ecological consultants - major projects

Brisbane Office Ballina Office www.jwarren.com.au Suite 28 Cathedral Village PO Box 1465 115 Wickham Street BALLINA NSW 2478 ABN 18 862 767 739 FORTITUDE VALLEY QLD 4006 PH: (02) 6686 3858 PH: (07) 3257 2703 Fax: (02) 6681 1659 Fax: (07) 3257 2708

JAMES WARREN & Associates Pty Ltd

EC O L O GI C A L C O N SU L T A N T S

KINGS FOREST

STAGE 1 PROJECT APPLICATION

ASSESSMENT OF EAST-WEST

WILDLIFE CORRIDOR

AMENDED OCTOBER 2012

A REPORT PREPARED FOR PROJECT 28 PTY LT

Assessment of East-West wildlife corridor

97017/EWCorridor/Final JAMES WARREN & ASSOCIATES 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................... 4 1.1 Executive Summary ................................................................................................... 4 1.2 Background ................................................................................................................. 5 1.3 The Subject site ........................................................................................................ 5

2 LITERATURE REVIEW- Corridor ecology .............................. 7

3 CORRIDOR ANALYSIS .............................................................. 7 3.1 Introduction................................................................................................................ 7 3.2 Vegetation Communities in the Corridor .............................................................. 9 3.3 Corridor values for fauna groups ............................................................................ 9 3.4 Corridor values for threatened fauna .................................................................. 11 3.5 Extension of the East-West corridor .................................................................... 13 3.6 Summary of corridor analysis ................................................................................ 14

References ...................................................................................... 16

APPENDIX 1 ..................................................................................... 17 1. Introduction.............................................................................................................. 18 2. The need for corridors ........................................................................................... 18 3. Benefits to fauna and flora ................................................................................... 19 4. Conservation goals .................................................................................................. 21 5. Key corridor performance variables .................................................................... 21 6. Corridor design ........................................................................................................ 23 7. Wildlife corridor analysis ....................................................................................... 26 8. Summary ................................................................................................................... 32 References ........................................................................................................................... 34



ABBREVIATIONS

CNR – Cudgen Nature Reserve

CLCA – Cudgen Lake Corridor Assessment

DECC – Department of Environment and Climate Change

EEC – Endangered Ecological Community

JWA - James Warren and Associates

OEH - Office of Environment and Heritage

SEPP – State Environmental Planning Policy

SINR – Stotts Island Nature Reserve



1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Executive Summary

The Kings Forest Stage 1 Project Application No. MP 08_0194 was lodged in November 2011. The Application and Environmental Assessment Report was advertised from December 2011 to January 2012 following which 302 public submissions and 10 agency submissions were received. As a result of the submissions, amendments to the project have been made. The amended project contains the following key elements (NB: these elements will be revised and updated as the amended project is finalised). • Subdivision to create new lots for future development;

o Bulk earthworks across the site;

o Road works comprising:

- construction of the entrance road into the site and associated intersection works on Tweed Coast Road;

- alignment and construction of the proposed Kings Forest Parkway from Tweed Coast Road via Precincts 4 and 5 through to the western precincts; and

- alignment and part construction of two proposed roads through SEPP 14 areas to access the southern precincts;

• Development of 2,036 m2 of floor space for rural supplies development and access arrangements within Precinct 1;

• Construction of subdivision and infrastructure works along the Kings Forest Parkway and within Precincts 1 and 5;

• The Plan of Development for Precinct 5.

This Assessment of an East-West Wildlife Corridor addresses the amendments to the project and the key issues raised in the submissions.



1.2 Background James Warren and Associates (JWA) have been engaged by Project 28 Pty Ltd to assess the need for an East-West wildlife corridor at the Kings Forest site. The Kings Forest Concept Plan 06_0318 MOD 1 – 22 December 2010 Condition B4 states that:

“As identified in the Koala Plan of Management, an east west wildlife corridor of up to 100 metres wide (with a minimum of 50 metres at any one point) must be established. The corridor should be established to provide for habitat and the movement of threatened native fauna that inhabit the site. Prior to the determination of Stage 1, the Proponent shall also demonstrate the practicality or need for establishing a further east west 50 metre wide corridor along the southern boundary of the site”.

The intended purpose of the East-West corridor would be to link areas of habitat in the Cudgen Nature Reserve (CNR) to the east of the site, with any sub-regionally significant habitat to the west of the site and beyond in an east/west direction. FIGURE 1 shows the final Precinct Plan for the Kings Forest site. FIGURE 2 shows the final Scope of Works Plan. An East-West corridor of native vegetation currently occurs on the site, which is largely comprised of wetlands listed under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 14 (Coastal Wetlands) (FIGURE 3). This existing corridor links the CNR to the east of the site, to habitat in the central portion of the site approximately 2km to the west. The existing East-West corridor covers approximately 115.72ha and is shown in FIGURE 3. The aim of this report is to provide an analysis of the following:

• recent literature on ecological corridors; • previous reports regarding fauna corridors on the subject site; • vegetation communities within the corridor; • the values of the East-West corridor for native fauna; and • the need for an extension of the East-West wildlife corridor.

1.3 The Subject site In a local context, the Subject site is situated on the Tweed Coast between the towns of Kingscliff and Bogangar (FIGURE 4). The CNR adjoins the southern and (in part) eastern boundaries of the property (FIGURE 3). A newly gazetted portion of the CNR occurs to the south-west. Stotts Island Nature Reserve (SINR) is situated to the north-west of the site (FIGURE 3). CNR and SINR are the most significant ecological features in the locality, although numerous small, protected wetlands and areas of Littoral rainforest also occur. The Kings Forest site is comprised of fourteen (14) land parcels with a total area of 846 hectares. Large areas of land in the south-east and central portions of the site are



gazetted as State Wetlands under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 14 (Coastal Wetlands). The SEPP 14 wetlands, as well as a number of smaller wetland and Littoral rainforest parcels have been designated Environmental Protection (Wetlands & Littoral Rainforests) (7a) zones under the Tweed Local Environmental Plan. Lands in the far south of the property are subject to clause 50b of the Tweed Local Environmental plan, committing them to conservation. Apart from other smaller areas of Environmental Protection (Habitat) (7I), the remainder of the property is zoned Urban Expansion (2c) for various forms of development (FIGURE 5). Before clearance, the low-lying sand plains that dominate the eastern portion of the property would have supported Wallum habitats. The dry elevated ridges in the south of the property near Cudgen Lake (FIGURE 4) would have supported Dry Sclerophyll Forests. The basalt-capped ridges in the far northwest and west of the property would have supported Sub-tropical Rainforest. The areas down-slope from the basalt caps would have supported Wet Sclerophyll Forest with Sub-tropical Rainforest in the gullies. A range of historical land management practices has led to the present extent and condition of site vegetation. These include clearing for the establishment of pine plantations, sand mining, pasture improvement & turf production, dairy farming, small cropping and sugar cane. In recent years, land management has focused on pine harvesting, grazing and tea-tree plantation. The site now supports six (6) broad vegetation communities containing thirty three (33) discrete associations FIGURE 6. The broad vegetation communities include:

• Highly modified communities. • Freshwater Wetland communities • Heathland & Shrubland communities. • Swamp Sclerophyll Floodplain Forest communities. • Dry to Moist Open Forest communities. • Rainforest communities.

Vegetation communities on the Subject site are shown in FIGURE 6. The most intact communities occur in the eastern portion of the Subject site. These areas have not been significantly altered by recent land management practices. Fauna sampling has recorded twenty one (21) species of Amphibian, twenty two (22) species of Reptile, one hundred and twenty five (125) species of Bird and thirty one (31) species of Mammal. Nineteen (19) of these species are listed as Vulnerable (Schedule 2) in the TSC Act (1995) refer Section 3.4. Based on available habitat on the site, a further thirteen (13) Threatened species not recorded during surveys are considered likely occurrences. The results of the fauna survey completed demonstrate that the Subject site supports a diversity of vertebrate fauna.



2 LITERATURE REVIEW- Corridor ecology APPENDIX 1 contains a summary of some of the available literature on corridor ecology. Where landscapes are fragmented and disturbed, corridors play a beneficial role in providing movement opportunities to areas of core habitat for both flora and fauna. The net gains for both flora and fauna (dispersal, exchange of genetic material, linkages with other populations, refuge etc.) are positive outcomes which can potentially contribute to the conservation of populations and species. While corridors may have some negative effects (such as increased predation), these are often the result of the nature of the corridor itself. Nevertheless, the provision of movement opportunities for flora and fauna are essential, and negative effects can be minimised via a number of mitigation measures such as the inclusion of buffer zones. Corridor width is one of the key factors determining corridor function, and may vary widely between species with differing requirements. Thus, the planning and design of corridors, utilising optimal width for the identified purpose of the corridor and within the scale of the corridor matrix, is essential for good biodiversity conservation outcomes. It is not possible to recommend a single corridor width that is suitable for all habitat situations. However, some guidelines apply. In general, the larger the corridor and corridor network the more successful the management strategy. Despite this, current literature suggests that in some situations bird and mammal species are able to disperse effectively through relatively narrow corridors, such as roadside verges. The identification and analysis of available corridor opportunities is likely to assist in developing optimal strategies to provide for species requirements and to promote species persistence and conservation.

3 CORRIDOR ANALYSIS

3.1 Introduction Criteria have been developed by JWA to assess the importance of site habitats for fauna movement/dispersal. Six (6) categories have been assigned on the basis of current (June 2012) corridor dimension, habitat diversity and quality, extent of internal and external disturbance and the importance of the corridor for linking significant habitats. TABLE 1 outlines the six (6) fauna movement categories.



TABLE 1 FAUNA MOVEMENT CORRIDOR CATEGORIES

Category Characteristics

Category 1 Corridors

• The corridor is of sufficient dimension to support many of the ecological processes functioning in the habitats that it is linking;

• Facilitates gene flow by providing a continuum of breeding territories rather than runways which allows only physical movement of individuals;

• Contain a wide diversity of habitats; • Contain core habitats free from edge effects; • Internal disturbance is minimal; and • Connect habitats of at least Sub-regional importance (i.e. significant in

far north-eastern NSW).


