Approved - NSW THREAT ABATEMENT PLAN · 11.2 Breakdown of the current costs (2005–06) 77. 11.2.1 Bitou bush control at priority sites (Action 1.1) 77. 11.2.2 Development of site-specific

Approved - NSW THREAT ABATEMENT PLAN

Invasion of native plantcommunities by

Chrysanthemoides monilifera(bitou bush and boneseed)

July 2006

Threat Abatement Plan - Invasion of native plant communities by Chrysanthemoides monilifera

© Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) 2006This work is protected by copyright. No part of this publication may be reproduced without the prior writtenpermission of the Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW DEC), except where permittedunder the Copyright Act 1968.

Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW)Parks and Wildlife DivisionPest Management Unit43 Bridge StreetPO Box 1967Hurstville NSW 2220Telephone: 1300 361 967Website: http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/index.htm

For further information regarding this plan contact:Bitou bush threat abatement plan coordinatorPest Management UnitParks and Wildlife DivisionDepartment of Environment and Conservation (NSW)PO Box 1967Hurstville NSW 2220

Cover photos:

1

23

4 5 6 7 8

1 Flowers of bitou bush (Chrysanthemoides monilifera subsp. rotundata) –Hillary Cherry

2 Flowers of boneseed (Chrysanthemoides monilifera subsp. monilifera) –Hillary Cherry

3 Chrysanthemoides monilifera subsp. rotundata (bitou bush) infestationnear Wooli, New South Wales – Paul Downey

4–8 High priority species threatened by Chrysanthemoides monilifera4 Zieria smithii – Jackie Miles and Max Campbell5 Eastern suburbs banksia scrub – P.H. Glass6 Senecio spathulatus – Jackie Miles and Max Campbell7 Calystegia soldanella – Jackie Miles and Max Campbell8 Actites megalocarpa – Jackie Miles and Max Campbell

This plan should be cited as:DEC (Department of Environment and Conservation) (2006). NSW Threat Abatement Plan –Invasion of native plant communities by Chrysanthemoides monilifera (bitou bush and boneseed).Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW), Hurstville.

ISBN 1 74137 855 9; DEC 2006/115


i

Table of contents Page

Executive summary iv

Preface viWhat is a threat abatement plan? viThe draft Bitou TAP and this final TAP viThe time-frame and review of the TAP vi

Acknowledgments vii

List of abbreviations used viii

1 Introduction 1

2 Relevant legislation, policies, strategies and programs 32.1 National legislation, policies, strategies and programs 3

2.1.1 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 32.1.2 Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code Act 32.1.3 Biological Control Act 42.1.4 Commonwealth Coastal Policy 42.1.5 National Weeds Strategy 52.1.6 Weeds of National Significance 62.1.7 Cooperative Research Centre for Australian Weed Management 62.1.8 Natural Heritage Trust initiatives 62.1.9 Defeating the Weeds Menace initiative 72.1.10 Other national legislation, policies, strategies and programs 8

2.2 NSW legislation, policies, strategies and programs 82.2.1 NSW Noxious Weeds Act 82.2.2 NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 92.2.3 NSW Pesticides Act 102.2.4 Protection of the Environment Operations Act 112.2.5 NSW National Parks and Wildlife Act 112.2.6 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 122.2.7 Local Government Act 132.2.8 Catchment Management Authorities 132.2.9 NSW Coastal Policy 132.2.10 NSW Weeds Strategy 142.2.11 NSW Biodiversity Strategy 142.2.12 Strategies to manage bitou bush in New South Wales 142.2.13 Other NSW legislation, policies, strategies and programs 16

3 The biology and ecology of bitou bush and boneseed 173.1 Plant descriptions and biology 17

3.1.1 Bitou bush (Chrysanthemoides monilifera subsp. rotundata) 173.1.2 Boneseed (Chrysanthemoides monilifera subsp. monilifera) 18

3.2 Bitou bush and boneseed as environmental weeds 193.2.1 Arrival and spread of bitou bush in Australia 193.2.2 Arrival and spread of boneseed in Australia 203.2.3 Invasion by bitou bush and boneseed 203.2.4 Habitats invaded by bitou bush and boneseed 21

4 The impact of bitou bush and boneseed invasions on native plant communities 224.1 Bitou bush and boneseed invasions and biodiversity 22

4.1.1 Disturbance and bitou bush and boneseed invasions 234.2 Plant species, populations and ecological communities at risk 24

