Broad Conservation Policies / Strategies

The Commonwealth has also produced broad strategies to guide biodiversity conservation and sustainable growth and development across Australia, including the following which may apply to GHFF habitat in the Lower Hunter:

• 
  National Local Government Biodiversity Strategy (ALGA 1999);
  
• 
  Australia’s Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 2010-2030 (DSEWPaC 2010); and
  
• 
  Australian Weeds Strategy (NRMMC 2006).
  

Table 4.2State Legislation and Policy

• 
  A regulation can be made (s113A) that declares that an activity or class of activity does not significantly affect a threatened species or its habitat (this would streamline processing of s91 applications and issuing of s95 certificates).
  
• 
  A Property Management Plan (PMP) can be prepared by a landholder and approved by the Director-General under s113B for the lands containing GHFF habitat. Works undertaken in accordance with an approved PMP do not require a s91 licence or s95 certificate.
  
• 
  A Joint Management Agreement between the Director-General and a public authority can be entered into under s121 to manage, control, regulate or restrict an action that is jeopardising the survival of a threatened species. Undertaking actions in accordance with the Joint Management Agreement is a defence to the offence of harming a threatened species or its habitat.
  

• 
  A conservation agreement may be entered into by the Minister and a landholder or public authority under s69B that provides for the management of land for the purpose of threatened species or its habitat. Actions undertaken in accordance with a conservation agreement are a defence to the offence of harming a threatened species or its habitat.
  
• 
  A general licence may be issued by the Director-General under s120 to harm a threatened species or its habitat; however it can only be issued if the harm or damage is for the welfare of an animal, or if there is a threat to life or property.
  

The National Parks and Wildlife Regulation 2002 exempts Aboriginal people from restrictions imposed by the NPW Act on hunting protected animals and gathering certain plants.

The NSW government has produced a State Plan (DPC 2011) and the draft NSW Biodiversity Strategy 2010 – 2015 (DECCW 2011), both of which confirm the commitment of the NSW State Government to biodiversity conservation.
OEH has produced the following government policies and guidelines to assist with administration of the TSC Act as it relates to the GHFF:

• 
  Flying-fox Camp Management Policy (DECC 2007b);
  
• 
  Netting of Commercial Fruit Trees - Guidelines to Protect Wildlife (OEH 2012d);
  
• 
  Nectar Food Trees - North east NSW. Natural Resource Management Advisory Series: Note 4 (DEC 2004a);
  
• 
  Flying-fox Camps - North east NSW. Natural Resource Management Advisory Series: Note 8 (DEC 2004b);
  
• 
  Fleshy Fruited Fruit Trees - North east NSW. Natural Resource Management Advisory Series: Note 5 (DEC 2004c);
  
• 
  Best Practice Guidelines for the Grey-headed Flying-fox (DECC 2008) ;
  
• 
  Grey-headed Flying-fox - Profile (OEH, 2012a);
  
• 
  Flying-foxes (OEH, 2012b);
  
• 
  Grey-headed Flying-fox Vulnerable Species Listing, Final Determination (NSW Scientific Committee, 2001); and
  
• 
  Priority Action Statements for the Grey-headed Flying-fox (OEH 2012c).
  

In particular, OEH’s Flying-fox Camp Management Policy is clear that the focus of management of any conflict associated with flying-fox camps and humans should be placed on managing the camp in-situ. The Flying-fox Camp Management Policy states that dispersal will only be supported as a last resort and that such actions need to be carefully planned to avoid animal cruelty issues (as specified in the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979) and relocation of flying-foxes to similarly unsuitable sites. Specifically, the Flying-fox Camp Management Policy provides that OEH will:

• 
  encourage the conservation of flying-fox camps on public and private land, and will protect and manage flying-fox camps on lands administered by OEH;
  
• 
  generally not support disturbing a flying-fox camp to force the animals to desert a camp, or to try and relocate a camp;
  
• 
  not support disturbing camps under the following circumstances:
  

• 
  from when females are heavily pregnant until such time as the young can fly independently;
  
• 
  when there are adverse climatic conditions;
  
• 
  when daytime temperatures are extremely high; or
  
• 
  when OEH considers it likely that, due to proximity, flying-foxes disturbed from a camp will join camps in nearby towns, compounding problems at those sites;
  

• 
  support camp management options that aim to retain flying-foxes in-situ;
  
• 
  require preparation and implementation of a strategic plan to manage a camp in-situ before consideration of any proposal to relocate a camp;
  
• 
  assess the level of compliance with the ‘Procedure for developing a flying-fox camp relocation proposal’ when assessing applications for a licence under s91 of the TSC Act;
  
• 
  require submission of a report assessing whether an attempt to relocate a flying-fox camp has been successful following all relocation attempts licensed by OEH;
  