• The corridor is of sufficient dimension to support many of the ecological processes functioning in the habitats that it is linking;

• Facilitates gene flow by providing a continuum of breeding territories rather than runways which allows only the physical movement of individuals;

• Contain a limited diversity of habitat; • Contain core habitats free from edge effects; • Internal disturbance is minimal; and • Connect habitats of at least local to sub-regional importance.


• Fragmented habitat likely to provide a linkage with high quality ecological areas;

• Facilitate gene flow by allowing physical movement of individuals. • Do not generally contain breeding habitat; • Contain a low diversity of habitats; • Edge effects and internal disturbance are significant; and • Connect habitats of local to sub-regional importance.


• Detached remnants that may contain populations of small terrestrial species largely isolated from other populations.

• Small pockets of habitat that provide stepping stones for larger scansorial species such as Koalas;

• Stepping stones for locally nomadic and migratory fauna following blossom or fruiting cycles.

• Contain a low diversity of habitats; • Edge effects and internal disturbance are significant; and • Provides stepping stones between habitat of local - regional

importance.


• Drains, creeks, forest roads etc that provide open flyways for Microchiropteran bats;

• Creeks and rivers that are used as a navigation aid by Flying foxes; and • Connect habitats of local to regional importance.


• Cleared or isolated non-native habitats that have a low value as dispersal habitat; and

• Do not generally link habitats of importance.



3.2 Vegetation Communities in the Corridor

The existing East-West corridor is a band of vegetation that connects habitats in the northern portion of the Cudgen Nature Reserve and the Cudgen Creek habitats to the east, with central habitats within the Kings Forest site (FIGURE 7). The majority of the corridor is mapped as SEPP 14 Coastal Wetlands. Current vegetation communities in the existing East-West wildlife corridor are shown in FIGURE 6. The corridor is comprised of;

• 1(e) Exotic pine plantation/pine wildings • 2(c) Sedgeland/rushland • 3(b) Wet coastal heathland to shrubland • 3(d) Regenerating wet/dry coastal heathland to shrubland • 4(b) Swamp mahogany open forest to woodland & heathland species • 4(e) Broad-leaved paperbark closed forest to woodland • 4(i) Regenerating Broad-leaved paperbark closed forest to woodland & heathland

species • 5(d) Scribbly gum open forest to woodland

The corridor also contains areas of vegetation containing rainforest elements and areas that have been substantially cleared of native vegetation.

• The corridor width ranges from approximately 190 metres to 515 metres.

• At 200 metres west of the eastern boundary of the Kings Forest site, the corridor is

approximately 420 metres wide. At this point, the corridor is comprised entirely of Broad-leaved paperbark closed forest to woodland (57% of corridor width) and Sedgland/rushland (43% of corridor width).

• At 900 metres west of the eastern boundary, the corridor narrows to approximately 190 metres wide. At this point, the corridor is comprised entirely of Sedgland/rushland (45% of corridor width), Broad-leaved paperbark closed forest to woodland (35% of corridor width) and Regenerating wet/dry coastal heathland to shrubland (20% of corridor width).

3.3 Corridor values for fauna groups

3.3.1 Amphibian habitat Surveys within the East-West corridor found the most important Amphibian habitats to be Swamp Sclerophyll Forests, Wet Heathlands and Sedgelands/Fernlands/Wet Grasslands. Lands below the 1:100 year flood level provide core habitat for most species, including the Threatened Wallum froglet. The existing east-west corridor is considered to contain High quality habitat for amphibians. The Wallum froglet has been recorded from within the



corridor, while the Wallum sedge frog (also a threatened species) has been recorded within 200 metres of the corridor (FIGURE 8). 3.3.2 Reptile habitat Swamp Sclerophyll Forest (including Broad-leaved paperbark and Swamp mahogany communities) provide the most important habitat andsupport the greatest diversity and abundance of Reptiles in the East-West corridor. The intact areas of Dry Sclerophyll Forests and heathland are also significant but occupy a much smaller area. The corridor is considered to contain High quality habitat for reptiles. However, the site is considered unlikely to support Threatened species such as the Three-toed snake-tooth skink, Stephen’s banded snake or the White-crowned snake.

3.3.3 Bird habitat Estuarine habitats are limited to Cudgen Creek to the east of the site (FIGURE 7) with the East-West corridor not providing significant areas of habitat for estuarine birds. The Threatened Collared kingfisher and Mangrove honeyeater were not recorded during site surveys but probably occur in Mangroves and adjacent habitats along Cudgen Creek. The Osprey (a Threatened species) was recorded on a number of occasions, with Cudgen Creek and Cudgen Lake providing suitable forage habitat for this species. Swamp Sclerophyll Forest and wetlands supporting dense rank vegetation are of greatest importance for cryptic wetland species such as the Bush hen, Black bittern and Grass owl. The Black bittern and Grass owl have both been recorded from within the existing East-West corridor (FIGURE 8). Swamp Sclerophyll Forests and Dry Sclerophyll Forests provide the most important habitat for nectarivores. Habitats containing Swamp mahogany and Scribbly gum are of particular importance as they provide winter blossoms for locally nomadic nectarivores forced into coastal districts by regional blossom shortages during winter. Winter blossoms are also important for migratory species such as the Regent honeyeater and Swift parrot. The Swamp Sclerophyll and Dry Sclerophyll Forests are also the most significant habitats for insectivores and raptors, which prey on small forest birds. The Dry Sclerophyll Forests are important for species dependent on tree hollows for nesting. Two such species, the Glossy black-cockatoo and the Masked owl (both Threatened species) were recorded during surveys within and in close proximity to the East-West corridor (FIGURE 8). The Powerful owl and Barking owl (also Threatened) are considered possible occurrences on the site. Dry Sclerophyll Forests also provide forage habitat for all of these species. The existing East-West corridor is considered to contain High quality habitat for a range of birds including cryptic wetland birds, forest interior birds, and local and regional migrants.

3.3.4 Mammal habitat Small terrestrial mammals are expected to use the corridor in large numbers, particularly in the Swamp Sclerophyll Forests and Sedgelands. The Common planigale (a Threatened species) was recorded during surveys in Dry Sclerophyll Forests. The Swamp wallaby was the only Macropod recorded during surveys, and was common and widespread in all Swamp Sclerophyll habitats.



Arboreal mammals recorded on the site include the Koala (a Threatened species), Common brushtail possum, Common ringtail possum, Sugar glider and Greater glider. The Greater glider record is considered locally significant. A number of Microchiropteran bats (including the Threatened Yellow-bellied sheath-tailed bat, Little bent-wing bat, Large-footed myotis and Eastern false pipistrelle) were recorded during surveys, foraging over the site. A wide range of vegetation types provide forage habitat for this group, although the most important are likely to be the intact Swamp Sclerophyll and Dry Sclerophyll Forests. The Dry Sclerophyll Forests contain suitable roost sites for tree-hole roosting species. No large caves or caverns were observed. Three (3) Megachiropteran bats were recorded during surveys; the Common blossom bat and Grey-headed flying fox (Threatened species) (FIGURE 8) and the Black flying fox. The Swamp Sclerophyll and Dry Sclerophyll Forests are the most important forage habitats for this group. Habitats containing Swamp mahogany and Scribbly gum, are of particular importance as they provide winter blossoms. The site does not support suitable roost habitat for the Grey-headed flying fox or the Black flying fox. Swamp Sclerophyll Forests with a dense rainforest understorey may provide roost sites for the Common blossom bat. The existing East-West corridor is considered to contain High quality habitat for a range of mammal species including small terrestrial mammals, arboreal mammals, and microchiropteran and megachiropteran bats.

3.4 Corridor values for threatened fauna Nineteen (19) Threatened fauna species as listed under the Threatened Species Conservation Act (1995) have been recorded from the Subject site.

• Wallum froglet (Crinia tinnula); • Wallum sedge frog (Litoria olongburensis); • Rose-crowned fruit-dove* (Ptilinopus regina); • Black-necked stork (Ephippiorhynchus asiaticus); • Bush-stone curlew (Burhinus grallarius); • Glossy black-cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus lathami); • Grass owl (Tyto longimembris); • Masked owl (Tyto novaehollandiae); • Bush hen (Amaurornis moluccana); • Black bittern (Ixobrychus flavicollis); • Osprey (Pandion haliaetus); • Common planigale (Planigale maculata); • Koala (Phascolarctos cinereus); • Grey-headed flying fox (Pteropus poliocephalus); • Common blossom bat (Syconycteris australis); • Little bent-wing bat* (Miniopterus australis); • Yellow-bellied sheathtail bat (Saccolaimus flaviventris); • Eastern false pipistrelle* (Falsistrellus tasmaniensis); and • Large-footed myotis* (Myotis macropus).



* These species were generally recorded foraging over the site and are not included in FIGURE 8.

The locations of Threatened species records on the Subject site are shown in FIGURE 8. The East-West corridor supports important areas of natural vegetation, which provides habitat for these Threatened species. Seven (7) of the Threatened species listed above have been recorded within the East-West corridor (FIGURE 8). Assessments of the habitat movement requirements and the values of the East-West corridor for each of the Threatened species recorded on the Subject site have been completed and are shown in TABLE 2.