4.2.1 Why select biodiversity at risk? 244.2.2 Selecting and prioritising plant species at risk from invasion 244.2.3 High priority species 264.2.4 Selecting and prioritising plant populations at risk 304.2.5 High priority plant populations 314.2.6 Selecting and prioritising ecological communities at risk 32


ii


4.2.7 High priority ecological communities 334.2.8 Revising the priority lists of species, populations and ecological communities 36

5 The impact of bitou bush and boneseed invasions on fauna 375.1 Interactions between bitou bush and vertebrates (birds and mammals) 375.2 Interactions between bitou bush and invertebrates 39

6 Determining priority sites for bitou bush control 416.1 Selecting and prioritising sites 41

6.1.1 Control categories 426.2 Bitou bush control 42

6.2.1 Control category 1 sites (high priority) 426.2.2 Control category 2–5 sites 436.2.3 Control at locations not addressed in this plan 44

7 Control of bitou bush and boneseed 457.1 Control techniques 457.2 Issues associated with bitou bush and boneseed control 477.3 Follow-up treatments 487.4 A staged approach to bitou bush control 49

7.4.1 Littoral rainforest - an example of a staged approach 507.5 Site-specific management 50

7.5.1 A framework for site-specific management plans 507.6 Infestation levels and control options 517.7 Areas presently free of bitou bush and boneseed in NSW 53

7.7.1 Areas at risk of invasion by bitou bush and boneseed 537.8 The ‘no change in current management’ control option 537.9 Roles and responsibilities with respect to bitou bush control 54

7.9.1 The role of the Bitou TAP in bitou bush management in NSW 54

8 Monitoring the recovery of priority biodiversity and the control of bitou bush 558.1 Developing a monitoring system for control category 1 sites 55

8.1.1 Measuring the effect of control programs on bitou bush infestations 568.1.2 Measuring the response of high priority species, populations and ecological

communities to bitou bush control 578.1.3 Measuring the response of other weed species to bitou bush control 578.1.4 Proposed monitoring system 57

8.2 Monitoring other variables of importance to the TAP 588.2.1 Measuring the response of priority species to herbicide 588.2.2 Measuring the response of priority species to non-herbicide control 598.2.3 Measuring the spread of bitou bush and boneseed in NSW 598.2.4 Specific monitoring and research to help reduce impacts 598.2.5 Monitoring fauna impacts 60

9 A strategy to minimise the impact of Chrysanthemoides monilifera on priority biodiversityin New South Wales 61

9.1 Background 619.2 Aims and objectives of the Bitou TAP 619.3 Objective 1: Priority bitou bush control programs 62

9.3.1 Action 1.1 639.3.2 Actions 1.2 and 1.3 649.3.3 Action 1.4 64

9.4 Objective 2: Monitor the effectiveness of bitou bush control programs 659.4.1 Action 2.1 659.4.2 Action 2.2 669.4.3 Action 2.3 669.4.4 Action 2.4 66

9.5 Objective 3: Native plant species and bitou bush 679.5.1 Action 3.1 67

9.6 Objective 4: Public involvement and awareness 67


iii


9.6.1 Action 4.1 679.6.2 Action 4.2 69

9.7 Objective 5: Bitou TAP coordinator 699.7.1 Action 5.1 69

9.8 Objective 6: Impact of bitou invasions on fauna 709.8.1 Action 6.1 70

9.9 Objective 7: Effect of bitou bush control on fauna 719.9.1 Action 7.1 71

9.10 Objective 8: Review data and set future priorities 729.10.1 Action 8.1 and 8.2 72

10 Social and economic impacts of the Bitou TAP 74

11 Costs and implementation of this TAP 7611.1 Summary of the current expenditure associated with proposed actions outlined in this TAP 7611.2 Breakdown of the current costs (2005–06) 77

11.2.1 Bitou bush control at priority sites (Action 1.1) 7711.2.2 Development of site-specific management plans (Actions 1.2 and 1.3) 7811.2.3 Bitou control in northern and southern containment zones (Action 1.4) 7811.2.4 Monitor bitou bush control programs at priority sites (Action 2.1) 7811.2.5 Determining the effects of herbicide on threatened species (Action 2.2) 7811.2.6 Monitoring the spread of bitou bush and boneseed (Action 2.3) 7911.2.7 Developing a management strategy for boneseed (Action 2.4) 7911.2.8 Decline in native plants due to bitou bush (Action 3.1) 7911.2.9 Coordination and training of volunteers (Action 4.1) 7911.2.10 Public awareness of the Bitou TAP (Action 4.2) 7911.2.11 Bitou TAP coordinator (Action 5.1) 8011.2.12 Bitou bush and fauna (Actions 6.1–7.2) 8011.2.13 Establish future priorities (Actions 8.1 and 8.2) 80

