be planned as part of an Environmental Management Strategy (see section 6.2). There are many precedents for the conservation of patches such as this. 5.6 Offset any loss of high and medium value conservation lands In proposing a local conservation framework it is assumed that land falling outside the conservation lands (see section 6.1) within Area 15 may be considered for development planning within the context of the Local Environmental Study. Conceptually, lands that are already cleared should form the basis for development activities but inevitably lands supporting native vegetation will be proposed for inclusion within a development footprint. In that context, it is expected that significant environmental impacts will be avoided or mitigated. Where impacts cannot be avoided or mitigated a process of offsetting can be invoked to ensure a net environmental improvement (DEC 2006). As mentioned by PB (Sept 2006) in relation to Area 15, this approach is intended to allow development to occur in a sustainable way without putting extra stress on the environment (DEC 2006). The investigation of an offsetting strategy for Area 15 is a recommendation of this project.

29 Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd Ph - (02) 6651 5484 Ecological Assessment, GIS, Environmental Management and Planning Fax - (02) 6651 6890 Camden Haven Assessment: Regional Corridor & Area 15 DRAFT 25/06/2009

6. Recommendations The results of a constraints analysis and planning considerations related to collated ecological values have been incorporated in formulating a preferred option for a local conservation framework within Area 15. In addition to outcomes associated with the proposed local conservation framework general recommendations are also provided. 6.1 A proposed local conservation framework ELA has addressed the six over-arching ecological principles outlined above in developing a strategic local conservation framework for Area 15 (Figure 10). It should be noted that this proposed framework has been informed and developed in cognisance of: • Comments received at the Landowners Focus Group (LFG) presentation (Port Macquarie 19th June, 2007); • Three landowners submissions received in response to the LFG presentation; • The broader framework within which this project has been undertaken, namely the development of a Local Environment Study for the Camden Haven urban release area. The proposed conservation framework identifies five classes of native vegetation / habitat within Area 15: • Class 1: Conservation lands- High conservation value; recommended for protection, enhancement and long term management; • Class 2: Medium conservation value; potentially available for development subject to offsetting provisions; • Class 3: Conservation lands- Currently degraded but where recovery (restoration) would consolidate the overall local conservation framework; • Class 4: Conservation lands- Roadside vegetation adding local connectivity value; • Class 5: Conservation lands for staged development- Osprey 100m development buffer; possibly subject of a staged relocation procedure whereby the land would become available for development after the Ospreys have relocated or the nest has been abandoned or the nest tree / branches have fallen due to natural causes. • The balance of Area 15 includes cleared lands and partially cleared lands. 6.1.1 Non-conservation lands Under the proposed framework cleared land, partially cleared land and class 2 lands (including native vegetation of high, medium and low conservation value) would be available for development, subject to the provisions of the appropriate environmental legislation and guidelines. As rural lands under the current LEP, activities are regulated under the Native Vegetation Act (2003). If rezoned to residential under an amended LEP, activities will be assessed under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (1979). The concept of offsetting would be pivotal to consideration of development proposals concerning class 2 lands.

30 Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd Ph - (02) 6651 5484 Ecological Assessment, GIS, Environmental Management and Planning Fax - (02) 6651 6890 Camden Haven Assessment: Regional Corridor & Area 15 DRAFT 25/06/2009

Figure 10. The proposed local conservation framework for Area 15

31 Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd Ph - (02) 6651 5484 Ecological Assessment, GIS, Environmental Management and Planning Fax - (02) 6651 6890 Camden Haven Assessment: Regional Corridor & Area 15 DRAFT 25/06/2009

6.2 Preparation of an Environmental Management Plan The establishment and long term management of conservation lands within Area 15, including restoration plans and the integration of stormwater management and bush fire Asset Protection Zones will require the formulation of an Environmental Management Plan. Area 15 is an important part of a broader landscape and a strategic landscape approach is required to consolidate and integrate the protection and restoration of the remaining natural values of the area. Conservation management and restoration of habitats within Area 15 will be promoted and maximised through planned and co-ordinated approaches on lands within this landscape.

Of particularly note in this context are lands associated with the proposed Western Queens Lake Regional Corridor (see Part A of this project) and all Chevron Veld lands. Although these lands fall outside the scope of the LES concerning Area 15, ideally they would be incorporated within the Environmental Management Plan.

6.3 Investigation of an off-setting strategy It is recommended that, as part of the Local Environmental Study addressing the Camden Haven urban release strategy, PMHC investigate an off-setting strategy. Such a strategy will be required to address future development applications for lands supporting native vegetation within Area 15 but falling outside of the accepted conservation lands. These are mapped as class 2 lands in the proposed local conservation framework (Figure 10).

6.4 General recommendations (whole site) In conjunction with implementation of the preferred option developed in this report the following recommendations are made for the whole site: • Facilitate connectivity and consistent management with the conservation of lands on adjoining lands; • Asset protection zones to be located outside of areas retained, restored or enhanced for conservation purposes; • Stormwater controls to be outside of areas retained, restored or enhanced for conservation purposes; • Construction management plan to prevent damage to all sensitive vegetation; • Hollow-bearing trees to be retained and protected throughout the development footprint; • Other remnant trees to be integrated into development footprints and common areas where possible; • Local provenance native species be used in street or open space landscaping, including Koala food trees where possible. Community descriptions within this report to be used for on-site landscaping;

32 Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd Ph - (02) 6651 5484 Ecological Assessment, GIS, Environmental Management and Planning Fax - (02) 6651 6890 Camden Haven Assessment: Regional Corridor & Area 15 DRAFT 25/06/2009

• A site nursery be established for the provision of provenance plantings post construction; • Koala-friendly provisions be incorporated within the development: o Traffic speed limit of 40km o Fencing to avoid disrupting Koala movements o Pools to provide a rope to allow koalas to exit if required

33 Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd Ph - (02) 6651 5484 Ecological Assessment, GIS, Environmental Management and Planning Fax - (02) 6651 6890 Camden Haven Assessment: Regional Corridor & Area 15 DRAFT 25/06/2009

7. References CE (Jan 2007). Cumberland Ecology (January 2007). Camden Haven Urban Growth Strategy – Review of Proposed Wildlife Corridor and Proposal for Alternative Corridor. Unpublished report to King and Campbell Pty Ltd, Port Macquarie, NSW. DEC (2006). Department of Environment and Conservation (2006). Biobanking – A Biodiversity Offsets and Banking Scheme. Conserving and restoring biodiversity in NSW, working paper. Department of Environment and Conservation, Sydney. Ecovision, 1998. The Natural Vegetation of Hastings Council LGA; Stage 1 – The Coastal Strip. A report to Hastings Council. ELA (July 2007a). Camden Haven Urban Release Area: Part A- Revision of a Proposed Regional Corridor. Report to Port Macquarie Hastings Council. ERM (Nov 2005). Environmental Resources Management Australia (November 2005). Proposed Senior’s Living Development, Lot 2 DP739620, Ocean Drive, Kew; Ecological Assessment. Unpublished report to Crighton Properties. Lindenmayer, D. B. and Franklin, J. F. (2002). Conserving Forest Biodiversity; A Comprehensive Multiscaled Approach. Island Press, Washington. Lindenmayer, D. B. and Fischer, J. (2006). Habitat Fragmentation and Landscape Change: An Ecological and Conservation Synthesis. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Victoria. NPWS (1999). NSW National Parks & Wildlife Service (1999) Forest Ecosystem Classification and Mapping for the Upper and Lower North East CRA Regions for Joint Commonwealth NSW Regional Forest Agreement Steering Committee. PB (Sept 2006). Parsons Brinkerhoff (September 2006). Greenfield Release Area, Camden Haven Ecological Options Assessment. Unpublished report to Port Macquarie Hastings Council, Port Macquarie, NSW. Scotts, D. (2003). Key habitats and corridors for forest fauna: A landscape framework for conservation in north-east New South Wales, NSW NPWS Occasional Paper 32, NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service, Sydney.