TABLE 2 EAST-WEST CORRIDOR – VALUES FOR THREATENED FAUNA

Common name

Scientific name

Recorded in East-West Corridor

Recorded in Cudgen Lake Corridor

Habitat preference

Likely use of corridor

Wallum froglet Crinia tinnula YES YES Swamp sclerophyll forest, Wet heath

Forage, Habitat, Dispersal

Wallum sedge frog

Litoria olongburensis

NO YES Swamp sclerophyll

forest, Wet heath Forage, Habitat, Dispersal

Rose-crowned fruit-dove Ptilinopus regina NO YES Rainforest, occasionally

Swamp sclerophyll forest Forage

Black-necked stork

Ephippiorhynchus asiaticus NO NO

Swamps, mangroves, mudflats, floodplains, wetlands

Forage

Bush-stone curlew

Burhinus grallarius NO YES

Open-grassed woodlands, sparsely treed rangelands

Forage, Habitat

Glossy black-cockatoo

Calyptorhynchus lathami NO NO Woodland dominated by

Allocasuarina species Forage

Grass owl Tyto longimembris YES NO

Swamp sclerophyll forest, Wet and Dry Heath

Forage, Habitat

Masked owl Tyto novaehollandiae YES YES Dry Sclerophyll forest,

Swamp sclerophyll forest Forage, Habitat

Bush hen Amaurornis moluccana

NO

YES Swamp sclerophyll forest Forage, Habitat,

Dispersal

Black bittern Ixobrychus flavicollis YES YES Swamp sclerophyll forest Forage, Habitat,

Dispersal

Osprey Pandion haliaetus YES YES Swamp sclerophyll forest Nesting

Common planigale

Planigale maculata NO YES

Dry sclerophyll forest, Swamp sclerophyll forest, Wet and Dry Heath


Koala Phascolarctos cinereus YES YES

Swamp sclerophyll forest, Dry sclerophyll forest




Grey-headed flying fox

Pteropus poliocephalus YES NO

Swamp sclerophyll forest, Dry Sclerophyll forest

Forage

Common blossom bat

Syconycteris australis NO YES

Swamp sclerophyll forest, Wet and Dry Heath

Forage, Habitat

Little bent-wing bat

Miniopterus australis NO NO


Forage, Habitat

Yellow-bellied sheathtail bat

Saccolaimus flaviventris NO YES


Forage, Habitat

Eastern false pipistrelle

Falsistrellus tasmaniensis NO NO


Forage, Habitat

Large-footed myotis Myotis macropus NO NO

Swamp sclerophyll forest, Wet and Dry Heath near permanent waterways

Forage, Habitat

3.5 Extension of the East-West corridor In a regional context, the Kings Forest site is considerably isolated (in terms of wildlife movement) from areas of regionally significant habitat. This is due to the Tweed River and extensive agricultural and residential development to the north, Tweed Coast Road and the Pacific Ocean to the east, and the Pacific Motorway and agricultural lands to the west (FIGURES 3 & 5). Fauna linkages to the north and west of the site are highly disturbed. Thus, currently the only effective connections with other significant habitat areas is to the south of the site (Carrick 2009).

The Concept Plan application discussed the efficacy of promoting a corridor to the north-west, linking Kings Forest and Stotts Island Nature Reserve (SINR). Carrick (2009) noted that, whilst there are some sparsely vegetated linkages extending from the eastern side of the Cudgen road fauna overpass to Stotts Island Nature Reserve, several kilometres of open agricultural fields occur to the west of the Pacific Motorway. An extension of the East-West corridor to the north-west could facilitate the dispersal of wildlife from Cudgen Nature Reserve (CNR) to SINR. However, it is unlikely to provide an effective linkage between habitats of regional importance due to intervening land-uses and major barriers such as the Pacific Motorway and Tweed River (FIGURE 3).

The following actions would be necessary if an East-West corridor in the northern portion of the Kings Forest site were to provide effective fauna movement to the north-west:

• Revegetation of cleared grazing lands and portions of sugar cane land; and • Structures to funnel fauna to the Motorway land bridge (Cudgen road fauna

overpass).

This could create an effective connection between the CNR and the SINR, approximately 2km to the north-west of the Kings Forest site. Stotts Island is situated in the Tweed River (FIGURE 3) and is the largest remnant of subtropical floodplain rainforest remaining in



New South Wales (NPWS 2001). However, the prospect of the long-established sugar cane fields to the north and west of the Kings Forest site becoming revegetated, so as to offer meaningful habitat for native wildlife, is considered extremely remote. Land-use to the north-west of the Kings Forest site is predominantly agricultural and includes the agri-tourist attraction Tropical Fruit World (FIGURE 3). This property is substantially cleared of native vegetation and includes a variety of fruit orchards and plantations comprising approximately 500 kinds of fruit. This area of highly fragmented vegetation represents a significant obstruction to faunal movement between the Kings Forest site and the Pacific Motorway fauna overpass. Extending the East-West corridor in this north-west direction would create additional habitat and improve dispersal between SEPP 14 Wetland areas within the Kings Forest site. However, it is considered that unless there is supplementary revegetation in adjacent properties, any extension of the East-West corridor to the north would be ineffective in achieving connectivity between regionally significant habitat areas. As meaningful revegetation in these areas is highly unlikely, a northern corridor is no longer considered necessary. Regardless of the fact that a north-west corridor was promoted in the Concept Plan application, it is considered that a more appropriate location for an extension of the East-West corridor would be in the direction of the Eviron Road underpass to the south-west, as indicated by the direction of the arrow in FIGURE 3. This may require some revegetation around the decommissioned Turner’s sand quarry lake (FIGURE 3) and extensive revegetation within adjacent agricultural properties between the existing East-West corridor and the Eviron Road underpass. As can be seen in FIGURE 3, this would be a more suitable direction for an extended wildlife corridor as there are substantial areas of native vegetation to the west of the Pacific Motorway. This is a view advocated by the Tweed Shire Council as discussed with Mark Kingston (15th June, 2012). Extending the East-West corridor in this direction could potentially link the Kings Forest site to habitat areas in the south that are of regional significance, such as the Mooball National Park and Mount Jerusalem National Park (FIGURE 9).

3.6 Summary of corridor analysis The existing East-West corridor is a band of vegetation that connects habitats in the northern portion of the Cudgen Nature Reserve and Cudgen Creek habitats to the east, with central habitats within the Kings Forest site (FIGURE 3). The majority of the corridor is listed as SEPP 14 Coastal Wetlands. The Corridor is comprised of the following vegetation communities:

• 1(e) Exotic pine plantation/pine wildings • 2(c) Sedgeland/rushland • 3(b) Wet coastal heathland to shrubland • 3(d) Regenerating wet/dry coastal heathland to shrubland • 4(b) Swamp mahogany open forest to woodland & heathland species • 4(e) Broad-leaved paperbark closed forest to woodland



• 4(i) Regenerating Broad-leaved paperbark closed forest to woodland & heathland species

• 5(d) Scribbly gum open forest to woodland

The corridor also contains areas of vegetation containing rainforest elements and areas that have been substantially cleared of native vegetation. The corridor supports a limited diversity of vegetation types and is likely to facilitate the free movement of amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals, including Threatened species. The Threatened species most likely to depend on this corridor for dispersal include the Wallum froglet, Wallum sedge frog, Black bittern, Common planigale and Koala. These species are likely to rely on this corridor for dispersal between the northern portion of Cudgen Nature Reserve and Cudgen Creek habitats to the east, and habitat areas within the Kings Forest site (FIGURE 3). The East-West Corridor is considered to be a Category 2 corridor (TABLE 1) as it is considered to:

• Be of sufficient dimension to support many of the ecological processes functioning in the habitats that it is linking;

• Facilitate gene flow by providing a continuum of breeding territories rather than runways which allows only physical movement of individuals;

• Contain a limited diversity of habitats; • Contain core habitats free from edge effects; • Internal disturbance is minimal; and • Connect important local to sub-regional habitats.

It is considered that the East-West corridor provides an important movement and dispersal conduit for fauna (including Threatened species) in the locality, particularly due to disturbance associated with land to the south (Cudgen Paddock) (FIGURE 8). Additionally, all nineteen (19) of the Threatened fauna species recorded from the Kings Forest site are considered likely to utilise vegetation communities within the corridor as forage and/or roost habitat. An extension of the East-West corridor to the northwest of the Kings Forest site would create additional habitat for these species and improve dispersal across the site. Despite this, it is not likely to improve connectivity between regionally significant habitat areas due to physical barriers and the fragmentation of native vegetation in adjacent properties. Therefore, a northern East-West corridor is no longer considered appropriate. An extension of the East-West corridor to the Eviron Road underpass (to the southwest of the site) is likely to be more suitable, as the possibility of facilitating movement between regionally significant habitat areas is greatly increased.



References

Carrick, F.N. (2009) Kings Forest Koala Plan of Management. Prepared on behalf of Project 28 Pty Ltd. EcoIndig Resources Pty Ltd August 2009.

DECC (2007) Identification Guidelines for Endangered Ecological Communities. Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal Floodplains. Department of Environment and Climate Change, Sydney, NSW.

DECC (2008) Recovery Plan for the Koala (Phasolarctos cinereus) Approved Recovery Plan, Department of Environment and Climate Change, Sydney NSW, November 2008.

NPWS (2001) Stotts Island Nature Reserve Plan of Management. National Parks and Wildlife Service, NSW, March 2001.

Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) (2012) NSW Bionet the website for the Atlas of NSW Wildlife: a whole-of-government system for flora and fauna sightings information. Retrieved June 27, 2012, from http://www.bionet.nsw.gov.au



APPENDIX 1 LITERATURE REVIEW



1. Introduction The natural environment is increasingly tending towards a ‘remnant landscape’ of more fragmented and isolated patches of habitat, with the resultant effect being loss of biodiversity and reduced viability of habitat fragments. The more isolated the remnant and more hostile the intervening habitat, the less likely species, communities and ecological processes will persist (GC NCS 1998). Corridors are remnant areas of vegetation where clearing of native vegetation has occurred. Hussey et al. (1989) further define a corridor as a linear feature of vegetation, which differs from the surrounding vegetation and connects at least two patches, which were connected historically. This definition covers natural corridors, such as ridge-lines and vegetation along drainage lines, as well as ones created by human activities. These include vegetation along roadsides and railways as well as windbreaks. Three main types of corridors are recognised (Loney and Hobbs 1991):

• Natural corridors, present in non-fragmented landscapes, which may be retained following fragmentation.