• 
  require any person wishing to harm flying-foxes or damage their habitat obtain appropriate licences, including for cultural purposes under the TSC and NPW Acts;
  
• 
  encourage research into the ecology of flying-foxes and their use of camps, including research into camp selection criteria. Support for national population estimates will continue as a method of monitoring population trends and identifying new camps;
  
• 
  support bushland restoration activities that improve the quality, quantity and integrity of habitat in flying-fox camps and maintain camp function;
  
• 
  support licensed wildlife carers’ use of best practice to rehabilitate and release flying-foxes that have suffered as a result of extreme weather;
  
• 
  coordinate the preparation and implementation of an education and communication strategy in partnership with other agencies or organisations that share responsibility for addressing community needs and concerns;
  
• 
  provide access to information on flying-fox camp locations;
  
• 
  respond to public complaints about flying-fox camps promptly, courteously, and efficiently;
  
• 
  liaise with the relevant authorities to develop joint strategies and actions where flying-fox camps are located near airports;
  
• 
  encourage local government to protect flying-fox camps through local environmental planning controls;
  
• 
  encourage local government to consider the location of flying-fox camps early in strategic planning processes, particularly when planning for proposed residential areas, schools, and similar infrastructure;
  
• 
  encourage local government to prepare plans of management for flying-fox camps on council land and on land under councils’ care and control;
  
• 
  encourage consideration of the location of flying-fox camps and the provision of spatial separation between camps and hazard-reduction activities in the planning and implementation of bushfire hazard reduction activities; and
  
• 
  encourage consent authorities for native vegetation clearing and approval authorities for property vegetation plans (PVPs) under the Native Vegetation Act 2003, and organisations responsible for infrastructure development under various legislation, to identify and protect camps and provide for their expansion when undertaking strategic and site planning.
  

This strategy will be consistent with the above policies and state legislation.

4.3.1Lower Hunter Regional Strategy

The Lower Hunter Regional Strategy (LHRS; DoP 2006) provides a 25-year direction for conservation planning and actions in the Lower Hunter Valley, which incorporates Port Stephens, Newcastle, Lake Macquarie, Cessnock and Maitland. Its primary purpose is to identify and ensure the availability of land for projected growth and development in a sustainable manner. It is underpinned by the Lower Hunter Regional Conservation Plan described in Section 4.3.2. The SRD program and studies undertaken as part of the program such as this, will inform the current updates to the LHRS.
Since the release of the LHRS in 2006, the Lower Hunter LGAs have produced, or are in the process of producing, new Standard Instrument-based Local Environmental Plans (LEPs; refer to Section Table 4.4) that were required to be consistent with the LHRS. These LEPs refine the aims of the LHRS at a local level.
4.3.2Lower Hunter Regional Conservation Plan

Produced by DECCW (now OEH) in 2009, the Lower Hunter Regional Conservation Plan provides a 25-year direction for conservation planning and actions in the Lower Hunter Valley. It states that the “overarching goal for conservation in NSW…is that biodiversity and environmental value of soil, water quality and salinity, must be ‘improved or maintained’” (DECCW 2009b). These values are reflected in the Native Vegetation Act 2003 and the provisions for biodiversity certification under the TSC Act. The LHRCP is also currently under review and will be informed by the SRD program and studies undertaken as part of the program, including this one.

• 
  Watagan Ranges to Port Stephens;
  
• 
  South Wallarah Peninsula; and
  
• 
  Werakata National Park.
  

Alternatively, other suitable freehold lands which form sensible additions to formal conservation reserves, or those which protect features under-represented within the formal conservation reserve system, could be considered.

The NSW Department of Planning (DoP) drafted a strategy to guide the implementation of the LHRS within western lands of Lake Macquarie and Newcastle LGAs (DoP 2010), which have been identified as proposed urban and employment lands within the LHRS (DoP 2006). This strategy identifies indicative preferred land uses at a finer scale than that presented in the LHRS. It reaffirms the Watagan to Stockton green corridor and describes memorandums of understanding between major landholders (Coal & Allied Industries and Hunter Development Corporation) and the NSW Government to ensure development does not occur within this corridor and to secure the availability of lands to meet urban and employment development targets.

Catchment Management Authorities (CMAs) were established by the NSW government to work with regional communities to improve the management of the state’s natural landscapes. The area covered by this strategy occurs within the Hunter–Central Rivers Catchment Management Authority (HCRCMA). The Catchment Action Plan for the HCRCMA provides a 10-year plan to coordinate natural-resource work throughout a region, creating partnerships and collaborations with government, industry, community groups, and individuals. The Catchment Action Plan affects GHFF through its management and monitoring of impacts to native vegetation on land zoned for rural purposes, and those outside of the Newcastle LGA.