34 Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd Ph - (02) 6651 5484 Ecological Assessment, GIS, Environmental Management and Planning Fax - (02) 6651 6890 Camden Haven Assessment: Regional Corridor & Area 15 DRAFT 25/06/2009

APPENDIX 1 - TSC / EPBC Act Threatened Species data search results Note: Those species in bold considered likely to occur on, or utilise the subject site. Fauna Species

* y = Present; u = Unlikely; p = Potential to occur; l = Likely to occur Likelihood of Notes occurrence SCIENTIFIC COMMON TSC EPBC CLASS FAMILY within NAME NAME Act Act subject site (Area 15)* Green and Known from “Kendall” area; Amphibia Hylidae Litoria aurea E1 V p Golden Bell Frog potential habitat exists Known from Council STP lands to Litoria Green-thighed north of Area 15; potential habitat Amphibia Hylidae V p brevipalmata Frog in dry open forests associated with areas of periodic inundation Recorded within Area 15 (this Amphibia Myobatrachidae Crinia tinnula Wallum Froglet V y project); Study area supports a significant known population

Amphibia Myobatrachidae Mixophyes balbus Stuttering Frog E1 u V Mixophyes Amphibia Myobatrachidae Giant Barred Frog E1 E u iteratus Recorded within Area 15 (this Aves Accipitridae Lophoictinia isura Square-tailed Kite V - y project) Recorded nesting within Area 15 Aves Accipitridae Pandion haliaetus Osprey V - y (this project) Botaurus Australasian Aves Ardeidae V - u poiciloptilus Bittern Ixobrychus Aves Ardeidae Black Bittern V - u flavicollis Calyptorhynchus Glossy Black- Aves Cacatuidae V - y Recorded throughout Area 15 lathami Cockatoo

35 Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd Ph - (02) 6651 5484 Ecological Assessment, GIS, Environmental Management and Planning Fax - (02) 6651 6890 Camden Haven Assessment: Regional Corridor & Area 15 DRAFT 25/06/2009

Likelihood of Notes occurrence SCIENTIFIC COMMON TSC EPBC CLASS FAMILY within NAME NAME Act Act subject site (Area 15)* Known from Chevron Veld; part of Ephippiorhynchus Black-necked Aves Ciconiidae E1 - l a known breeding territory for asiaticus Stork “Rossglen” pair. Climacteris Brown Aves Climacteridae V - p Known from nearby picumnus Treecreeper Ptilinopus Wompoo Fruit- Aves Columbidae V - u magnificus Dove Rose-crowned Aves Columbidae Ptilinopus regina V - u Fruit-Dove Xanthomyza Regent Aves Meliphagidae E E P Suitable habitat exists phrygia Honeyeater Known from nearby and suitable Aves Psittacidae Lathamus discolor Swift Parrot E1 E p habitat exists Known from nearby and suitable Aves Strigidae Ninox connivens Barking Owl V - p habitat exists Known from nearby and suitable Aves Strigidae Ninox strenua Powerful Owl V - l habitat exists Tyto Aves Tytonidae Masked Owl V - y Recorded from Area 15 novaehollandiae Aves Tytonidae Tyto tenebricosa Sooty Owl V - u Eastern Pygmy- Mammalia Burramyidae Cercartetus nanus V - p Marginal habitat exists possum Dasyurus Spotted-tailed Mammalia Dasyuridae maculatus Quoll (SE V E p Suitable habitat exists maculatus mainland pop’n) Phascogale Brush-tailed Known from Chevron Veld and Mammalia Dasyuridae V - l tapoatafa Phascogale likely to occur within Area 15 Planigale Common Known from similar habitats east of Mammalia Dasyuridae V - l maculata Planigale Queens Lake

36 Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd Ph - (02) 6651 5484 Ecological Assessment, GIS, Environmental Management and Planning Fax - (02) 6651 6890 Camden Haven Assessment: Regional Corridor & Area 15 DRAFT 25/06/2009

Likelihood of Notes occurrence SCIENTIFIC COMMON TSC EPBC CLASS FAMILY within NAME NAME Act Act subject site (Area 15)* Mormopterus Eastern Freetail- Likely to forage over area 15; Mammalia Molossidae V - l norfolkensis bat roosting hollow trees available Pseudomys Eastern Chestnut Known from nearby within similar Mammalia Muridae V - l gracilicaudatus Mouse habitat; likely to occur Yellow-bellied Known from Area 15 and Mammalia Petauridae Petaurus australis V - y Glider surrounding lands Petaurus Known from Chevron Veld and Mammalia Petauridae Squirrel Glider V - l norfolcensis likely to occur within Area 15 Phascolarctos Mammalia Phascolarctidae Koala V - y Known from area 15 (this project) cinereus Potorous Long-nosed Mammalia Potoroidae tridactylus Potoroo (SE V V P Marginal habitat exists tridactylus mainland pop’n) Pteropus Grey-headed Known from Area 15 and Mammalia Pteropodidae V V y poliocephalus Flying-fox surrounding lands Syconycteris Common Mammalia Pteropodidae V - p Seasonal habitat is available australis Blossom-bat Chalinolobus Large-eared Pied Mammalia Vespertilionidae V V u dwyeri Bat Kerivoula Golden-tipped Mammalia Vespertilionidae V - u papuensis Bat Known from nearby and likely to Miniopterus Little Bent-wing Mammalia Vespertilionidae V - l forage within Area 15 and australis bat surrounding lands Miniopterus Eastern Bent-wing Mammalia Vespertilionidae schreibersii V - l Likely to forage within Area 15 bat oceanensis Scoteanax Greater Broad- Likely to forage within Area 15; Mammalia Vespertilionidae V - l rueppellii nosed Bat roosting hollow trees available

37 Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd Ph - (02) 6651 5484 Ecological Assessment, GIS, Environmental Management and Planning Fax - (02) 6651 6890 Camden Haven Assessment: Regional Corridor & Area 15 DRAFT 25/06/2009

APPENDIX 1 (continued) Flora species * y = Present; u = Unlikely; p = Potential to occur; l = Likely to occur TSC EPBC Likelihood of FAMILY SCIENTIFIC Act Act occurrence* Apocynaceae Cynanchum elegans E E u Casuarinaceae Allocasuarina defungens E E u courtii V V u Myrtaceae Hakea archaeoides V V u Myrtaceae Melaleuca groveana V - u Myrtaceae Syzigium paniculatum V - u Orchidaceae Cryptostylis hunteriana V V p Orchidaceae Oberonia titania V - u Proteaceae Grevillea caleyi E E u Santalaceae Thesium australe V V u