• Remnant corridors, strips of natural vegetation remaining after clearing or disturbance to the landscape.

• Cultural corridors, strips of artificial vegetation created for specific use e.g. hedges, rights of way.

This section discusses information regarding the functioning and utilisation of corridors by fauna. Topics discussed include:

• The need for corridors; • The benefits of corridors; • Conservation goals; • Corridor function; • Edge effects; • Corridor design; • Fauna movement requirements; and • Statutory assessment.

2. The need for corridors Reduction of available habitat from clearing may result in small, isolated patches of vegetation, surrounded by residential, commercial or agricultural landscapes. These small pockets of habitat may not however, be sufficient to support viable populations of some native fauna (NSW NPWS 2004). Isolation of populations of native fauna may result in increased vulnerability to localised extinction through events such as drought, fire, starvation and disease (Planning 2004). While these may be broader scale events, in a localised, urban context, surrounding land uses may themselves impose harmful or stressful conditions on fauna inhabiting remnant vegetation. Risks may include the potential for increased mortality from vehicular traffic and the risk of predation from domestic animals. Research confirms that corridors and retained areas of vegetation are an important aspect of conservation strategies for native wildlife. Soule and Gilpin (1991) observe that the



primary conservation purpose of wildlife corridors is the minimisation of risk of extinction of species within the landscape elements that are being connected. Thus, corridors may be particularly important mechanisms for ensuring the continued survival of fragmented populations of Threatened species. Corridors of vegetation are valuable as they allow wildlife movement and provide habitat and refuge. Without opportunities for effective movement and dispersal, animals may become ‘trapped’, and subsequently be forced into open or cleared areas where they may be more susceptible to predation or starvation (NRM 2002). It is important to note that while corridors provide habitat for fauna, they also function to conserve plant communities, by conserving biodiversity as examples of native vegetation types and allowing dispersal of seeds and genetic material (NRM 2002).

3. Benefits to fauna and flora The benefits of corridors are varied, although broadly speaking they assist in maintaining ecosystem function by conserving biodiversity and reducing land degradation (NRM 2002). Corridors have many positive values in nature conservation and general land management. They may be habitat in their own right for native plants and animals, permit species to move along them, and so enable gene flow to occur between different members of a population. They may act as buffers against unfavourable conditions, such as wind, or protect sensitive areas such as creeks. In an urban environment, where clearing and fragmentation has occurred, corridors may also present aesthetic benefits. Hess and Fisher (2001) observed that the role of corridors is derived from six ecological functions: habitat, conduit, filter, barrier, source and sink. Habitat and conduit provide resources (food, cover, water) and opportunities for movement. Filter and barrier functions separate and differentiate areas on opposite sides of the corridor, for example, corridors may filter out particular species moving along them, while barriers may occur in the form of roads. A ‘source’ describes a population where reproduction is greater than mortality, and ‘sink’ describes a habitat where mortality exceeds reproduction. There are a number of benefits that corridors provide for both fauna and flora. These are shown in TABLE 1. However, it is important to note that many species have specific habitat needs, and for a corridor to be effective, these needs must be addressed.



TABLE 1 THE BENEFITS OF CORRIDORS TO FAUNA AND FLORA

Fauna Flora • Increased foraging area for wide

ranging species • Conservation of biodiversity as

examples of native vegetation types (thus contributing to regional conservation networks)

• Provision of cover for movement between patches

• Conservation of regional ecosystems

• Provision of access to a diverse range of habitats needed for different activities (e.g. foraging and breeding requirements may be different)

• Refuge from disturbance (e.g. fire, extremes of climate, insect attack and disease)

• Refuge from disturbance (e.g. fire) • Dispersal of seeds & fruit by animals • Linking wildlife populations and

helping to maintain migration between isolated patches

• Exchange of genetic material between populations is assisted by animal movements along corridors

• Reduction in genetic isolation in populations

(Adapted from Qld. Dept. of Natural Resources and Mines, 2002) It is important to have patches connected by “high-quality” habitat that provides for both species survival and reproduction. Henein and Merriam (1990) observe that for two isolated patches, increasing the number of high quality corridors increased metapopulation size, while adding low-quality corridors decreased metapopulation size. They also observed that the addition to a metapopulation of a patch connected by a low-quality corridor had a negative effect on the metapopulation size, indicating increased mortality during movement. Heinen and Merriam (1990) note that low quality corridors had the greatest probability of patch population extinction. Hess and Fisher (2001) also observe that poorly designed corridors may acts as population sinks, whereby animals are exposed to predation from matrix species and competition from generalist species. Research by Tewksbury et al (2002) confirmed that corridors increased the level of exchange of fauna between patches, and also is responsible for two key fauna-flora interactions: pollination and seed dispersal. Thus, increased animal movement through corridors is likely to have a positive impact on plant populations and community interactions, and subsequently benefit the conservation of species utilising corridors as dispersal mechanisms.



4. Conservation goals McKenzie (1995) noted that when considering the conservation goals of a particular wildlife corridor it is necessary to evaluate:

• What types of wildlife movement and habitat it is intended to conserve? • Which types of species (species groups) utilise corridors? • What are the life cycles, historical context (historical migratory, dispersal and

foraging patterns) and habitat requirements of the intended target species? • How or would the target species utilise the corridor (dispersal, migration,

residential, marginal habitat, foraging habitat) (Stenseth and Lidicker 1992; McEuen 1993; Bier and Loe 1992)?

• Will the corridor provide avenues of movement and invasion for exotic species and disease as well as for target native species (McEuen 1993)?

• What will be the economic cost of maintaining the corridor (due to increased edge effect etc.)?

• How does residency and utilisation among species change with changing corridor condition (dependent on shape, vegetation composition, season for example)?

• How do habitat requirements and species’ perception of the environment affect the utility of the corridor (for example: do the target species have the ability to distinguish and utilise the corridor)?

• How does the corridor fit into the surrounding conservation matrix, biotic community and landscape?

• What is the scale of the corridor within the surrounding conservation matrix and in relation to the intended target species’ lifestyles (Bier and Loe 1992)?

• What will be the prevailing edge effects acting on this corridor (weed invasion, predation, fire risk, canopy disruption, stresses, disease invasion, micro-climate change for example)?

• Was the natural habitat naturally fragmented, contiguous or continuous historically (McEuen 1993)?

• Is a corridor the best (most appropriate and most effective) management profile for the area?

• The effectiveness of follow-up management and monitoring and evaluation of the success or failure of the corridor?

• What is the possibility of habitat/ecosystem recovery if the corridor is unsuccessful?

After the assessment of all of these factors, the length and optimal width of the designed corridor become critical factors in the success or failure of the corridor.

5. Key corridor performance variables The ability of wildlife to use a corridor is determined by a key number of variables including the following:

• Dimensionality – An assessment of corridor capability must be considered from the

point of view of the user; different organisms will perceive a given corridor quite differently. A corridor that is “x” units in length may facilitate the movement of



relatively agile species, whilst the same corridor might be a lethal cul-de-sac for slower moving prey species.

• Patchiness – The degree of canopy closure or the distribution of gaps in the corridor must be considered. Gaps between canopy elements will be perceived as barriers to some species, whether these gaps are natural or anthropogenic.

• Effects of edges – The edges of corridors will usually have different physical and biological characteristics than the centres. For many species, mortality will be higher in edge habitats because of increased exposure to predators. Habitat edges are subjected to physical damage and increased microclimate changes, often increasing light, temperature fluctuation, noise, wind evaporation, pollution and salt exposure.

Physical changes in the microhabitat lead to changes in species composition and vegetation structure, and inevitably weed species / pest invasion and increased predation (BSC 1999). Eventually this ‘Cascade effect’ leads to a biodiversity collapse, as interdependent species are lost in rapid succession. The intensity and rapidity of the cascade effect varies with remnant size, distance from neighbouring fragments or core habitat, and the nature of the conservation matrix of the local environment (Laurance 1991a and b).

Non-forest species are favoured by the altered habitat (Janzen 1983). Edge effects may penetrate so deeply into smaller remnants and narrow corridors that little or no core habitat remains (Laurance 1991b, Soule and Gilpin 1991). Edge effects may also be intensified by the surrounding landscape: areas of agricultural land will have a very different effect from surrounding or bisecting roadways (BSC 1999).

• Habitat type, quality and diversity – An effective corridor must contain appropriate habitat or an appropriate mix of habitats.

• Demographic properties – The mortality rate of a species within a given corridor will be a major factor that determines the limits of corridor capability.

• Life history stage – In general, the individuals that enter a corridor will be a non-random sample of those in adjacent habitat patches. Users may be breeders, dispersing juveniles, surplus individuals (who cannot find breeding sites) or peripatetic individuals (predisposed to wander for genetic or other reasons).

• Kind of movement – Movement can be classified in various ways. With respect to movement, three categories may be considered: random walk, density dependent (such as contact aversive movement) and/or directional (including long-distance movements between foraging or breeding areas).

• Timing and periodicity – Animal movements are usually keyed to environmental changes or cycles and /or life history stages. One must consider whether the objective of the given corridor is to facilitate once yearly mass movements, migration to breeding or hibernating sites or daily or nocturnal foraging trips between patches.

• Effects of intraspecific interactions – The spacing and possibly the activity level of individuals within corridors might depend on intraspecific interactions and responses. Movement may in fact be density dependent (i.e. some individuals may establish territories in corridors, affecting the rate and directionality of movement of conspecifics).

• Effects on interspecific interactions – the spacing and activity levels of individuals within corridors might depend on interspecific interactions. Interspecific territoriality might retard directional movements. Competitive interactions and/or predation might increase or decrease the activity of the target species.