12 References 81

13 List of personal communications cited 85

Appendix 1 Chrysanthemoides monilifera listings under the NSW Noxious Weeds Act 1993 86

Appendix 2 Development of a model to rank plant species threatened by bitou bush invasion 87

Appendix 3 Species considered in the TAP 91

Appendix 4 Development of a model to rank plant populations and ecological communitiesthreatened by bitou bush invasion 96

Appendix 5 Plant populations and ecological communities considered in the TAP 98

Appendix 6 Selecting priority sites for bitou bush control 100

Appendix 7 Sites for bitou bush control considered in the TAP 105

Appendix 8 Category 1 sites for each of the high priority species, populations andecological communities 121

Appendix 9 Pro-forma for developing site-specific management plans 126

Appendix 10A Species at risk from herbicide application 130

Appendix 10B Plant species examined for herbicide sensitivity 131

Appendix 11 Map of bitou bush density in NSW 134

Appendix 12 Distribution maps of high priority species and ecological communities in NSW 135


iv

Executive summary

Since the arrival of Chrysanthemoides monilifera subsp. rotundata (bitou bush) from South Africain 1908, this highly invasive shrub has spread to occupy approximately 80% of coastal New SouthWales. It now poses the single greatest threat to NSW coastal ecosystems and coastal biodiversity,especially along the north coast. If it continues to expand unabated, within a decade there will beno area of the NSW coast unaffected. It forms dense infestations that smother sand dune, headlandand hind dune vegetation communities including coastal grasslands, heathlands, woodlands,swamps/wetlands and forests.

Invasion of native plant communities by bitou bush and boneseed (C. monilifera) was listed as akey threatening process under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act) in1999. In accordance with the TSC Act, the Department of Environment and Conservation hasfinalised a Threat Abatement Plan (TAP) which proposes actions to reduce the impacts ofC. monilifera on biodiversity, particularly threatened species, populations and ecologicalcommunities. This document is hereafter referred to as the Bitou TAP.

To meet the requirements of a TAP, control of C. monilifera must be prioritised to target thespecies, populations and ecological communities at greatest risk and where C. monilifera controlprograms are likely to have the most significant outcome for such threatened biodiversity. Whilethis TAP establishes a strategic approach to deliver statewide conservation benefits, otherC. monilifera management programs will occur independently of this TAP, for example, at highvisitation areas within national parks, or where small isolated patches can be easily treated beforethey become problematic.

Nationally, C. monilifera poses a direct threat to at least 30 threatened plant species and oneecological community listed under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act1999 (EPBC Act). Within New South Wales, it poses a direct threat to at least 55 threatened plantspecies, three endangered plant populations and 15 endangered ecological communities (EEC)listed under the TSC Act. It also threatens another 103 plant species and 11 ecologicalcommunities not formally recognised as threatened (i.e. under threatened species legislation). Inaddition, there are potentially many other plant species and ecological communities that are underthreat for which limited information is available, particularly with respect to fauna.

The Bitou TAP has five underlying components, which aim to:< develop a strategic framework for delivering control of C. monilifera to areas of high

conservation value (in terms of biodiversity at greatest risk from invasion) independentof land tenure

< monitor the effectiveness of control programs in terms of the recovery of thebiodiversity at risk

< develop and promote best practice management< foster community education, involvement and awareness< identify and fill knowledge gaps where possible.

The Bitou TAP provides a strategy for C. monilifera control that will have positive outcomes forthe conservation of native plant species and ecological communities in New South Wales. TheBitou TAP determines priority plant species, populations and ecological communities that are atrisk and identifies locations of such biodiversity to determine priority sites for the control of


C. monilifera. This matrix of threatened entities (species, populations and ecologicalcommunities) by sites establishes statewide as well as regional priorities for C. monilifera controlwhich will aid in the broader conservation of over 185 threatened entities at 349 sites,independent of land tenure.

In order to implement best practice management techniques for the control of C. monilifera,information on the respective site and the threatened biodiversity present is needed. To ensurebest practice management, site-specific management plans are to be developed for priority sites.These plans will maximise effectiveness of control programs while minimising any negativeimpacts on native species, particularly the biodiversity identified at risk at each priority site.