38 Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd Ph - (02) 6651 5484 Ecological Assessment, GIS, Environmental Management and Planning Fax - (02) 6651 6890 Camden Haven Assessment: Regional Corridor & Area 15 DRAFT 25/06/2009

Appendix 2. Other EPBC Act Matters EPBC Listed Migratory Birds * Group Scientific Name Common Name Terrestrial Birds Haliaeetus leucogaster White-bellied Sea-Eagle Terrestrial Birds Hirundapus caudacutus White-throated Needletail Terrestrial Birds Monarcha melanopsis Black-faced Monarch Terrestrial Birds Monarcha trivirgatus Spectacled Monarch Terrestrial Birds Myiagra cyanoleuca Satin Flycatcher Terrestrial Birds Rhipidura rufifrons Rufous Fantail Terrestrial Birds Xanthomyza phrygia Regent Honeyeater Wetland Birds Ardea alba Great Egret Wetland Birds Ardea ibis Cattle Egret Wetland Birds Gallinago hardwickii Latham's Snipe, Japanese Snipe Wetland Birds Rostratula benghalensis s. lat. Painted Snipe

* = Highlighted migratory species are considered to be likely to occur, or potentially occurring. It should be noted that species restricted to marine and estuarine habitats have been excluded from consideration as this project only concerns terrestrial habitats.

39 Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd Ph - (02) 6651 5484 Ecological Assessment, GIS, Environmental Management and Planning Fax - (02) 6651 6890 Camden Haven Assessment: Regional Corridor & Area 15 DRAFT 25/06/2009

Appendix 3. Response to land owners submissions Submissions were made to the proposed conservation framework presented at the workshop of the 19 June 2007. Three packaged submissions have been received- each including a report / submission by an environmental consultant and each including a review submission from the land owner or their representative. Each of the submissions has been discussed in turn. The approach below is to paraphrase the main points raised in the submissions (numbered points per submission) and then provide a discussion on the issue. It is noted that a revised conservation framework has now been developed and provided in the main body of the report.

Chris Power Environmental Planning, acting for SAF Property Group (SAF); 26 June, 2007 Their letter is based on a separate report prepared by their consultant Environmental Resources Management Australia (ERM). We note they support the relocation of the regional corridor. 1. The LES process should involve balancing competing constraints identified by the various expert studies. • Agreed. This involves an iterative process and in the case of ecological issues if it requires any variation from the current agency position will need ongoing consultation. 2. Suggests an objective for the LES process at Area 15 and states that this objective should guide the tenor and recommendations of the various studies that contribute to the LES. • The first ecological report needs to be based on technical information to provide a sound understanding of the biodiversity values of the site and presented so it can be used by the LES process. The results of the ecological study should not be varied to reflect an objective, even one that is seeking to maximise yield. If there are broader planning studies that justify a project yield for the area based on planning needs then this should be incorporated into the LES process as should ecological requirements. • Our report has generated some ecological objectives to be incorporated into the overall final LEP with the other specialist reports. 3. Rework the central riparian corridor on SAF land to 20m in width and an additional 10m width either side to support APZ. • This submission proposal accounts for the base requirements of the Rivers and Foreshores Improvement Act and the APZ buffer requirement. It adds nothing on top of these base requirements relating to the requirements of the TSC Act and the protection / restoration of the Endangered Ecological Community (EEC) on site. Very few of the hollow bearing trees, a critical component of this EEC, fall within 20m either side of the first order stream. It remains our view that as many of the hollow bearing trees should be incorporated within a planned EEC-based riparian corridor as possible. A planned buffer of at least 80 metres width (40 metres either side of the first order stream) accounts for the high conservation value of this EEC-based riparian corridor. While it is generally considered that APZ’s should be placed outside conservation lands it is conceivable that in this case the 10 metre APZ could be incorporated within the outer edges of this buffer provided ecological values (e.g. hollow bearing trees and recruitment trees) are targeted for protection. 4. Relocate the Osprey nest site as the tree is in poor condition and to increase development opportunities on the site. • It is agreed that the nest tree supporting the Osprey nest is dead but the tree’s ‘condition’ per say is unclear. It may stand for years to come. The concept of providing for voluntary

40 Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd Ph - (02) 6651 5484 Ecological Assessment, GIS, Environmental Management and Planning Fax - (02) 6651 6890 Camden Haven Assessment: Regional Corridor & Area 15 DRAFT 25/06/2009

relocation by the Osprey pair, though provision of an alternative nest pole and platform is supported. We have contacted an environmental consultant, Mr Bob Moffat, with direct experience in the relocation of Osprey nests. He has indicated a willingness to become involved but has stressed that the procedure is expensive (in terms of provision of an alternative pole and platform) and success can never be guaranteed. He also stressed that the target location for the relocation is critical. Clearly, it needs to be nearby to the existing nest, within lands managed for conservation, and buffered from development activities. The best time for voluntary relocation attempt is after young from this season are fledged (most fertile pairs will have produced eggs by now). Early in the new year and up until about late March, when breeding preparations begin again, is considered the most likely period for voluntary relocation. 5. If the nest can’t be relocated then they propose a staged development that seeks development of the buffer once the nest becomes disused. • Agreed. Our recommended conservation framework reflects this approach. However, it should be noted that the nest tree could stand, and remain intact, for years to come. 6. Hollow bearing trees not in the conservation lands to be incorporated into the development. SAF to include legally appropriate measures to guarantee ongoing retention and protection of the trees. • Supported, with the provision that incorporation of hollow-bearing trees within the EEC- based riparian protected area is maximised. While the incorporation and protection of hollow-bearing trees within developable areas is a positive measure the provision of ongoing ecological functioning within the urban matrix is highly problematic in a practical sense. For that reason we have sought to maximise the incorporation of these trees within conservation lands, while recognising the constraint of providing for efficient developable areas, as part of the proposed conservation framework. 7. Recommend excluding the 20m wide corridor running along the northern boundary of the SAF lands. • Agreed. This thin buffer strip was originally proposed to provide a level of connectivity in this part of the subject site. Incorporation within an APZ will go some way to accounting for that, assuming that the native vegetation on the land to the north will remain intact. 8. Propose filling and residential development on the flood prone lands on the north east of the site. • These flood-prone lands are in a modified state, having been grazed and slashed for some time. However, they are also part of the EEC and are considered to be highly recoverable. They also support known (rather than ‘claimed’) Wallum Froglet habitat. We have modified the area of land proposed for incorporation within conservation lands (see report) while striving to most efficiently maximise the incorporation of hollow-bearing trees and provide a rational management boundary. 9. Council is considering active open space uses in the north-eastern flood prone lands. • It is understood that Council has entertained the idea of playing fields at this location. Playing fields would engulf the vast majority of the EEC / flood-prone lands in this north- east corner of the SAF lands. We assume that Council was unaware of the presence of the EEC and Wallum Froglet habitat at the time of raising this prospect. Environmental Resources Management Australia (ERM), 25 June 2007 Provided as preliminary ecological advice to Chris Power Environmental Planning (CPEP). 1. Promote the development of a 40m corridor of which 10m either side is used for APZs (as discussed in CPEP above). Acknowledges that the vegetation constitutes an EEC, is regenerating and of high regeneration potential. Promotes a 40 metre wide riparian