6. Corridor design

6.1 Introduction This section discusses the design of corridors, and their subsequent suitability for fauna use. Included within this section is a discussion of general corridor widths incorporating a summary of recent scientific literature. It should be noted that much research provides conflicting information relating to specific corridor widths required to provide safe movement opportunities for flora and fauna. A highly detailed analysis of the works provided is outside the scope of this report.

6.2 Corridor design The optimum corridor design depends upon the objectives of the corridor, the ecology and movements of the target species and the structure of the landscape in which the corridor is located. Recent literature is somewhat contradictory in regards to minimum/maximum corridor widths required for the safe passage of flora and fauna, as the majority focus on minimum widths in unique environments. This report considers the primary role of corridors to provide safe movement opportunities for flora and fauna between larger areas of habitat. Therefore, any additional habitat value of corridors (e.g. for breeding) is considered as an advantage. The main role of corridors is to link viable patches of core habitat. Hobbs and Hopkins (1991) suggest that, ideally, several parallel corridors should link large remnants of all habitat types. The corridors should link across the full range of available gradient and habitat spectrum (Noss 1991), and should link other refugia and resource-utilisation hotspots such as vine forests and lowland rainforest. Chenoweth & Assoc. (1994) suggest that in urban areas where this is not achievable, one major corridor supported by a network of corridors which collectively encompass the full range of natural habitats may be possible. Large corridors are also less affected by edge effects. An effective wildlife corridor system should include: • multiple pathways linking retained habitat (Bennett 1990); • larger areas of suitable habitat at periodic intervals along corridors (Bennett 1990,

Recher et al. 1991); • linked riparian and ridge corridors sampling suitable habitat for a full range of target

species (Recher et al. 1980, Dunning and Smith 1986, Bennett 1990, Recher et al. 1991); and

• a hierarchy of corridors comprised of broad regional corridors established to restore links between isolated forests, major wildlife corridors within production forests to link important reserved areas and a network of smaller wildlife corridors forming common linkages in the system of retained habitat (Bennett 1990).

Planning for effective corridor function requires knowledge of species likely to be using the corridor and their habitat requirements. It is generally accepted that the higher the level of connectivity the greater the corridor function. However, corridor width may vary widely and can have significant ramifications for fauna species. Soule and Gilpin (1991) observe that a narrow corridor restricts movement, and has a higher ratio of edge, which may result in higher mortality. Conversely, a wide corridor is likely to have a high occupancy rate and a low rate of mortality due to a low ratio of edge to interior.



In the same manner, a poorly designed corridor may potentially disadvantage and reduce the viability of small populations by acting in any of a number of ways (Lindenmayer and Nix 1992). Lindenmayer and Nix (1992) observed that arboreal marsupials in South Eastern Australia are rarely encountered and poorly conserved by a network of reserves and wildlife corridors, illustrating that corridor networks may be insufficient for nature conservation (McKenzie, 1995). Indeed the theory of central place foraging predicts that species with colonial social structure, which forage for widely dispersed food, are disadvantaged by a network of corridors (Lindenmayer and Nix 1992). It is therefore evident that corridors alone will not necessarily maximise biodiversity, with retention of large tracts of core habitat being critical so that species that do not use corridors have functional habitat.

Poorly designed corridors may have the following effects:

• act as a ‘population sink’ by repetitively drawing individuals from a core population which are then subject to high rates of mortality or low reproductive viability, only to be replaced with a high level of turnover.

• act as corridors for destructive events: pest or weed invasion, increased predation, and the spread of fire or disease.

• simply not be utilised by the target species for some reason. • lead to an increased ratio of all of the processes associated with the edge effect

acting on the remnant.

The design and management of corridors is therefore primary to their overall value as a biodiversity conservation strategy. Loney and Hobbs (1991) classified species requirements with respect to the differing degrees of corridor complexity necessary for movement. These include:

1. Species requiring no interconnections to move between different habitat patches. 2. Species requiring rudimentary corridors (fencelines etc.) to facilitate movement

between habitat patches. 3. Species requiring broken vegetation connections between habitat patches. 4. Species requiring continuous (although not necessarily natural) vegetation strips

between habitat patches. Width variation may be important. 5. Species requiring good quality natural vegetation in strips wide enough to include

areas unaffected by edge effects. An example of species requirements is illustrated in a study of birds between an area of forest and surrounding suburbs. Catterall et al (1991) found that most bird species were macrohabitat specialists, with little movement of forest or suburb species across the interface. This led to the conclusion that few forest dwelling species are likely to utilise small, isolated remnants and that narrow, connecting corridors were more likely to be dominated by aggressive edge species. These findings point towards the better success of wide corridors with a lower edge effect. Linear corridor shape was found to be superior to all other shapes modelled in the first theoretical model on corridor capability developed by Soule and Gilpin (1991) as cited in McEuen (1993).



6.3 Corridor width It is widely acknowledged that the wider the corridor the more effective it will be, as habitat value increases and edge effects are likely to decrease with size (Chenoweth & Assoc 1994). Minimum corridor widths of 100m are generally accepted to provide movement over tens of years for species whose biology is known (Harris & Scheck 1991). However, a variety of factors such as quality of habitat and adjacent land uses also affect the effectiveness of corridors. Corridors are also likely to function effectively if buffers are implemented to minimise edge effects. A wildlife corridor must be wide enough to ensure that an ecologically viable core area is sufficiently distant [buffered] from the edge effects. Thus the success of a corridor is directly affected by the effective corridor width, and an apparent ‘threshold width’ beyond which conserved species diversity can be maintained. A corridor with a lower threshold width will be more difficult and costly to maintain, and will not preserve existing habitat values. Below this threshold level, disturbance pressures control corridor processes and perturbation results in a change (decrease) in corridor biodiversity with the establishment of disturbance opportunists (Loney and Hobbs 1991). Similarly, Soule and Gilpin (1991) note that any narrowing or sudden diversion (‘dog leg’), bottleneck or bypass significantly reduces the success of the corridor. Where mortality rates are high, as is often the case in a fragmented landscape, any delay in transit will reduce success. It thus becomes clear that the effects of any barriers (roads etc) or strategies to overcome barriers must be carefully considered (Goldingay and Kavanagh 1991, Andrews 1990, Bennett 1990, Saunders 1990). Optimal corridor widths are community specific, species specific, time-scale-specific and landscape-specific (Friend 1991). Harris and Scheck’s (1991) Dispersal Corridor Principle provides useful generalisations for optimum corridor widths: In general, a proportional relationship exists between the time-scale over which the corridor will operate, knowledge of its intended inhabitants’ life-cycles, the distance to be crossed and the complexity of the community’s ecology. Narrow corridors will tend to serve only a few species some of the time, while wide corridors will function effectively and more often for a greater range of species (Pahl 1993, Breckwoldt 1983). If development is likely to remove some or all of the remnant habitat (or species’ range) then corridors should be as wide as possible rather than defined by the requirements of a target species. Even if corridor widths could be defined for indicator species or particular target species, co-habitant species will have different requirements (Chenoweth & Assoc. 1994). Although it is widely acknowledged that the wider the corridor the more effective it will be, there is evidence that linear habitats significantly less than 100m provide effective movement corridors for a range of species. However, while it is acknowledged that wider corridors are generally more effective in facilitating fauna movement, they do not necessarily become commensurately more effective with width, ie;



• A 100m wide corridor containing open woodland with a slashed understory may be suitable for Koalas but will not provide an effective movement corridor for small terrestrial mammals or forest dependent reptiles.

• A 100m wide corridor containing a sedgeland will provide high quality dispersal habitat

for Amphibians but not arboreal mammals. The floristic composition and structure (ie density of vegetation) are also critical considerations to determine the functional values of corridor. Hudgens and Haddad (2003) examined corridors with respect to conservation strategy to determine what types of species and populations would benefit from corridors. Findings confirmed that in the short term (such as in recovery from disaster) corridors are most effective for those species with fast growing populations. These are species, which generally have a low rate of survival when moving through unsuitable habitat. It was also found that the effects of corridors on population size are determined by both habitat-specific mortality rates and emigration rates. Conversely, over the long term, species with slow-growing populations with low survival rates when dispersing through matrix habitat benefit most from corridors. Corridors may have an optimum width determined by edge effect and the tendency of dispersing animals to wander (Soule and Gilpin 1991). Minimum widths of corridors may be estimated from data on target species home range sizes and shapes as well as considering widths necessary to maintain desired habitat against penetration of other vegetation types from edges (Harrison 1992). Harrison also suggests that if a corridor is to contain enough suitable habitat for a given species to permanently occupy the corridor, then the corridor must be at least as wide as the width of one home range and contain home ranges that are designed to be rectangular and twice as long as wide.

6.4 Corridor length Effective corridors may be narrower than minimum width based on home range sizes if they are less than the length of one average home range, so that dispersers may pass through without foraging (Harrison 1992).

7. Wildlife corridor analysis

7.1 Introduction This section discusses the requirements of fauna needed to facilitate their use of corridors. As many species have differing requirements, these will be discussed based on individual fauna groups.

7.2 Specific Fauna Movement Requirements

7.2.1 Introduction This section discusses the specific corridor requirements needed by each fauna group, based on a recent survey of scientific literature.

7.2.2 Amphibians A densely vegetated 50m wide riparian corridor is adequate for Amphibian movement (Dr. Jean Marc-Hero -Herpetologist Griffith University).



7.2.3 Birds Much information is available on the usage of vegetation in road reserves by birds. It should be noted that roadside vegetation generally occurs in strips of 50m or less and in most cases lacks the biological productivity and diversity of riparian vegetation, due to fragmentation. These fragmented ecosystems within an unnatural or hostile matrix may also create unnatural metapopulations (Noss & Cooperrider 1994, cited in Sieving et al 1999). Results of this may be seen where fragment vegetation is more likely to be dominated by more aggressive edge species, as documented by Caterall et al (1991). • In the Wimmera Region of Victoria, Middleton (1980) found more than 130 species of

bird in roadside vegetation. In a single strip of roadside woodland 2.5 km in length and 70m wide, linking areas of remnant vegetation, he recorded 85 species (of which 30 species were breeding).

