Director Conservation Incentives and Design Section Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities GPO Box 787, Canberra ACT 2601 To whom it may concern RE: Draft National Wildlife Corridors Plan The Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities are to be commended for this initiative. The plan is a well conceived document and represents an excellent step forward in corridor planning and management at a national level. The plan, and proposed Wildlife Corridors Act, has the potential to address the significant impacts that linear infrastructure has on fragmentation of habitat and wildlife mortality (i.e. roadkill). However, the draft plan only makes passing reference to such impacts and the mitigation measures that can be employed. Much can be learnt from the European example in this regard. Specifically I refer to Natura 2000 project executed in the European Union arising from the Habitats Directive (see http://www.natura.org/). An important component of this work is addressing fragmentation caused by linear infrastructure through the COST 341project 'Habitat Fragmentation due to Linear Transportation Infrastructure' (see http://www.iene.info/cost341.php and downloads available on this page). The plan and Wildlife Corridors Act could address the impacts of linear infrastructure in a similar manner by enforcing the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures where linear infrastructure is planned within the national corridor network. By not elevating the profile of road/rail crossing structures in a document such as the National Wildlife Corridors Plan will be a missed opportunity. Despite the Environment Institute of Australia and New Zealand (EIANZ) hosting a national symposium on the subject in 2009 and an ever growing awareness of the impacts of linear infrastructure on wildlife there have been no legislative advances with regard to enforcing barrier mitigation, with the minor exception of Queensland State Planning Policies pertaining to koala planning/management. Further, while the plan recognises the efforts of Federal/State Governments and non government organisations in corridor planning and management, there is only passing reference to the role of local government. Local government plays a significant role in the planning and management of corridors through planning scheme development and administration, land acquisitions, barrier mitigation and community programs - to identify but a few examples. The plan requires greater recognition of the role of local government and needs to identify the measures that can be employed to assist local government in corridor planning and management. Some specific comment regarding the draft plan: 1. Figures 2 and 4 would benefit from including linear infrastructure crossing structures (e.g. land bridges, rope bridges and underpasses including bridges or culverts). In many instances these are not “nice to have”, but fundamental to the survival of some species such as the Mountain Pygmy Possums (pictured on the front cover) or some north Queensland arboreal mammals. 2. While paragraph 1 of Section 1.5 (p.5) indicates the corridor network will include “Local-scale corridors” the 3 dot points in paragraph 3 excludes the notion. Local government plays a major role in identifying and managing biodiversity at the local level (a point acknowledged in Figure 4). It is suggested that a dot point is included along the lines of “Facilitating the identification of local-scale wildlife corridors through supporting local governments”. Support could include the development of a ‘toolkit’ for local government to identify, plan for and manage local corridors, or could extend to financial support (such as that currently provided under the NRS program). 3. Figure 3 is a little confusing. Continental corridors are not specifically illustrated/labeled. What purports to be a “Local Corridor” is around 6km wide. In Queensland, the State government maps “State Significant” wildlife corridors through their Biodiversity Planning Assessments that are 6km wide. Local corridors can be effective at a much narrower scale (~30-300m wide). It is therefore recommended that figure is amended to more accurately show the proposed hierarchy of corridors. 4. Paragraph 1 of page 19 refers only to “remnant” habitat and “remnants” of native vegetation. Many of the vital corridors remaining in the landscape support regrowth vegetation. Refer to http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:184589 by way of example. 5. Paragraph 1 of p. 20 introduces the notion of “urban and peri-urban wildlife corridors”. It is unclear how these differ from Local corridors. Similarly, the terms “ecological pathways” and “ecological networks” on p.23 are not defined. The document will significantly benefit from having all levels of corridor explicitly defined in the glossary. 6. While the image on p. 20 is attractive, it is known that it is a ‘set up’. Unfortunately there has been no thorough research indicating whether these ‘rail’ structures work for koalas, and in the instance of this image, it is understood a captive animal was placed on the rail. It would be far better to include an image of a vegetated land bridge (e.g. those in Queensland or northern New South Wales) that have been rigorously studied and have been shown to be effective. 7. The last paragraph on p.23 again fails to recognise the role of local government. Local government plays an important role in the planning, protection and management of corridors. Similarly, Table 1 on p.31 neglects to consider the role of local government and assumes all local initiatives are “community-led”; the role of local policy/regulatory mechanisms and corridor projects should not be discounted. 8. The second paragraph on p.26 proposes a ‘possible’ approach for establishing National Wildlife Corridors involving public nomination. While, from a consultative perspective, this has merit, it runs the risk of planning corridors in an ad hoc manner. A recommended approach would be to prepare a draft based on existing knowledge (i.e. what have State and local governments already mapped) and then call for nominations/comment. Calling for nominations before this important step potentially disregards the good work already undertaken by State and local governments. 9. One of the functions of the Act, as listed on p.25 could be a facilitation/support role as outlined in Point 2 above. 10. An Act represents an opportunity to ensure new linear infrastructure (roads/rail) within National Wildlife Corridors is constructed as not to compromise the functionality of the corridor. The Act can outline a process of identifying appropriate mitigation measures (such as land bridges, underpasses, funnel fencing etc.) to maintain, or in some instances enhance, connectivity. Ideally, existing infrastructure that compromise these corridors should be augmented with mitigation measures, but this may be beyond the ‘reach’ of the Act. It is recommended that this is added as one of the functions of the Act on p.25. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you require further elaboration of the points provided above I would be happy to provide additional input. 2 Yours sincerely David Francis 3