41 Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd Ph - (02) 6651 5484 Ecological Assessment, GIS, Environmental Management and Planning Fax - (02) 6651 6890 Camden Haven Assessment: Regional Corridor & Area 15 DRAFT 25/06/2009

corridor, with 20 metres managed as APZ as an “ecologically sensitive approach” incorporating legislative requirements relative to the RF Act and the TSC Act. • As for point 3. in CPEP submission, the 40 metre proposal accounts for the base requirements of the RF Act and the APZ buffer requirement. It adds nothing on top of these to cater for the fact that this is an EEC. Guidelines relating to the conservation and management of this EEC (DECC website) explicitly call for the protection and restoration of this community wherever possible. Given that the APZ would require significant management to maintain spaces between canopies and thinned understoreys its contribution to conservation and restoration of the EEC (both DECC priorities) would be minimal. We consider that what is essentially a 20 metre wide corridor, designed to cater for requirements of the RF Act, does not cater for TSC Act requirements relating to the EEC. Very few of the hollow bearing trees, a critical component of this EEC, fall within 20m either side of the first order stream. It remains our view that as many of the hollow bearing trees should be incorporated within a planned EEC-based riparian corridor as possible. A planned corridor of at least 80 metres width (40 metres either side of the first order stream) accounts for the high conservation value of this EEC-based riparian area. It should be noted that in the interests of compromise we have not included all of the (modified) EEC at this location within areas proposed for conservation but we consider an 80 metre wide corridor to be minimal in terms of providing adequate habitat restoration and corridor potential. It is generally considered that APZ’s should be placed outside conservation lands as their ecological values are highly compromised by the need to manage for fire protection purposes. 2. The Osprey nest represents a substantial development constraint at the site. Solutions that are beneficial to development yield and the continued viability of the osprey in the locality should be considered. Relocate the Osprey nest site. Successful nest relocation examples exist and this approach should be explored with DECC. • It is interesting to note that DECC’s involvement is called for here but their view (as expressed through their website) has not been referred to in relation to the EEC that is a conservation focus in this area. The impact of the Osprey nest on development yield is noted. The fact that the nest was not recorded during previous environmental investigations, along with the presence of an EEC, at this location is unfortunate as development expectations have been elevated. Never-the-less, as referred to in relation to point 4. & 5. in CPEP submission, we support the concept of voluntary relocation of the Osprey nest through provision of an alternative nest pole and platform. This is reflected in the draft report. 3. Hollow-bearing trees occurring within the riparian corridor to be retained while those occurring elsewhere would be retained within the development, wherever practical. Planning considerations will enable the ongoing ecological function of the hollow- bearing trees. • As for point 1., very few hollow-bearing trees would fall within the 40 metre wide riparian corridor proposed by ERM (with 20 metres to be managed as APZ). The refined proposal incorporated within the report has been tailored to maximise the incorporation of hollow- bearing trees at this location within the recognised constraints of planning for urban development and viable management areas. The incorporation and protection of hollow-bearing trees within developable areas is a positive measure that is often promoted as a conservation panacea when conflicts between conservation and development arise. The concept is supported and it is recommended within the report that those hollow-bearing trees that cannot be incorporated with conservation lands, due to compromises, should be protected within development areas. However, the provision of ongoing ecological functioning within the urban matrix is highly problematic in a practical sense. It appears from the submission that ERM suggests that retention of hollow-bearing trees within development areas should replace consolidated protection

42 Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd Ph - (02) 6651 5484 Ecological Assessment, GIS, Environmental Management and Planning Fax - (02) 6651 6890 Camden Haven Assessment: Regional Corridor & Area 15 DRAFT 25/06/2009

of an EEC within conservation lands. That proposal should be justified to demonstrate just how the on-going functioning of the hollow trees and the EEC itself will be catered for under that scenario. In the absence of such justification we maintain the need, on ecological grounds, to consolidate protection and restoration of the EEC, its constituent hollow-bearing trees, and their recruits, within conservation lands. 4. The high connectivity value (previously applied) to native vegetation in the north-western corner of the site is questioned. It is suggested that the high connectivity value of this remnant of vegetation be down-graded to moderate value. It is also proposed that the northern 20 metre buffer be incorporated into the future development footprint and be managed to satisfy the requirements of future APZs. • As for point 7. in CPEP submission, these proposals are agreed to. The thin buffer strip was originally proposed to provide a level of connectivity in this part of the subject site. Incorporation within an APZ will go some way to accounting for that, assuming that the native vegetation on the land to the north will remain intact. We maintain that connectivity through this native vegetation stand is important in terms of local landscape requirements, particularly given that the Koala was recorded here during the field assessment (and was not recorded during previous field assessments). It is agreed that management of the north-western hilltop vegetation should be conducted in consultation with the Catchment Management Authority and that they should be made aware of the connectivity and habitat values as they relate to surrounding lands and Koala conservation if the area. It would seem highly likely that offsetting would be an important consideration here. 5. Propose that site development options should be developed for the north-eastern flood prone lands with a balanced consideration of ecological and all other relevant environmental values. Reference to ELA’s “claim” to have heard Wallum Froglet calling at this locality. Reference to Chevron Veld plans for filling of flood prone lands immediately adjacent to SAF lands. • It is agreed that the ecological findings of this study should be considered along with all other values in determining an appropriate land use throughout the subject site. Clearly, flooding and water management investigations are required here along with the consideration of potential impacts associated with Key Threatening Processes during the impact assessment stage. It appears that ERM questions the validity of our Wallum Froglet record from this location so that record is hereby confirmed from our point of view. It is anticipated that this species, along with the EEC, and species associated with it, would also be subject of detailed investigations at the Development Application stage. It appears that ERM assigns some credence to the proposal to fill flood prone lands based on a similar proposal for filling on Chevron Veld lands. It is agreed that all proposals for filling of flood prone lands at this location should be based on a full suite of environmental investigations.

Crighton Properties; 26 June, 2007 Their letter is based on a report prepared by their consultant ERM. We note they support the relocation of the regional corridor. 1. They support the ERM proposal of an alternative conservation network based on 2 categories of conservation land. • We have discussed this in more detail when addressing the ERM submission below. 2. They suggest that the ecological report be held as a draft until other disciplines finalise their findings.

43 Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd Ph - (02) 6651 5484 Ecological Assessment, GIS, Environmental Management and Planning Fax - (02) 6651 6890 Camden Haven Assessment: Regional Corridor & Area 15 DRAFT 25/06/2009

• It is our view that this report identifies and presents the ecological values in a way that enables incorporation into a broader strategic planning exercise. In our experiences there is a need for a planning process that integrates the complex array of specialist disciplines after this report has been finalised. Once the works have been integrated then an environmental strategy could be prepared to reflect how these values will be managed, resourced, what has been negotiated as an acceptable loss and consequent offset, etc.