• Kohm (1991) reported 40 species from a road reserve with narrow (< 10m) strips of

mallee vegetation in northwestern Victoria. • Silveira & Bennett (unpub data) recorded 43 species from a brief census at 34 roadside

sites where mallee vegetation ranged from 9-50m in width and isolation distance from remnant vegetation varied. Bird populations on road reserves in Western Australia have been studied at

several localities. Newbey & Newbey (1987) documented the birds of a 2km length of road reserve 20m in width. Forty-four species were recorded, with the vegetation being important in the local movements of 22 species. Of the original 131 species of land bird that once occurred in the district, 15 have disappeared since clearing began and 24 additional species have declined in range.

In the Kellerberrin district censuses of the avifauna at 22 road reserves listed

52 of the 64 landbird species known from the area (Arnold et al 1987; Arnold & Weeldenberg 1990). This district had about 94% of its native vegetation removed between 1880 and 1960. The censuses concluded that vegetated links, even those as narrow as 4m, allow some species to move along them. However, the wider the corridor the more species that will move along it, and the more breeding habitat that will be provided.

• A study by Sieving et al (1999) on bird populations in fragmented rainforest found that

corridors that are 50m wide best fulfil habitat and travel functions if they are less than 500 m long. Habitat function was found to be sufficient for smaller bird species in corridors at least 25 m wide (although this has may have implications for territory establishment), and corridors greater than 10 m wide supported regular non-territorial use such as foraging and dispersal.

• Studies on rainforest frugivores in northern New South Wales by Date et al. (1992)

concluded that a lack of continuous vegetation (i.e. corridors) did not prevent the birds from using remnants or moving long distances from high to low elevations or along the coast.



• Seiving et al. (1999) found that corridor width determined species presence or absence for understory birds in south-central Chile. Endemic understory birds were infrequently encountered in corridors <10m wide but were always present in corridors 25-50m wide.

7.2.4. Mammals (general) • In southwest Victoria (Bennett 1988, 1990) documented the mammals that occurred in

forested roadside corridors 5-40m in width. 78% of the local mammalian fauna (excluding bats) were recorded using roadsides as refuge, foraging areas, movement corridor or as resident habitat. Roadside vegetation had greatest value as a wildlife habitat when it comprised remnant or regenerated strips of indigenous vegetation.

• Studies of the population dynamics and movement of six species of small terrestrial mammal in Victoria showed that roadside corridors provide movement habitat between otherwise isolated forest patches. A similar study by Bentley et al. (2000) in south-eastern Queensland compared populations of small mammals in continuous forests, corridors between forests (average width 115m +/- 6m), timber plantations, remnants, and pasture. Results suggested that the retention or establishment of corridors approximately 100m wide between remnants can provide regularly used habitat for small mammal species that are floristic generalists. However, corridors appeared to be less effective in providing regularly used habitat for specialists, although occasional movements may be sufficient to provide for population replenishment, and corridors did increase the probability of these movements.

7.2.5. Arboreal mammals (general) • Suckling (1984) studied populations of gliders living in several forest fragments and a

roadside strip and found that all known dispersal movements occurred along the roadside corridor. Four other arboreal marsupials, the Common ringtail possum, Common brushtail possum, Koala and Feathertail glider were also recorded in roadside corridors. It was noted that these species probably used them as dispersal pathways.

• Braithwaite (2000) notes that Squirrel gliders disperse along road reserves in Victoria. • A study by Laurence & Laurence (1999) on 6 species of arboreal mammals in Northern

Queensland concluded that:

Linear forest fragments that are floristically diverse and at least 30-40 metres wide can function as habitat (and probably movement) corridors for arboreal mammals.

Mammals that do not require hollows for daytime sleeping have an advantage in linear remnants, because trees large enough to form natural cavities are rare in regrowth.

Mammals that can cross open ground are better able to colonise and use linear remnants, especially those isolated from other forest remnants.

• Laurence and Laurence (1999) also identified attributes of linear remnants suitable for

arboreal mammals:

Floristic composition - taller (more mature) forests have higher diversity than shorter forests.



Physical connectivity - isolated forest areas have less diversity in species composition.

Corridor width – whereby linear remnants of 20-80 metres were used by 5 of the 6 species studied.

7.2.6. Koalas • Suckling (1984) studied populations of gliders living in several forest fragments and a

roadside strip and found that all known dispersal movements occurred along the roadside corridor. Four other arboreal marsupials, the Common ringtail possum, Common brushtail possum, Koala and Feathertail glider were also recorded in roadside corridors. It was noted that these species probably used them as dispersal pathways.

• WWC (1995) found Koalas using 20m wide inter-fairway habitats on Coolangatta –

Tweed Heads Gold Course as regular components of a home range and as dispersal habitat.

• At Wellington Point WWC (1996) found that Koalas used widely spaced trees along fencelines to move between larger patches of forest. In some cases, Koalas were required to travel 20-30m along the ground to access isolated trees.

• Radio-tracking studies by Prevett (1991) at Ballarat found that Koalas made extensive

use of remnant vegetation and have the capacity to move between remnants and cross areas of open land. Individual Koalas were tracked for between 13 and 116 weeks, and little evidence was found to suggest that continuous corridors of vegetation were utilised as movement conduits. Puth and Wilson (2001) also note that Koalas are able to move across landscapes by ‘stepping stones’ of remnant vegetation.

• Research by White (1999) proposes that koalas are not reliant on corridors, and

mobility between vegetation patches is not compromised by absence of tree corridors. This is indicated by the ability of koalas to utilise isolated trees, suggesting that corridor width is of little importance.

• In reference to Koala population decline and habitat loss, Pahl et al. (1990) note that

the width of corridors and their tree density may vary to suit particular situations. In residential areas where there are many hazards, corridors of greater than 100m wide and a high density of trees may be required. A narrower corridor may connect a short distance in a more densely forested region. However, because of the incidence of dog attack, car strike and stress amongst Koalas, 100m wide corridors in which tree canopies touch are preferential for long-term stability.

• Ideally, a width of several hundred metres or a kilometre has been recommended for

regional corridors through [large-scale developments or] large acreage blocks, such as those in the Mt Cotton area in SE Qld (Redland Shire Environmental inventory 2002). However, quality and preferred habitat species for Koalas also play a major role in determining ideal corridor widths.

7.2.7 Bats • A study by Law et al (1999) examined the effect of fragmented agricultural land with

forest remnants and pine plantations on various bat species. Of the 10 species of bats recorded, fewest were recorded in corridors, while 6 of the species seemed tolerant of



fragmentation and were not sensitive to isolation These species were noted to have the attributes of being typically fast flying, low manoeuvrability species which forage in relatively open habitats. Bats were also recorded as being equally active in open areas and corridors, thus suggesting that corridors are not used regularly to move through the landscape. Law et al. (1999) proposed that while there may be a maximum distance bats will travel across cleared lands, even one of the poorer flying species in the study was recorded to travel up to 1 km to reach foraging ground.

• A study of bats in ‘live’ fences in Mexico found that these narrow vegetation lineages

afforded good temporary habitat to bat species, with 41% of surveyed bat species utilizing these environments (Estrada & Coates-Estrada 2001). However, it was noted that bats in these corridors were more susceptible to predation and were more exposed to unfavourable climatic conditions. Potential roosting sites and habitat offering permanent residency lacking in live fences was found in vegetation corridors with more diverse plant cover. From this, it appears that narrow corridors may be suitable for some bat species for foraging purposes, but may not be suitable for more permanent habitat such as roosting and breeding.

7.2.8. Rodents • Downes et al. (1999) recorded the use of roadside corridors as habitat by native and

exotic rodents within remnant forest, pasture and two types of roadside corridor. Results indicated that introduced rodents were most abundant in corridors and pastures, while native species were most common in forests. Native Bush rats in corridors were also found to weigh less than those in remnants. Downes et al. (1999) observed that results confirmed the need to consider the interspecific variation in corridor use when evaluating the role of corridors.

7.3 Implications for corridor design The general habitat/movement requirements of fauna are discussed in TABLE 2 below. Implications for corridor design are also discussed for each species or group as indicated in TABLE 2.

TABLE 2 MOVEMENT REQUIREMENTS OF TARGET FAUNA GROUPS

Target Group or Species

Habitat/Movement Requirements

Implications for Corridor Design

Amphibians A narrow (<40)* m riparian/wetland corridor is sufficient for Amphibian movement, depending on species present. *Critical habitat for Stream frogs (DEH 2002)

The core riparian area should be sufficient to provide protection from predators and to maintain moisture levels during extended periods of drought. A densely vegetated riparian corridor is considered adequate for Amphibian movement.

Reptiles A diversity of habitats is required to allow the

Provide dense core habitat areas and more open outer






movement of sun-loving and shade-loving species.

habitat areas.

Birds A densely vegetated corridor is adequate to enable most birds to move between remnant habitat areas up to 1.2km apart.

Corridors should include a densely vegetated core area and an outer densely vegetated buffer area to reduce impacts by introduced opportunistic species such as the Indian myna.

Small terrestrial mammals

Small terrestrial mammals generally occur in highest densities in association with a complex vegetation structure, particularly in areas with a dense understory layer that provides shelter from predators and which offers nesting opportunities.

Densely vegetated or moist forest habitat areas will facilitate the movement of forest interior species or species dependent on high levels of cover. More open forest types will facilitate the movement of woodland or grassland species and allow for foraging.

Macropods Macropods require dense habitats for shelter but will readily graze in open areas and may be sensitive to edge effects such as an increase in light, noise and activity. Minimisation of these effects will enhance the value of the corridor. Minimisation of dog predation can enhance the value of corridors.

Drier forest types will facilitate the movement of Macropods.

Arboreal Marsupials Many species appear to be sensitive to edge effects such as light noise and activity. Any form of revegetation will be of benefit to these species. .