Monitoring the effectiveness of the control programs at priority sites is a core component of theBitou TAP, not just in terms of C. monilifera control, but the response of priority species,populations and ecological communities to control. Data collected from these monitoringprograms is critical in determining the success of this plan and to refine future control methodsand guide future priorities.

While the development of this plan has substantially increased our understanding of the impact ofC. monilifera on native plant communities, significant additional information is still needed. Forexample, with respect to: i) the effects of C. monilifera and its control on fauna species, ii) hownative species decline following invasion, and iii) impact of herbicide on native species.

As a number of actions, or parts thereof, outlined in this plan are already being implemented, theactual cost associated with each of these actions in the 2005–06 financial year is presented here asa guide to the estimated cost of implementing this TAP. The cost of implementing these actions in2005–06 was $2,845,500. This included expenditure by the DEC, Department of Lands (DoL),numerous councils, the five coastal Catchment Management Authorities (CMAs) and theUniversity of Wollongong. Those actions currently unfunded are not presented in the costing ofthis TAP (these are research actions which target the knowledge gaps identified during thepreparation of this TAP). It is anticipated that the actual expenditure in 2005–06 is a reasonableestimate of the actual annual cost of implementing this plan, assuming that a similar level ofcommitment is maintained by these organisations in the future (i.e. over the life of this plan).

The Bitou TAP will be implemented over a five year period, being from 2006 until 2011. Actionsin this TAP will be undertaken by the NSW Department of Environment and Conservation(specifically the Parks and Wildlife Division) and the NSW Department of Lands. At present arange of other stakeholders are currently involved with the actions outlined in this TAP. Thesegroups along with local government, CMAs, private landholders and the community areencouraged to participate in the implementation of this TAP.

Lisa CorbynDirector General

v

Hon Bob DebusMinister for the Environment


vi

Preface

What is a threat abatement plan?

A threat abatement plan or TAP is a statutory document prepared in accordance with the NSWThreatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act), for a key threatening process (KTP) listedunder the Act. The TAP’s principle aim is to reduce, abate or ameliorate the threat posed by theKTP to threatened species, populations and ecological communities, or those species which maybecome threatened as a result of the KTP. A TAP is a five year plan to reduce, abate or amelioratethe threat, rather than an eradication strategy per se. This is because the nature of some KTPsprecludes eradication in the short term and the best approach involves setting priorities to reduce,abate or ameliorate the threat, specifically targeting its impacts on threatened entities identifiedunder the TSC Act.

The draft Bitou TAP and this final TAP

In September 2004, the draft NSW Threat Abatement Plan for the Invasion of native plantcommunities by bitou bush/boneseed (Chrysanthemoides monilifera) was released for publiccomment (see DEC 2004). After the public exhibition period, the draft TAP was revised based onthe written submissions received. A statement of how these submissions were addressed in theamended plan formed part of the approval process for the final TAP. While the objectives of theTAP have not changed in terms of the actions, the major amendments to the TAP between thedraft and this final version include:

a) a revision of the species modelb) the development of a population and ecological community modelc) the inclusion of 95 additional species, 1 population and 17 ecological communities at riskd) the addition of 391 locations for the entities examined, including new information for those

entities presented in the draft.e) a revision to the site model to address sites that contained multiple entities at riskf) a revised process for ranking sitesg) a revised number and list of priority sites (i.e. Category 1 sites)h) a new action relating to the northern and southern containment zonesi) a new action relating to the mapping of boneseed and the development of a management

strategyj) updated costingsk) several sections were enhanced by the inclusion of additional information (most of which

was new since the draft)l) revised order of the text.

The time-frame and review of the TAP

This TAP will be implemented over a five year period from its release (i.e. from 2006 until 2011).At the end of this five year period the plan will be reviewed and a revised plan prepared inaccordance with the TSC Act.


vii

Acknowledgments

This document was written by Dr Paul Downey (Department of Environment and Conservation (NSWDEC) Pest Management Unit, Parks and Wildlife Division), based on the draft Bitou TAP (see DEC 2004).