ERM, 26 June 2007 Provided as preliminary ecological advice to Crighton Properties. We note they support the relocation of the regional corridor. 1. Needs to consider other issues arising from studies pending, such as bushfire, easements for services, etc. • Agreed, and conversely the other issues need to consider the objectives of the ecological framework. All these issues need to be integrated in a planning process that will flow out of these specialist reports. • It is important to point out that APZs and other infrastructure are usually required by DECC to be located outside conservation areas. The subsequent planning process should consider where the APZs are needed and if they are mutually exclusive to the ecological objectives. There is an iterative process here that will require involving the agencies. 2. There is a risk of edge effects and reduced viability arising from small disconnected fragments, thereby potentially resulting in little ecological value. • We agree that small unconsolidated fragments will be placed at risk, particularly with the various other requirements for APZs etc. This places a greater emphasis on large, well managed consolidated blocks of high value or good recovery potential. We have made some changes to reflect a more consolidated approach. 3. ERM propose an alternative conservation network based on landuse zoning and intended development priority as well as local/regional links. • This simplistic approach jumps directly to down grading land based on matters such as development priority and not integrating all planning matters. • Biodiversity planning principles and processes rely on identifying the ecological values first and then integrating them with other physical, social and economic planning considerations. • Linkage / connectivity is a priority in conservation planning but the protection and consolidation of potentially viable, manageable habitats is considered of paramount importance. 4. Categorisation of lands based on 1. those areas considered essential for providing sustained and/or enhanced ecological outcome; and 2. desirable areas to be based on a merit assessment reflecting the integration of ecological issues with other planning and development considerations. • In refining our proposed conservation framework we have adopted a similar approach to that proposed by ERM. However, our approach reflects the ecological values as they have been collated and constructs a constraints analysis reflecting the prioritisation of those values. • The designation of Category 2 on this basis described by ERM is pre-empting the outcomes of the other assessments to which they refer. It appears to be based on where

44 Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd Ph - (02) 6651 5484 Ecological Assessment, GIS, Environmental Management and Planning Fax - (02) 6651 6890 Camden Haven Assessment: Regional Corridor & Area 15 DRAFT 25/06/2009

it may be better to develop rather than providing for the conservation of clear ecological values. 5. Category 1 to form a wider (northern) corridor. Suggest areas for restoration to consolidate conservation lands. • Agreed, we have altered out proposed conservation framework to consolidate conservation lands (including intact EEC and under-represented forest ecosystems) within a northern corridor. 6. Category 2 to reflect degraded or small isolated habitat where retention may be desirable but not critical. • We have modified the proposed conservation framework to consolidate the conservation of high conservation value vegetation and habitat. The inclusion of intact EEC within conservation lands reflects the views conveyed during discussions with DECC and available guidelines relating to the conservation of this particular EEC (see DECC website). The conservation values of this EEC are enhanced by the level to which it has been cleared and degraded locally and regionally. This EEC is a conservation focus in this locality. 7. ERM suggest relocation of the Osprey nest to more suitable habitat. • We support the concept of voluntary relocation of the Osprey nest through provision of an alternative nest pole and platform. This is reflected in the draft report. 8. Suggest that the north-eastern portion of the EEC is variable and questions assigning the ‘very high’ value to the north east finger. They consider the finger to be degraded and to offer limited habitat values. • We do not agree with this viewpoint. At this stage this portion of EEC is not a finger of vegetation, as referred to by ERM. In fact it is still bordered to the west by open forest and it appears highly presumptuous to assume that this vegetation will be cleared without adequate buffering of the EEC at least. Clearing has recently been undertaken on Chevron Veld to the east of the EEC but the potential remains to restore parts of this low- lying land. It is our view that this portion of EEC maintains very high on-site conservation values despite on-going efforts to degrade those values through intensive stock grazing (goats). As referred to by ERM (but not commented upon any further) this EEC represents an important part of the EEC gradient present within the subject site. Swamp Mahogany dominates the overstorey here, as opposed to Siebers Paperbark (which dominates large parts of the northern EEC) and Red Mahogany (which dominates part of the EEC on SAF lands). Swamp Mahogany, along with associated overstorey species within this EEC, provides important habitat resources for nectarivorous fauna including threatened species like the Swift Parrot, Squirrel Glider, Grey-headed Flying-Fox and Common Blossom-bat. See the report for discussion of the potential occurrence of these species. Swamp Mahogany is also a primary Koala food tree. • Resolution of differences of opinion with regard to this portion of EEC may need to fall to a third party. We suggest further assessment of this EEC, and its ecological values, be undertaken by an independent party with relevant. 9. ERM question the ‘very good’ condition / recoverability value to the north eastern EEC. They suggest a low to moderate score as recoverability is only achievable in their mind with significant changes to the land use. • We do not agree with this viewpoint. As referred to in point 8. this portion of EEC is subject of on-going stock grazing, specifically by goats. Our point, with regard to the condition / recoverability of this EEC is that removal of this stock grazing pressure, which falls well outside accepted conservation measures recommended for the EEC under any land zoning (see DECC website), would see this EEC recover quickly. The ground layer still

45 Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd Ph - (02) 6651 5484 Ecological Assessment, GIS, Environmental Management and Planning Fax - (02) 6651 6890 Camden Haven Assessment: Regional Corridor & Area 15 DRAFT 25/06/2009

retains its ecological integrity and would recover quickly (P. Gilmore ELA Senior Botanist). From any ecological viewpoint we regard this portion of EEC to be highly recoverable and we consider the designation of a ‘very good’ condition / recoverability ranking to be justified. 10. They question the ‘very high’ landscape / connectivity value attributed to the north- eastern finger of EEC. Suggest that removal of this 3ha of disturbed EEC would not affect the landscape/connectivity values of the site. • We do not agree with this viewpoint. Refer to point 8. with regard to description of the portion of EEC as a ‘finger’ of vegetation. Despite previous clearing in the vicinity of this EEC it remains our view that sufficient local connectivity remains to justify the ‘very high’ landscape / connectivity value designated. Even if the open forest to the west of the EEC is ‘modified’ through development this EEC will remain connected to the northern EEC and from there to the northeast through potential restoration of recently cleared flood prone lands that would appear to be highly desirable for restoration under any development scenario in the area. There are many precedents for the protection and management of EECs and other habitats through local connectivity of this magnitude. • Previous environmental assessment conducted by ERM (2005) suggested that removal of this portion of EEC would not result in a significant environmental impact. In reaching that conclusion ERM (2005) conducted an 8-part test (as was required at the time) and referred to the occurrence of this EEC throughout the Local Government Area and the general region. The figures referred to were based on broad vegetation mapping. ERM (2005) refer to the EEC being found within reserves such as Bundjalung National Park, Lake Innes Nature Reserve and Limeburners Nature Reserve. This conveys a lack of understanding relating to this EEC and its ecological character. This EEC occurs on the floodplains of the NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin, and South East bioregions. Swamp Sclerophyll Forests also occur quite extensively on the coastal sand plains, including the reserves referred to by ERM (2005), but this is not the EEC. In fact very little of this EEC is reserved and it is a conservation priority on private lands (see DECC Threatened species website, and this report). Localities such as Area 15, and other remnant habitats west of Queens Lake, are priority landscapes for this EEC and it is a focus for local conservation efforts. It is our view that the clearing of more of this EEC, especially intact stands such as occur within Area 15, and including the north-east portion under discussion here, would constitute a significant environmental impact. The revised legislative requirement of the 7-part test, which places a greater emphasis on local impacts, heightens the likelihood of a significant impact being associated with the clearing of this EEC. 11. The ecological character of this eastern portion of EEC be managed in consultation with DECC, DNR and the CMA. • We welcome the further input of government agencies into determining proper management of this portion of EEC. Further to that we would welcome further peer review of the ecological character and conservation value of this EEC within the study area and subject site. • Preliminary consultation with DECC regarding the conservation of this EEC within Area 15 and beyond indicated a desire to see this EEC protected and restored wherever possible. • The Catchment Management Authority will presumably be influenced in their consideration of this EEC by their Catchment Action Plan (CAP). EECs generally, and EECs of priority landscapes (such as floodplains) are listed as High Conservation Value Priorities within the Northern Rivers CMA’s CAP.