Corridors of any width may be utilised. Minimisation of dog predation will enhance the value of the corridor






Microchiropteran bats Microchiropteran bats use riparian corridors (amongst other features) for navigation, although an open flyway of any structure will encourage movement between habitat areas. These species readily disperse through disturbed landscapes, although an open flyway of any structure will encourage movement between habitat areas. Sub-canopy foragers will benefit from retention of canopy elements.

As a minimum, ensure that an open flyway remains. The flyway may take the form of riparian habitat, open vegetation or closed forest types. To facilitate the movement of all species, forest (canopy) elements should be retained. These species are likely to forage smaller distances from the roost site compared to Megachiropteran bats. Retention of old growth vegetation is beneficial to microchiropterans.

Megachiropteran bats These species readily disperse through disturbed landscapes. Movements of this group are extensive and unrestricted by cleared or developed areas, however, forging occurs a certain distance from the roost site (depending on the species).

This group does not rely on formal corridors but rather patches of habitat near to the roost site, which are utilised sporadically. Retention of any areas of habitat will assist movement/local migration of this group.

8. Summary Where landscapes are fragmented and disturbed, corridors play a beneficial role in providing movement opportunities to areas of core habitat for both flora and fauna. The net gains for both flora and fauna (dispersal, exchange of genetic material, linkages with other populations, refuge etc.) are positive outcomes which can potentially contribute to the conservation of populations and species. While corridors may have some negative effects (such as increased predation), these are often the result of the nature of the corridor itself. Nevertheless, the provision of movement opportunities for flora and fauna are essential, and negative effects can be minimised via a number of mitigation measures such as the inclusion of buffer zones.

Corridor width is one of the key factors determining corridor function, and may vary widely between species with differing requirements. Thus, the planning and design of corridors, utilising optimal width for the identified purpose of the corridor and within the scale of the corridor matrix, is essential for good biodiversity conservation outcomes. It is not possible to recommend a single corridor width that is suitable for all habitat



situations. However, some guidelines apply. In general, the larger the corridor and corridor network the more successful the management strategy. Despite this, current literature suggests that in some situations bird and mammal species are able to disperse effectively through relatively narrow corridors, such as roadside verges. The identification and analysis of available corridor opportunities is likely to assist in developing optimal strategies to provide for species requirements and to promote species persistence and conservation.



References Andrews, A. (1990) Fragmentation of habitat by roads and utility corridors: a review, Australian Zoologist, 26(3&4): 130-140. Arnold, G. W and Weeldenberg, J. R. (1990) Factors determining the number and species of birds in road verges in the wheatbelt of Western Australia. In Bennett, A. F. (1990). Habitat Corridors: Their Role in Wildlife Management and Conservation. Department of Conservation and Environment, Victoria, Arther Rylah Institute for Environmental Research. Arnold, G. W., Algar, D., Hobbs, R. J. and Atkins, L. (1987). A survey of vegetation and its relationship to vertebrate fauna present in winter on road verges in the Kellerberrin District, W. A. In Bennett, A. F. (1990). Habitat Corridors: Their Role in Wildlife Management and Conservation. Department of Conservation and Environment, Victoria, Arther Rylah Institute for Environmental Research. Bennett, A. F. (1988) Roadside vegetation: a habitat for mammals at Naringal, south-western Victoria. In Bennett, A. F. (1990). Habitat Corridors: Their Role in Wildlife Management and Conservation. Department of Conservation and Environment, Victoria, Arther Rylah Institute for Environmental Research. Bennett, A. F. (1990) Habitat corridors and the conservation of small mammals in a fragmented forest environment. In Bennett, A. F. (1990). Habitat Corridors: Their Role in Wildlife Management and Conservation. Department of Conservation and Environment, Victoria, Arther Rylah Institute for Environmental Research. Bentley J.M., Catterall C.P. and Smith G.C. (2000) Effects of fragmentation of araucarian vine forest on small mammal communities. Conservation Biology 14: 1075–1087. Bier, P. and Loe, S. (1992) “In My Experience" A Checklist For Evaluating Impacts To Wildlife Movement Corridors. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 20: 434-440 Braithwaite, L. W. (2000) Affidavit Lionel Wayne Braithwaite in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales in the matter of Torquil Cameron and Numbucca Shire Council. Breckwoldt, R. (1983) Wildlife in the home paddock: nature conservation for Australian farmers, Angus & Robertson Publishing. Byron Shire Council (BSC) (1999) Byron Flora and Fauna Study 1999. Produced by Environmental Planning Services, Byron Shire Council.

Catterall, C.P, Jones R.J and Jones, D.N (1991) Habitat Use by Birds Across a Forest-Suburb interface in Brisbane: Implications for Corridors In a review In Nature Conservation 2: The Role of Corridors (Ed.) Saunders, D.A & Hobbs, R.J Surrey Beatty & Sons Pty. Limited.

Chenoweth & Associates (1994) Fauna corridor planning guidelines. Prepared for the Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage.



Churchill S (1998) Australian Bats. Reed New Holland. Date, E.M., Recher, H.F., and Ford, H. (1992). Status of rainforest pigeons in Northern New South Wales. Unpublished Report to NPWS, Sydney. Department of Environment and Heritage (DEH) (2004) http://deh.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/recovery/stream-frogs/introduction.html Downes, S.J. Handasyde, K.A. and Elgar, M.A. (1999) Variation in the use of corridors by rodents in south-eastern Australia, Biological Conservation, 82(3): 379-383. DRRVMP (2002) Draft Richmond Regional Vegetation Management PLan - prepared by the Dept. of Land & Water Conservation. Dunning, A. and Smith, A.P. (1986). Integration of arboreal mammal and reptile conservation with timber production in moist hardwood forests of NSW. A research report to the Forest Wildlife Advisory Committee, Department of Ecosystem Management, University of New England, Armidale. Estrada, A. and Coates-Estrada, R. (2001) Bat species richness in live fences and in corridors of residual rain forest vegetation at Los Tuxtlas, Mexico, Ecography, 24(1): 94-102. Friend, G. (1991) Does corridor width or composition effect movement? In Nature Conservation 2: The Role of Corridors (Ed.) Saunders, D.A & Hobbs, R.J Surrey Beatty & Sons Pty. Limited. GC NCS (1998) Gold Coast Nature Conservation Strategy: Flora and Fauna Resource Inventory and Ecological Assessment Vol. 2, Gold Coast City Council. Goldingay, R.L. and Kavanagh, R.P. (1991) The yellow-bellied glider: A review of its ecology, and management considerations. In Conservation of Australia’s forest fauna, (Ed.) D. Lunney. Royal Zool. Soc. NSW: Mosman. Pp. 365-75.

Harris, D.L & Scheck, J. (1991) From implications to applications: the dispersal corridor principle applied to the conservation of biological diversity. In Nature Conservation 2: the Role of Corridors, (Ed.) Saunders DA & Hobbs R.J. Surrey Beatty & Sons Pty Ltd.

Harrison, R.L. (1992) Toward a theory of inter-refuge corridor design. Conservation Biology 6: 293-296

Henein, K.M. and Merriam, G., (1990). The elements of connectivity where corridor quality is variable. Landscape Ecology 4: 157-70.

Hess, G.R. and Fisher, R.A. (2001) Communicating clearly about conservation corridors, Landscape and Urban Planning, 55(3): 195-208



Hobbs, R.J. and Hopkins, A.J.M. (1991). The role of conservation corridors in a changing climate, in The Role of Corridors (ed D.A. Saunders and R.J. Hobbs), Surrey Beatty and Sons, Chipping Norton, NSW. Hudgens, B.R. and N.M. Haddad. (2003). Predicting which species will benefit from corridors in fragmented landscapes from population growth models. The American Naturalist 161:808-820. Hussey, B.M.J., Hobbs, R.J. and Saunders, D.A. (1989). Guidelines for Bush Corridors – from the Workshop Conference on “Nature Conservation: the Role of Corridors.” Janzen, D.H. (1983) No park is an island: increase from interference from outside as park size decreases, Oikos, 41: 402-410. Kohm, K. (1991). Balancing on the Brink of Extinction: the Endangered Species Act and Lessons for the Future. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Laurance, W.F. (1991a) Ecological correlates of extinction proneness in Australian tropical rainforest mammals, Conservation Biology, 5: 78-89. Laurance, W.F. (1991b) Edge effects in tropical forest fragments: application of a model for the design of nature reserves, Biological Conservation, 57: 205-219. Laurance W. F. 1997. Responses of mammals to rainforest fragmentation in tropical Queensland: a review and synthesis. Wildlife Research 24: 603 612. Laurance, S.G. & Laurance, W.F. (1999) Tropical wildlife corridors: use of linear rainforest remnants by arboreal mammals, Biological conservation, 91(2&3): 231-239. Law, B.S., Anderson, J. and Chidel, M. (1999) Bat communities in a fragmented forest landscape on the south-west slopes of New South Wales, Australia, Biological Conservation, 88(3): 333-345. Lindenmayer DB and Nix HA (1993) Ecological Principles for the Design of Wildlife Corridors. Conservation Biol. 7: (3) Loney, B. & Hobbs, R.J. (1991) Management of vegetation corridors: maintenance, rehabilitation and establishment. In Saunders A. and Hobbs, R.J. Nature Conserves 2: The Role of Corridors. Surrey Beatty & Sons Pty Limited NSW. Lott, R.H. and Duggin, J.A. (1993). Conservation Significance and Long Term Viability of Sub-tropical Rainforest Remnants of the Big Scrub – North Eastern NSW. Department of Ecosystem Management, University of New England. Lunney D., Barker J., Priddel D. and O'Connell M. (1988) Roost selection by Gould's Long-eared Bat Nyctophilus gouldi Tomes (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae), in logged forest on the south coast of New South Wales. Australian Wildlife Research 15, 375-384.