The author wishes to thank the following people for their assistance:

DEC staff (in alphabetical order): Dominic Adshead, Bruce Armstrong, Ruth Armstrong, Dr Jack Baker,Doug Beckers, Martin Bremner, Di Brown, Hillary Cherry, Neville Cork, Valda Corrigan, Dr AaronCoutts-Smith, Phil Craven, Sharon Davern, Alex Deura, Mike Dodkin, John Eaton, Joanne Edney, VickiElliot, Glen Gifford, Ron Haering, Mel Hall, Deb Holloman, Paul Ibbetson, Mathew Jones, Tiffany Knott,Tanya Leary, Dr Andrew Leys, Rob McKinnon, Dr Paul Mahon, Justin Miller, Les Mitchell, BrendonNeilly, Brad Nesbitt, Clare O'Brien, Samantha Olson, Russell Palmer, Brett Pengilley, Liz Phelps, LucindaRansom, Tim Scanlon, Mel Schroder, Craig Shepherd, Libby Shields, Martin Smith, Jeff Thomas, JuliaVisser, Maxine Walker, Ross Wellington, Lisa Wellman, Graham Wilson and Peter Windle.

Local government staff (in alphabetical order): Richard Ali (Warringah Council), Greg Banks (GreaterTaree City Council), Mat Bell (Great Lakes Council), Ian Borrowdale (Shoalhaven City Council), HankBower (Byron Shire Council), Stewart Brawley (Tweed Shire Council), Jai Cooper (Greater Taree CityCouncil), Andrew Coughlan (Sutherland Shire Council), David Croft (Sutherland Shire Council), GeoffDoret (Sutherland Shire Council), Greg Egan (Kempsey Council), Leigh Ernst (Port Stephens Council), IanGaskell (Ballina Council), Christine Guthrie (Sutherland Shire Council), Graham Harding (EurobodallaShire Council), Kim Hignell (Lake Macquarie Council), Jeff Hill (Woollahra Council), Daniel Hirschfeld(Randwick Council), John Hughson (Lake Macquarie City Council), Terry Inkson (Great Lakes Council),Eddie Lanting (Gosford Council), Jenny le Cussin (Lord Howe Island Board), Reece Luxton (ClarenceValley Council), Tim McCloud (Shellharbour Council), Anthony Marchment (Port Stephens Council),Graham Matthews (Eurobodalla Shire Council), Paul O'Conner (Hastings Council), David Pomery(Illawarra District Noxious Weeds Authority), Barry Powell (Coffs Harbour Council), Graham Pritchard(Port Stephens Council), Col Redman (Nambucca Shire Council), Omar Seychell (Randwick Council), IanTurnbull (Bellingen Shire Council), Eva Twarkowski (Pittwater Council) and Darren Williams (WyongShire Council).

Staff from the Department of Lands (in alphabetical order): Peter Boumann, Joe Cummins, Bob Fish,Adrian Hart, Terry Hemmingway, Julie Hickman, Wayne McIntyre, Frank McLeod and John Woods.

Individuals (in alphabetical order): Mark Armstrong (DoD), Andrew Benwell (Sydney Central RegionalWeeds Committee), David Burton (NSW Golf Club), Phillip Busuttil (Clarkes Beach Caravan Park), NickDexter (DEH), Rod Ensby (NSW Agriculture), Paul Flower, Kris French (UoW), Daintry Gerrand, RussGlover (DNR), Dr Carl Gosper (QNR&M), Steven Griffith, Rhonda James, Rod Kidd (DNR), Jo Lynch(Sydney Central Regional Weeds Committee), Annette McKinley (Sydney Central Regional WeedsCommittee), Tanya Mason (UoW), Gerard Proust, Rita Roberts (St Michael's Golf Course) and KerryThompson. Groups (in alphabetical order): Arakwal NP Local Aboriginal Group, Cape Byron Trust,Dirrawong Reserve Community Trust, Killalea Trust.

Finally, Catherine Munro made comments and provided editorial advice on the draft and the final TAP, JeffThomas (DEC) made a significant contribution to the draft and the final TAP, especially with respect toselecting species at risk, sites and feedback on the content of the TAP, and Clare O’Brien (DEC) collatedsite information and assisted in the development of the new site assessment system. Thank you again to allthose who helped. It would not have been possible to complete this TAP without your assistance. If anyonehas been excluded it is an oversight and your help is hereby acknowledged in hindsight.