46 Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd Ph - (02) 6651 5484 Ecological Assessment, GIS, Environmental Management and Planning Fax - (02) 6651 6890 Camden Haven Assessment: Regional Corridor & Area 15 DRAFT 25/06/2009

King + Campbell Pty Ltd (Anthony J Thorne) Submission on behalf of land owners: Z Mr & Mrs R & M Tate (Lot 2 DP 594388) Z The Middlemiss Family (Lot 2 DP 24500) Z The Moses Family (Lot 21 DP 504042) Z Port Macquarie Hastings Council (Lot 7 DP 775532) Submission made in conjunction with an ecological assessment prepared by Dr David Robertson of Cumberland Ecology 1. They consider that the two parts of the ELA report should not be considered in isolation, but rather an integrated landscape and development framework incorporating both regional and local components. • Agreed. However, it is our view that the identification of a potential alternative regional corridor does not negate the need to provide for the protection and enhancement of high conservation value values at the local level and linkage of those values into the broader regional habitat network. This reflects the view conveyed to us during consultations with DECC. 2. They support the relocation of the regional corridor and consider that formalisation of the alternative corridor should be undertaken as part of the planning process to define the future urban areas in Area 15. • As stated in our report, DECC officers present at our initial meeting expressed an understanding of the reasons put forward for proposing the alternative regional corridor. However, they also expressed a desire to reserve judgement until they are formally notified by Port Macquarie Hastings Council regarding rezoning or development proposals impacting the original regional corridor and Area 15 itself. This is because the DECC prefers the original corridor alignment due to the extent of remnant vegetation in the area providing for in-situ conservation, retention of already recognised values and rendering rehabilitation efforts (to improve connectivity) more feasible and more likely to be successful. DECC would like to see a “Local Growth Strategy” developed within the framework and requirements of the Mid North Coast Regional Strategy whereby a process of formal review would be undertaken to judge potential impacts on conservation values. As an initial view, DECC considers that consideration of any proposal to forego the original regional corridor, and replace it with an alternative would require Port Macquarie Hastings Council to have formalised and established (zoned for protection as a minimum) the alternative corridor. 3. A section headed ‘Local Corridors’ reflecting a Concept Structure Plan and promoted as incorporating a series of factors including local fauna and flora corridors. • We acknowledge the rationale behind the development of the concept plan, and support the spirit of many of the criteria as listed. We would make the following pints but consider that the development and debate over a Concept Plan falls well outside the role of this ecological investigation and should be left to another formal process. - Formalisation of an alternative regional corridor would not negate the need to protect high conservation value vegetation and habitats across Area 15; - EECs are a conservation priority and intact EECs are considered by DECC to be a hard development constraint (this is reflected in our revised local conservation framework); - Under-represented forest ecosystems, particularly those providing habitat for threatened species are high conservation value areas; - We have modified our proposed conservation framework within Lot 7 DP 775532 in recognition of current proposal for a Waste Transfer Station and an Industrial Area. The modifications reflect refined consideration collated conservation values, and rehabilitation opportunities, within this portion;

47 Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd Ph - (02) 6651 5484 Ecological Assessment, GIS, Environmental Management and Planning Fax - (02) 6651 6890 Camden Haven Assessment: Regional Corridor & Area 15 DRAFT 25/06/2009

- The establishment of local corridors along the primary local drainage systems is supported. Our refined local conservation framework reflects that approach, particularly within the northern corridor. We have consolidated conservation lands in the proposed framework by removing a previously suggested corridor link along the southern drainage line (which would have involved extensive revegetation and loss of developable area). We believe that the refined proposal reflects similar values and responses to those outlined in the submission and the Concept Structure Plan 4. A section headed ‘Concept Structure Plan’ outlining an approach to integration of residential and industrial precincts with local corridors and efficient infrastructure provision. • See comments within point 3. We acknowledge the efforts portrayed here in integrating conservation values with efficient development and infrastructure design. We consider that the development and debate over a Concept Plan falls well outside the role of this ecological investigation and should be left to another formal process. 5. The finalisation of the ecological assessment component of the LES for Area 15 should be considered in the context of the range of constraints and opportunities that will apply to the ultimate urban and ecological outcomes in this locality. • The ecological report needs to be based on technical information to provide a sound understanding of the biodiversity values of the site and presented so it can be used by the LES process. The results of the ecological study should not be varied to reflect another objective. If there are broader planning studies that justify a project yield for the area based on planning needs then this should be incorporated into the LES process as should ecological requirements. • Our report has generated some ecological objectives to be incorporated into the overall final LEP with the other specialist reports. 6. Propose consultation with Port Macquarie Hastings Council (with respect to harvestable rights on the effluent irrigation areas within the Kew STP) and other landowners (including the developers of Chevron Veld and landowners to the north of that property) with respect to the dedication of strategic lands to conservation purposes as part of the proposed Western Queens Lake regional corridor. • Agreed. This approach is recommended in our report. 7. Propose the preparation of an overall Vegetation Management Plan dealing with the regional and local vegetation issues. • Supported. A Vegetation Management Plan dealing with management and restoration of vegetation within Area 15 has been recommended as part of our report. We will modify the report to make reference to an overall Vegetation Management Plan, allowing for the integration of conservation management objectives at local and regional scales, in line with the submission. We understand that the LES only concerns Area 15 at this stage so the mechanism by which such a management plan might be formulated and activated would require consideration. 8. Propose completion of the Flood Encroachment Study in the near future. • We support the integration of all ecological studies with physical, social and economic studies within the framework of the broader LES. 9. Propose preparation of a site specific detailed Management Plan with respect to Council’s land holding. • Supported, although such a recommendation falls outside the scope of this ecological assessment. Given that it has been raised in the submission we take the opportunity to stress, as outlined in the report, that Lot 7 DP 775532 supports areas of high conservation value. These include under-represented forest ecosystems and known / potential

48 Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd Ph - (02) 6651 5484 Ecological Assessment, GIS, Environmental Management and Planning Fax - (02) 6651 6890 Camden Haven Assessment: Regional Corridor & Area 15 DRAFT 25/06/2009

habitats for a range of threatened fauna species. Parts of this forest are characterised by the support of old growth characteristics including significant numbers of hollow-bearing trees and diverse shrub layers. The strategic and long term conservation of threatened fauna such as the Yellow-bellied Glider should be central to the development of a Management Plan for this land. 10. Propose preparation of draft Structure Plans by landowners’ representatives as input into the Structure Plan for Area15. • Consideration of this proposal falls outside the scope of this ecological assessment. 11. Suggests that the (ELA) report should remain as a draft until such time as the other relevant constraints have been accurately defined and resolved so that the ecological issues can be considered in the context of the overall environmental and urban outcomes. • It is our view that this report identifies and presents the ecological values in a way that enables incorporation into a broader strategic planning exercise. In our experiences there is a need for a planning process that integrates the complex array of specialist disciplines after this report has been finalised. Once the works have been integrated then an environmental strategy could be prepared to reflect how these values will be managed, resourced, what has been negotiated as an acceptable loss and consequent offset, etc.