McEuen. A. 1993. The Wildlife Corridor Controversy: A Review. Endangered Species Update, 10 (11 &12) McKenzie, P. (1995) Important criteria and parameters of wildlife movement corridors – a partial literature review. Prepared for the Southern Columbia Mountains Environmental Sector of the West Kootenay. McNeilage and Associates (2003) Redland Shire Council Koala Wildlife Corridors in Redland Shire. Middleton, W. G.D., (1980) Roadside vegetation, a habitat for wildlife. In Bennett, A. F. (1990). Habitat Corridors: Their Role in Wildlife Management and Conservation. Department of Conservation and Environment, Victoria, Arther Rylah Institute for Environmental Research. Newbey, B.J. and Newbey, K.R. (1987) Bird dynamics of Foster Road Reserve, near Ongerup, Western Australia In Bennett, A. F. (1990). Habitat Corridors: Their Role in Wildlife Management and Conservation. Department of Conservation and Environment, Victoria, Arther Rylah Institute for Environmental Research. Noss, R.F. (1991). From endangered species to biodiversity. Pages 227-246 in K. Kohm, ed. Balancing on the Brink of Extinction: the Endangered Species Act and Lessons for the Future. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 318pp. Noss, R.F., and Cooperrider, A.Y. (1994). Saving Nature's Legacy: Protecting and Restoring Biodiversity. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 416pp. NRM (2002) Corridors and clumps of native vegetation. Department of Natural Resources and Mines. NSW National Park & Wildlife Service (2004) Atlas of NSW Wildlife. www.npws.nsw.gov.au Pahl. L. (1993) Joint Regional Koala Habitat Project – Final Report. Report to Brisbane City Council, Redland Shire Council, Logan City Council, Australian Koala Foundation, Department of Lands and University of Queensland (Gatton College) Pahl, L., Wylie, F.R. and Fisher, R. (1990) Koala population decline associated with loss of habitat and suggested remedial strategies, In Koala summit: Managing Koalas in New South Wales (Eds.) D. Lunney, C.A. Urquhart and P. Reed. NSW NPWS, Sydney. pp 39-47 Planning SA (2004) Identification of strategic link lands for conservation. Australian Nature Conservation Agency. Prevett, P. T. 1991. Movement paths of koalas in the urban-rural fringes of Ballarat, Victoria: implications for management. Pages 259 272 in D. A. Saunders R. J. Hobbs, editors. Nature conservation 2: the role of corridors. Surrey Beatty & Sons, Chipping Norton, New South Wales, Australia.



Puth and Wilson (2001) In: Use of Riparian Corridors and Vineyards by Mammalian Predators in Northern California, Conservation Biology, 18(1): 126 Recher, H.F. (1993). The loss of biodiversity and landscape restoration: conservation, management, survival. An Australian perspective, in Reconstruction of Fragmented Ecosystems (ed. D.A.Saunders, R.J. Hobbs and P.R. Ehrlich), Surrey Beatty and Sons, Chipping Norton, NSW. Recher, H.F., Kavanagh, R.P., Shields, J.M. and Lindi, P. (1991). Ecological associations of the habitats and bird species during the breeding season in south-eastern NSW. Australian Journal of Ecology, 16:337-352. Recher, H.F., Rohan-Jones, W. and Smith, P. (1980). Effects of the Eden woodchip industry on terrestrial vertebrates with recommendations for management. Forestry Commision of NSW. Res. Note 42. Saunders, D.A. (1990) Problems of survival in an extensively cultivated landscape: the case of Carnaby’s Cockatoo, Biological Conservation, 54: 277-290. Sieving, K.E., Willson, M.F. and De Santo, T.L (1999) Defining corridor functions for endemic birds in fragmented south-temperate rainforest, Conservation Biology, 14(4): 1120-1132. Soule, M.E. & Gilpin M.E. (1991). The theory of Wildlife Corridor Capability. In Nature Conservation 2: the Role of Corridors. (Ed.) Saunders, D.A. & Hobbs, R.J. Stenseth, N.C., and Lidicker, Jr., W.Z. (1992). The study of dispersal: a conceptual guide. Animal Dispersal: Small Mammals as a model. Chapman and Hall. London: Pages 5-36. Suckling, G.C. (1984) Population ecology of the sugar glider, Petaurus breviceps, in a system of fragmented habitats. Aust. Wildl. Res. 11:49-75. Tewksbury, J.J., Levey D.J., Haddad N.M., Sargent S., Orrock J.L., Weldon A., Danielson B.J., Brinkerhoff J., Damschen E.I., and Townsend P. (2002) Corridors affect plants, animals, and their interactions in fragmented landscapes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99:12923-12926. White, N.A. (1999) Ecology of the Koala in rural south-east Queensland, Wildlife Research, 26: 731-744. WWC (1995) Fauna Impact Statement for Contaminated Landfill site – Swan Bay A Report to NSW Agriculture WWC (1996) A Kola Habitat Assessment of the Starkey Street Development Site A Report to Pike Mirls McKnoulty.

LEGEND

Town Centre / Neighbourhood Centre

Residential

Community Facilities / Education

Employment Land

Precinct Boundaries

Kings Forest Boundary

Structured Open Space (Active)

Environmental Protection Area to be Dedicatedto Council or NPWS

50m Ecological Buffer(includes APZ’s & roads where approved)

State School Site

location subject to urban design)(Passive open space to council standards,

Proposed Zone Substation(subject to Country Energy final approval)

Potential Affordable Housing Location

Potential Road Connection to Melaleuca Road

Private Open Space

Golf Course Area(encompassing ecological buffers whereindicated)

Private Open Space including Lake

PRECINCTS

PLAN

Project 28 Pty Ltd

SCALE: 1 : 20 000 @ A3

SOURCE: RPS (Ref: 113691-PSP-4a(PRECINCT PLAN).jpeg)

CLIENT

PROJECT

TITLE

FIGURE 1

PREPARED: BW

FILE: N97017_Precincts.cdr

DATE: 27 August 2012JAMES WARREN & ASSOCIATES PTY LIMITEDEnvironmental Consultants

Assessment of East-West Wildlife CorridorKings Forest EstateMelaleuca Drive, Duranbah, NSWShire of Tweed

N

0 500m

1 : 20 000

LEGEND

Tweed Coast Road Intersection Works

Kings Forest Parkway through to WesternPrecincts

Roads through to Southern Precincts

Indicative Bulk Earthworks Location(Refer to detailed engineering design byMortons Urban Solutions)


Earthworks Sequencing

SCOPE

OF WORKS

Project 28 Pty Ltd

SCALE: 1 : 20 000 @ A3

SOURCE: RPS (Ref: 113691-PSP-4a(SCOPE OF WORKS).jpeg); Mortons UrbanSolutions (Ref: sequencing COLOUR.pdf)

CLIENT

PROJECT

TITLE

FIGURE 2

PREPARED: BW

FILE: N97017_Scope.cdr



N

0 500m

1 : 20 000

CUDGEN

PADDOCK

EAST-WEST CORRIDOR

STOTTS ISLAND

NATURE RESERVE

CUDGEN

LAKE

PA

CIF

IC H

WY

CABARITA BEACH/

BOGANGAR

KINGSCLIFF

FAUNA OVERPASS

RIVER

TWEED

TW

EE

D C

OA

ST

RO

AD

TWEED VALLEY WAY

TROPICAL

FRUIT WORLD

STOTTS CREEK

EVIRON ROAD

UNDERPASS

SAND QUARRY

LAKE

LEGEND

East-West Corridor

SEPP 14 Wetlands

Cudgen Nature Reserve


Cudgen Paddock

Possible Extension of East-WestWildlife Corridor

2c Urban Expansion

7l Environmental Protection - Habitat

7a Environmental Protection - Wetlands &Littoral Rainforests

REGIONAL

CONTEXT

Project 28 Pty Ltd

SCALE: 1 : 40 000 @ A3

SOURCE: JWA; Landpartners (Ref: 00001056_C7_PL4D Proposed Zoning Plan 11.03.08); NPWS 05.06.06;Near Map 2011 Aerial; Google Earth 2011 Aerial

CLIENT

PROJECT

TITLE

FIGURE 3

PREPARED: BW

FILE: N97017_Context.cdr



N

1km0

1 : 40 000

KINGS FOREST ESTATE

SUBJECT SITE

LEGEND


LOCALITY

PLAN

Project 28 Pty Ltd

SCALE: 1 : 30 000 @ A3

SOURCE: Cudgen Topographic Map CLIENT

PROJECT

TITLE

FIGURE 4

PREPARED: BW

FILE: N97017_ .cdrLocality


Assessment of the East-West Wildlife Corridorstate

Melaleuca Drive, Duranbah, NSWShire of Tweed

Kings Forest E

N

750m0

1 : 30 000

LEGEND

East-West Corridor

7a - Environmental Protection - Wetlands &Littoral Rainforests

7l - Environmental Protection - Habitat


Kings Forest Zoning

2c - Urban Expansion

Regional Zoning

Agricultural Protection

Rural Living

Rural

Tourism

Environmental Protection - Wetlands &Littoral Rainforests

Environmental Protection - Coastal Lands

Recreation

Agricultural Protection

1b1

1c

1a

1b2

Environmental Protection - Scenic /Escarpment

Environmental Protection - Habitat

National Parks & Nature Reserves

2f

6b

7a

7d

7f

7l

8a

Open Space6a

Special Uses5a

General Business3b

Residential Tourist2e

Village2d

2c - Urban Expansion2c

Medium Density Residential2b

Low Density Residential2a

REGIONAL

ZONING

Project 28 Pty Ltd

SCALE: 1 : 40 000 @ A3

SOURCE: Tweed LEP 2000 Zoning (Sheet 45);Landpartners (Ref: 00001056_C7_PL4DProposed Zoning Plan 11.03.08)

CLIENT

PROJECT

TITLE

FIGURE 5

PREPARED: BW

FILE: N97017_Regional Zoning.cdr



N

1km0

1 : 40 000

ecological consultants - major projects

Documents