viii

List of abbreviations used

Abbreviation expanded textAgvet Act Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code 1994 (Commonwealth) [also Agvet Chemicals]ANZECC Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation CouncilAPVMA Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (formerly NRA)AQIS Australian Quarantine Inspection ServiceARMCANZ Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New ZealandAWC Australian Weeds CommitteeBC Act Biological Control Act 1984 (Commonwealth)Bitou TAP TAP for invasion of native plant communities by bitou bush/boneseed (Chrysanthemoides monilifera)CAMBA China–Australia Migratory Bird AgreementCAP Catchment Action PlanCCP Commonwealth Coastal PolicyCMA Catchment Management AuthorityCRC Cooperative Research CentreDAFF Department of Agricultural Forestry and Fisheries AustraliaDEC Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW: incorporating the former NPWS and EPA)DEH Department of the Environment and HeritageDoD Department of DefenceDoL Department of Lands (NSW)DPI Department of Primary Industries (NSW)DWM Defeating the Weeds MenaceEEC Endangered Ecological Community as defined under the NSW TSC Act and the EPBC ActEPA Environment Protection Authority [now part of the Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW)]EPBC Act Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Commonwealth)EP&A Act Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW)ESBS Eastern Suburbs Banksia ScrubGIS Geographical Information SystemIWM Integrated Weed ManagementJAMBA Japan–Australia Migratory Bird AgreementKDF Kurnell Dune ForestKTP Key Threatening ProcessLCA Local Control Authorities (referring to regions under the Noxious Weeds Act 1993)LGA Local Government AreaLG Act Local Government Act 1993 (NSW)NCWAC North Coast Weeds Advisory CommitteeNHT Natural Heritage TrustNP National ParkNPW Act National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NSW)NPWS NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service [now part of the Department of Environment and Conservation

(NSW)]NR Nature ReserveNRA National Registration Authority for agricultural and veterinary chemicals (now APVMA)NRC Natural Resource CommissionNRM Natural Resource ManagementNRMSC Natural Resource Management Standing CommitteeNW Act Noxious Weeds Act 1993 (NSW)NWAC NSW Noxious Weeds Advisory CommitteeNWS National Weeds StrategyPAS Priorities Action StatementPoM Plan of ManagementPOEA polyoxethylene aminePOEO Act Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997QNR&M Queensland Department of Natural Resources and MinesRCC Regional Competitive ComponentRBG Royal Botanic GardensRMP Regional Management PlansROTAP Rare or threatened Australian plantsSCA State Conservation Area (formerly SRA: State Recreation Area)SCARM Standing Committee on Agricultural and Resource ManagementSEPP State Environmental Planning Policysubsp. Subspecies (also referenced as ssp. in some texts)TAP Threat abatement planTSC Act Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (NSW)WINS Weed Impacts on Native Species assessment toolWONS Weeds of National Significance


1

1 Introduction

Two subspecies of Chrysanthemoides monilifera have been introduced to Australia from SouthAfrica; both are now widely established and are major environmental weeds. Since theirintroduction, bitou bush (subsp. rotundata) and boneseed (subsp. monilifera) have invaded a widerange of coastal habitats, including sand dunes, coastal grasslands, heathlands, woodlands andforests. Today, bitou bush poses the greatest threat in New South Wales, while boneseed poses aserious threat in Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia. Their combined impact has been suchthat they were collectively listed as one of the 20 Weeds of National Significance (WONS) by theAustralian Government (Thorp and Lynch 2000).

A recent survey of bitou bush in New South Wales showed that it was present alongapproximately 900 km (80%) of the coastline (Thomas and Leys 2002), an increase ofapproximately 240 km (36%) over the last 20 years (see Love 1984 for previous survey results).The current survey recorded bitou bush up to 10 km inland and noted that it was the dominantspecies along 400 km of the coast. The extent of the bitou bush problem in New South Wales hasresulted in it being declared a noxious weed under the NSW Noxious Weeds Act 1993.

Boneseed is not as widespread in New South Wales. It mainly occurs as isolated smallinfestations, however, larger infestations occur around Sydney and south of the Hunter River.Boneseed can occur further inland than bitou bush. As boneseed is a major weed in Victoria,Tasmania and South Australia it could pose a serious threat to New South Wales in the future if itis not managed.

Bitou bush and boneseed proliferate because of their rapid growth, large seed production, thecapacity to develop large dormant soil seed banks, and their lack of natural enemies in Australia(native or otherwise). They have the potential to grow in a wide range of coastal environments.The combination of these factors has allowed bitou bush to predominate and signals the potentialthreat from boneseed within New South Wales. The worst case scenario for bitou bush/boneseedinvasion would be dense monocultures that displace native species and alter ecosystem dynamics;such infestations occur along approximately 400 km of the NSW coastline (Thomas and Leys2002). Effective control is well beyond the current resources of most land managers.