Cumberland Ecology (July 2007) Cover letter provided as a summary of ecological advice to Mr Tony Thorne, King + Campbell Pty Ltd. 1. Refers to a previous review (of the ‘PB report’) and reiterates view that the scope of any further consideration of wildlife corridors in the CHUGS area be broadened to allow for consideration of the eastern corridor option, as opposed to that suggested in the PB report. • Our report (part A) proposes that the alternative Western Queens Lake Regional Corridor be considered as a potential replacement for the original NPWS Kew Regional Corridor. 2. Expresses support for the recommended establishment of the Western Queens Lake regional Corridor. • Acknowledged. 3. Expresses agreement that there should be a conservation outcome of some kind within the CHUGS land (Area 15) but does not agree with the nature and extent of conservation proposed for the local corridor because of the planning context for the CHUGS area and also because of the flora and fauna that occur in the locality. • Our ecological assessment included a constraints analysis aimed at the objective identification and delineation of conservation values within Area 15. The proposed local conservation framework reflects prevailing environmental guidelines and legislative directions with regard to threatened species and ecological communities, under- represented forest ecosystems and the consideration of high conservation value vegetation and habitats, along with overall conservation assessment principles. It falls to another process to integrate the outcomes of the ecological assessment with other environmental values and urban design criteria. • As outlined in our report, the fauna known and likely to occur within Area 15 include a suite of threatened species ranging from broad ranging owls to specialised frogs. The cover letter does not clarify how the nature and extent of the conservation framework

49 Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd Ph - (02) 6651 5484 Ecological Assessment, GIS, Environmental Management and Planning Fax - (02) 6651 6890 Camden Haven Assessment: Regional Corridor & Area 15 DRAFT 25/06/2009

proposed within Area15 is at odds with the consideration of these species, and their ecological requirements 4. Recommends that proposals to clear and develop portions of the CHUGS land are linked to conservation outcomes primarily within the proposed regional corridor, with proponents providing offsets to improve or maintain the alternative regional corridor. • It is our view that the conservation of biodiversity requires strategic and integrated efforts at multiple scales (there are numerous ecological references supporting that view). In the context of the present investigation, it is vital that regional and local conservation efforts are orchestrated and integrated; one does not replace the other. We believe that the demonstrable high conservation values within Area 15 should be protected and enhanced at the local level, through zoning that reflects those values, and then linked to strategic regional conservation effort represented by the alternative Western Queens Lake Regional Corridor. In accordance with the spirit and intention of environmental legislation and guidelines, likely environmental impacts associated with development activities should be avoided by using prevention and mitigation measures. Offsets may be invoked to address remaining environmental impacts. The concept of offsetting is promoted within our report, in accordance with emerging approaches to environmental planning and management. However, we consider offsets to be part of a package that promotes the on-site protection of existing high conservation lands as a priority, then seeks to maximise the viability of those values through enhanced landscape connectivity at local and regional scales.

Cumberland Ecology (July 2007) Appendix detailing ecological advice to Mr Tony Thorne, King + Campbell Pty Ltd. 1. Outlines constraints / significant challenges / limitations for conservation in the area that require tradeoffs to be considered and future clearing within Area 15 to be offset by conservation measures to be achieved in the Western Queens Lake Regional Corridor. And (making the same general point) 2. Support for ELA’s Western Queens Lake Regional Corridor proposal is given but a further recommendation is added to the effect that future proposals to clear (native vegetation) and develop within Area 15 should be linked to conservation outcomes primarily within the proposed regional corridor. • Refer to our response to point 4 for the Cumberland Ecology cover letter. • Contrary to the view that is implicit in this submission, Area 15 in fact supports significant conservation values. It forms part of a focus area for the conservation of a wetland – swamp forest ecosystem with an EEC as a central component, it supports under- represented forest ecosystems supporting significant, high conservation value habitats for threatened fauna and it supports sufficient to ecological integrity to provide scope for the long term management of these values through strategic conservation planning. • Assumes DECC agreement to replacement of the original Kew Regional Corridor with the Western Queens Lake Regional Corridor. As outlined in the report that agreement is not a matter of course but will require extensive consultation and demonstration, by Port Macquarie Hastings Council, of the ecological merit of the proposal. DECC prefers the original corridor alignment due to the extent of remnant vegetation in the area providing for in-situ conservation, retention of already recognised values and rendering rehabilitation efforts (to improve connectivity) more feasible and more likely to be successful. DECC would like to see a “Local Growth Strategy” developed within the framework and requirements of the Mid North Coast Regional Strategy whereby a process of formal review would be undertaken to judge potential impacts on

50 Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd Ph - (02) 6651 5484 Ecological Assessment, GIS, Environmental Management and Planning Fax - (02) 6651 6890 Camden Haven Assessment: Regional Corridor & Area 15 DRAFT 25/06/2009

conservation values. As an initial view, DECC considers that consideration of any proposal to forego the original regional corridor, and replace it with an alternative would require Port Macquarie Hastings Council to have formalised and established (zoned for protection as a minimum) the alternative corridor. 3. Expresses general support for the broad conclusions presented by ELA at the Landowners Focus group (LFG) meeting but referred specifically to the ‘30% conservation versus 70% development outcome as presented. They suggest that, due to there being more than 30% of Area 15 currently vegetated, the proposed local conservation network will necessitate some strategic recommendations to clear. • We would like to clarify our position with regard to this point as confusion and mixed messages appear to have resulted from the presentation (hopefully now resolved in the draft report which does not refer to this percentage breakdown at all). The 30% conservation figure was not put forward as a conservation recommendation. It was mentioned, merely as a point of discussion, as a figure that dropped out of the initial constraints analysis. It was not a driver in the development of the original conservation framework for Area 15, which has since been modified in light of comments received and further analysis undertaken. The revised local conservation framework does not include a 30% consideration but reflects collated conservation values (see report). • We are not making recommendations to clear areas that are not proposed as conservation lands. Rather, the proposed local conservation framework incorporates a ranking for all native vegetation units, based on collated values, and the point is made that development proposals requiring clearing of native vegetation will presumably be required to mitigate and / or offset any significant environmental impact. 4. In recommending offsetting the clearing of native vegetation within Area 15 on a like for like basis within the proposed Western Queens Lake Regional Corridor, they emphasise the need to offset for the clearing of EEC Swamp Sclerophyll Forest, noting that some of the land within the proposed corridor, such as the Council STP land, has the potential to be revegetated to create additional EEC vegetation. • We do not agree with this view. The protection and enhancement of EECs is a conservation priority DECC (in accordance with the TSC Act and Priority Actions recommended for the EEC) (see DECC threatened species website) and also for the Northern Rivers CMA in accordance with the CMA’s Catchment Action Plan which drives their natural resource conservation agenda). The clearing of EEC, including intact EEC, contravenes the spirit of environmental guidelines and legislation. • Whereas modified areas of EEC Swamp Sclerophyll Forest are generally highly recoverable, so long as sufficient floristic integrity persists, the revegetation of areas that would not have previously supported the EEC, such as the Council STP, is highly questionable. • While the principal of offsetting is supported where clearing is unavoidable it should not be promoted as a panacea. The clearing of EECs and open forests supporting significant levels of old growth characteristics like hollow-bearing trees cannot be easily offset through revegetation efforts. Habitat resources associated with these communities take many years to be developed and such high conservation vegetation habitats are better conserved in situ wherever possible and managed within the context of a local conservation framework. 5. (in relation to Council Land (Lot 7 DP 775532)) States that this land also has little if any EEC, and contains sizeable areas of forest that contain little if any hollow trees. • In fact this land supports a significant patch of EEC (see figure in report) and parts of the forest here are described in the report as supporting high conservation values due to the high numbers of hollow-bearing trees. The point is made in the report (and was