There may be Voluntary Conversation Agreements (VCAs) between landholders and the Minister administering the NPW Act. Likewise, Plans of Management and covenants (under the Conveyancing Act 1919) may occur in parts of the Lower Hunter to which this strategy applies. This strategy should be updated as such agreements are made. So far the following have been identified:

• 
  11 wildlife refuges;
  
• 
  12 conservation agreements; and
  
• 
  4 registered property agreements.
  

The following State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs) also contribute to conservation of native vegetation and therefore GHFF habitat conservation:

• 
  SEPP 14 Coastal Wetlands;
  
• 
  SEPP 26 Littoral Rainforest;
  
• 
  SEPP 44 Koala Habitat Protection; and
  
• 
  SEPP 19 Bushland in Urban Areas (Lake Macquarie only).
  

Legislation_and_Policy'>Table 4.4Local Government Legislation and Policy

A new standard LEP template was recently released by the DoP, with most councils updating their LEPs into the new standard format. This includes the Lower Hunter LGAs subject to this strategy (except Lake Macquarie). The following LEPs, therefore, apply:

• 
  Maitland Local Environmental Plan 2011;
  
• 
  Cessnock Local Environmental Plan 2011;
  
• 
  Port Stephens Local Environmental Plan 2011;
  
• 
  Newcastle Local Environmental Plan 2012;
  
• 
  Lake Macquarie Local Environmental Plan 2004; and
  
• 
  Lake Macquarie Local Environmental Plan – North Wallarah Peninsula 2000.
  

At the time of preparation of this strategy, Lake Macquarie City Council is awaiting adoption of a Standard Instrument based LEP. Lake Macquarie City Council also has a policy to guide the development of planning agreements under the EP&A Act. Planning agreements can be used for voluntary conservation of land as part of the developer’s contribution scheme. This policy covers dedication of lands and contribution of funding for the management of these lands (R. Economos pers. comm.).

• 
  Cessnock Biodiversity Management Plan (this plan unites various studies and programs aimed at restoring Endangered Ecological Communities (EECs) and protecting threatened species. For more information go to the Cessnock Management Plan page of OEH’s website); and
  
• 
  Newcastle Biodiversity Strategy 2006.
  

These locally-focussed biodiversity management strategies identify areas of environmental significance and / or conservation value, and strategies for their sustainable management and protection. The Cessnock Biodiversity Management Plan identifies local corridors and ranks areas for priority conservation work.

There are no non-government organisation policies or guidelines relating to GHFF habitat management and / or conservation. Factsheets are available from the Australasian Bat Society website that provide general information about Australia’s flying-foxes and bat diseases; however these are not specifically related to GHFF in the Lower Hunter.

1. 
   Summary of Legislation and Policies
   

5.

The Lower Hunter

7.

7.1.1Location

The following LGAs are the subjects of this strategy and are collectively referred to as the ‘Lower Hunter’ in this document (refer to Illustration 3.1):

• 
  Cessnock;
  
• 
  Lake Macquarie;
  
• 
  Maitland;
  
• 
  Newcastle; and
  
• 
  Port Stephens.
  

The Lower Hunter is located 160 km north of Sydney and extends over 4,291 km² (DoP 2006).

The Lower Hunter is home to the following traditional people: Awabakal, Darkinjung, Wonnarua and Worimi (DoP 2006).

Although rural and semi-rural areas comprise approximately 80% of the Lower Hunter, the region contains a variety of important ecological features, including extensive drinking-water aquifers, areas of rugged forest ranges and significant coastal and estuarine environments (DoP 2006). The area also contains internationally and nationally significant areas of ecological value; for example, the internationally recognised Kooragang Wetlands which are part of the Ramsar-listed Hunter Estuary Wetlands and support many migratory birds protected under JAMBA / CAMBA. Eighty-two threatened fauna species listed on the TSC Act occur or are likely to occur in the Lower Hunter (DECCW 2009b), reflecting the areas significant biodiversity values.

As the sixth-largest urban area in Australia, the Lower Hunter is identified for its potential for additional economic and population growth (DoP 2006). Historically, the economy of the Lower Hunter was based on agriculture, mining and industrial manufacturing. Recently, economic diversification has broadened the nature of economic endeavours and a skilled workforce has become a large component of available employment in the area. Interestingly, whilst a shift in nature of the economy is occurring, the Lower Hunter maintains its traditional, resourced-based industries, with the operation of a range of mining enterprises and related infrastructure significant to the national economy, including the world’s largest coal-exporting port.

3. 
   The Lower Hunter Regional Strategy (DoP 2006) identifies further growth in the Lower Hunter area, including 66,000 new jobs, 160,000 new residents and 115,000 new dwellings to “harness the Region’s competitive advantages to maximise economic opportunities of the next 25 years”.