A national strategy for bitou bush and boneseed was developed in 2000 (ARMCANZ et al. 2000).Other strategies include the NSW Bitou Bush Strategy (NPWS 2001a) and specific regionalstrategies within New South Wales (Gerrand 2000; Scanlon 2001; Broese van Groenou andWolfenden 2002). These strategies prioritise and coordinate management objectives acrossdifferent levels of government, interest groups and local communities, resulting in a more focusedand extensive control effort within New South Wales. However, these strategies are notspecifically designed to combat the threat of bitou bush or boneseed invasion to threatenedspecies and ecological communities. As such, both the national and state strategies identified thedevelopment of a threat abatement plan for bitou bush and boneseed as a high priority.

In 1999 Invasion of native plant communities by bitou bush and boneseed (Chrysanthemoidesmonilifera) was listed as a Key Threatening Process (KTP) to biodiversity under the NSWThreatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act). The NSW Scientific Committee listedbitou bush as a KTP because of the area occupied, its biology and dominance, and the number ofspecies and ecological communities that are potentially at risk from invasion (NSW SC 1999a).


2

Prior to the development of the draft of this plan (see DEC 2004), bitou bush and boneseed hadbeen documented to threaten at least 18 plant species and three ecological communities,collectively (see ARMCANZ et al. 2000). However, these numbers are a gross under-representation of the impact, as outlined in the draft TAP, which identified 63 species, twopopulations and nine ecological communities at risk from bitou bush in New South Wales alone;numbers which were greatly increased here (see Appendices 3 and 5).

This plan or final TAP (hereafter referred to as the Bitou TAP) aims to address the KTP listingsfor Chrysanthemoides monilifera, specifically with respect to bitou bush. Information onboneseed is also presented where relevant however, as this subspecies could pose a similarproblem in New South Wales if its distribution were to increase substantially as has occurred inVictoria and Tasmania. To avoid repeated usage of the compound term ‘bitou bush/boneseed’ allmentions of bitou bush within this TAP are to be understood also to include the threat andproposed management of boneseed where appropriate.

This plan outlines and identifies:< legislation, programs and strategies relevant to bitou bush management with respect to

the development of a TAP (see Chapter 2 and Appendix 1 for NSW Noxious Weedlistings)

< the biology and ecology of bitou bush and boneseed (see Chapter 3)< impacts of bitou bush on native plant communities (see Chapter 4), especially the plant

species, populations and ecological communities identified to be at risk from invasionalong with the selection process for such entities (as outlined in Appendices 2–5)

< impacts to fauna and the need for additional information (see Chapter 5)< priority sites for the control of bitou bush which will have the greatest benefit to

biodiversity conservation, in terms of the biodiversity identified at risk, and outlinesthe site selection process (see Chapter 6 and Appendices 6–8)

< current control/management techniques and options for bitou bush along with theimpacts of these programs on biodiversity (including off-target effects) (see Chapter 7)

< additional management information, such as a proforma for developing site-specificmanagement plans (see Appendix 9), the flora and fauna species that may besusceptible to herbicide and hence should be considered in all control programs (seeAppendix 10), a NSW bitou bush distribution map (see Appendix 11) and thedistribution maps of the priority biodiversity at risk (see Appendix 12)

< monitoring required to assess the effectiveness of such control programs at prioritysites, especially with respect to protecting biodiversity (see Chapter 8)

< objectives and actions to abate, ameliorate or eliminate the threat of bitou bush tonative threatened plant species, populations and ecological communities within NewSouth Wales (along with performance criteria for each) (see Chapter 9)

< economic and social implications of the Bitou TAP (see Chapter 10)< costs associated with implementing each of the actions and the likely stakeholders (see

Chapter 11).


3

2 Relevant legislation, policies, strategies andprograms

2.1 National legislation, policies, strategies and programs

The Commonwealth legislation and national policies, strategies and programs that influence bitoubush and/or boneseed management are presented below.

2.1.1 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) provides anational framework for environmental management (including the recognition of nationallythreatened species and ecological communities), thereby directing resources towards the deliveryof improved environmental protection.

With respect to threatened species and ecological communities, the EPBC Act provides for:< identification and listing of threatened species and threatened ecological communities< development of recovery plans for such species and ecological communities< recognition of key threatening processes< reducing these processes through threat abatement plans.

The EPBC Act applies where bitou bush and/or boneseed threatens any listed species orecological community or where its control may have adverse effects on matters of nationalenvironmental significance on Commonwealth land. In New South Wales, bitou bush currentlyposes serious threats to several species/ecological communities listed on schedules of the EPBCAct.