51 Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd Ph - (02) 6651 5484 Ecological Assessment, GIS, Environmental Management and Planning Fax - (02) 6651 6890 Camden Haven Assessment: Regional Corridor & Area 15 DRAFT 25/06/2009

emphasised at the presentation) that hollow-bearing trees were not all accounted for on the Council lands as the project proposal did not require it. Rather, a representative sample of hollow-bearing trees was mapped within these lands. The point is also made in the report that these Council lands provide important known and potential habitat for several threatened fauna species including the Yellow-bellied Glider. 6. (also in relation to Council Land (Lot 7 DP 775532)) Although identified forest types are described by ELA as being private land priorities, the submission) states that conservation values are not considered to be high enough to warrant exclusion from development potential. • We disagree with this assertion. It is not accompanied by any justification and we maintain a contrary view, particularly with regard to high conservation values we have identified and mapped within these lands. A subset of these lands have been excluded from the refined proposed conservation lands as they are considered to support moderate conservation values (see report) but significant parts are considered to support high conservation values (see response to point 5 above). 7. (Also in relation to Council Land (Lot 7 DP 775532)) Clearing within this area should be offset on other Council land such as the STP site. • With the proviso that we strongly disagree with the submission concerning the conservation values supported by these lands, we agree that any clearing proposed within Lot 7 DP 775532 should be offset. But also see our response to point 4 with regard to offsets. 8. Promotion of 60 metre wide corridor along the northern stream and a narrower 40 metre wide corridor on the southern corridor. • The original local landscape framework presented to the landowners’ focus group included corridors on the southern and northern streams. In the interests of consolidation of proposed conservation lands we have amended the proposed framework. We have removed the corridor from the southern stream (but recognise the need for a riparian buffer here) and consolidated conservation lands north of this stream. The northern corridor is consolidated as a result. • The conservation biology and landscape ecology literature is replete with discussions and reviews concerning the benefits of corridors and issues such as proposed width. The general view is that wider corridors are a conservation aim as edge effects are reduced and species are more likely to inhabit them. We have consolidated the northern corridor to maximise potential conservation value while retaining management integrity and providing for more efficient development areas (as opposed to the original presentation). • We question the ecological basis for assigning the seemingly arbitrary, narrow and varying corridor widths as proposed in the submission. Our approach has been to incorporate known and demonstrable high conservation lands within proposed conservation lands and to connect those areas in order to maximise likely viability and management opportunities. 9. (in relation to Tate Land (Lot 2 DP 594388)) Promotes a modified corridor based on a proportion of the most intact EEC. • Our approach to the constraints analysis undertaken for Area 15, and the development of the proposed local conservation framework has not been based simply on designation of local corridor (see report). Our primary goal has been the identification and protection of high conservation value vegetation and habitat. An associated objective, in planning for the long term conservation of high conservation value lands has been the identification of connectivity opportunities, through local corridors, to link identified high conservation value lands within a framework operating at local scales and extending to

52 Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd Ph - (02) 6651 5484 Ecological Assessment, GIS, Environmental Management and Planning Fax - (02) 6651 6890 Camden Haven Assessment: Regional Corridor & Area 15 DRAFT 25/06/2009

link with broader regional conservation lands, in this case the proposed Western Queens lake Regional Corridor. The condition and recoverability of lands was also a prime consideration in the analysis (see report). • In the modified proposed conservation framework we have included the high conservation value intact EEC occurring on the Middlemiss property in conservation lands and have looked to connect these lands to similar habitats through modified EEC occurring on the Tate property. We have also proposed the consolidation of the northern corridor through the Tate property through the potential restoration / rehabilitation of the northern section, which is currently cleared and modified EEC (as suggested by ERM 26 June 2007). 10. (In relation to Middlemiss Land (Lot 5 DP 24500) Invokes the “70% development” argument in proposing consideration for clearing additional forested portions of this lot. a. As previously stated (see response to point 3) we have not promoted a 30% conservation, 70% development objective. We have identified and mapped high conservation value lands within Area 15 and have utilised that mapping, along with mapping of condition/ recoverability and landscape / connectivity values, within a constraints analysis to develop a proposed local landscape conservation framework (see report). We believe the process undertaken to be an objective analysis not driven by ‘targets’ but by the values present within the subject site. 11. (In relation to Moses Land (Lot 2 DP 504042) Proposes a local corridor along the northern and southern streams, with rehabilitation associated with the southern stream corridor. • See response to Point 9. • This proposal ignores the occurrence of intact EEC in the northern section of this Lot. On the advice of DECC we have allocated all intact EEC a high conservation value label and sought to included it within proposed conservation lands as part of the proposed local landscape conservation framework.

53 Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd Ph - (02) 6651 5484 Ecological Assessment, GIS, Environmental Management and Planning Fax - (02) 6651 6890 Camden Haven Assessment: Regional Corridor & Area 15 DRAFT 25/06/2009

Appendix 4. Copies of land owners submissions The ecological findings of the project were formally presented to the Landowners Focus Group (LFG) at Port Macquarie Library on 19 June, 2007. The intent of the presentation was to inform the LFG of the findings prior to formalization of the draft report. Comments were received after the presentation and participants were also invited to make written comment. Submissions were received from: • Chris Power Environmental Planning, acting for SAF Property Group (SAF), informed / supported by a report by Environmental Resources Management Australia (ERM); • Crighton Properties, informed / supported by a report by Environmental Resources Management Australia (ERM); and • King + Campbell Pty Ltd (Anthony J Thorne), acting for the owners of Lot 7 DP 775532 (PMHC), Lot 3 DP 794077, Lot 2 DP 504042, Lot 5 DP 24500, and Lot 2 DP 594388 / supported by a report by Cumberland Ecology. Copies of these submissions are included below.

54 Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd Ph - (02) 6651 5484 Ecological Assessment, GIS, Environmental Management and Planning Fax - (02) 6651 6890