2.1.2 Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code Act

All pesticides, including herbicides, insecticides and fungicides, used, supplied or distributed inAustralia must be registered under the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code Act 1994(Agvet Act) by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority [APVMA: formerlythe National Registration Authority for Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (NRA)]. Beforeany chemical or product (e.g. commercially formulated pesticide) is registered for use, supply ordistribution, the APVMA is required under the Agvet Act to conduct a rigorous assessment ofpotential impacts on the environment, human health and trade. As of June 2005, there were 178herbicide products registered by the APVMA for use in the control of bitou bush and/or boneseedin Australia.

All APVMA approved chemicals (or products) have affixed product labels that contain specificusage requirements and application rates. Label breaches can result in prosecutions under theAgvet Act. The APVMA also grants permits for minor use of specific unregistered chemicals incertain circumstances as well as off-label use of registered chemicals. The Parks and WildlifeDivision of the DEC (formerly NSW NPWS) currently holds an off-label permit for aerialapplication of herbicides (e.g. glyphosate), used in the control of bitou bush in New South Wales.


4

2.1.3 Biological Control Act

The use of non-native biological organisms (the agent) to control a specific pest or weed species(the target) is governed by the Biological Control Act 1984 (BC Act). The BC Act establishes adetailed set of procedures and a framework for the selection of agents (through host-specificitytesting), the importation of agents into Australian quarantine and the intentional release of agentsfrom quarantine. Prior to allowing importation and intentional release from quarantine, theimpacts of the agent on the target as well as non-target species are assessed. In addition, theimportation of biological control agents requires approval from Biosecurity Australia (part of theDepartment of Agricultural Forestry and Fisheries Australia: DAFF), the Australian Quarantineand Inspection Service (AQIS), and the Department of Environment and Heritage (DEH). TheAustralian Weeds Committee (AWC), in conjunction with the Natural Resource ManagementStanding Committee [NRMSC: formerly the Standing Committee on Agriculture and ResourceManagement (SCARM)] must also approve all biological control proposals before any control isattempted. Approval includes wide consultation with all stakeholders.

In February 1986 the Standing Committee on Agriculture (SCA: a predecessor of NRMSC)approved a biological control program for bitou bush in New South Wales as conventional controlmethods were deemed ineffective at suppressing the spread and impact of large-scale bitou bushinfestations.

Host-specificity testing undertaken in South Africa identified 19 potential agents for the control ofC. monilifera (bitou bush and boneseed) in Australia (being 17 insects and two pathogens: seeAdair and Edwards 1996). Nine of these agents have been released in Australia, with an additionalagent recently approved for release on boneseed. Several other agents have been rejected afterinitial testing (for a full review of the biological control program for C. monilifera in Australia seeDowney et al. submitted). Of the remaining agents several are identified as having potential forboneseed, and one for bitou bush, however all these agents will require significant additionalresources and time (see Downey et al. submitted). Of the six agents released for the control of bitoubush to date, only four have established, being the bitou tip moth (Comostolopsis germana Prout),bitou tortoise beetle (Cassida sp.), bitou seed fly (Mesoclanis polana Munro) and bitou leaf rollermoth (Tortrix sp.).

2.1.4 Commonwealth Coastal Policy

In May 1995 the Australian Government initiated its coastal policy. The Commonwealth CoastalPolicy (CCP) arose in response to several government reports on the status of Australia’scoastline/coastal zone. The CCP addresses the nature and complexity of coastal management. TheCCP acknowledges that coastal management cannot be achieved by any one jurisdiction and thatthe management of Australia’s coastal zone needs to be shared across all levels of governmentand the community. The CCP is a blueprint for the management and use of Australia’s coastalzone with the aim to ‘promote ecologically sustainable use of Australia’s coastal zone’ (DEH2005). The CCP acknowledges that indigenous Australians manage a significant proportion of theAustralian coastal zone and as such need to be included in the development and implementationof the CCP.

Several objectives of the CCP are of direct relevance/importance to the management of bitoubush. The relevant resource conservation objectives are:


5

< to conserve and manage areas and features of significant ecological, physical, cultural,historic, landscape and scientific importance, so that their values are maintained

< to maintain the biological diversity and productivity of marine and terrestrialecosystems and natural processes within the coastal zone for present and futuregenerations. Where environmental qualities have been degraded remedial action shouldbe taken to restore them.

The relevant public participation objectives are:< to ensure that there is informed public participation in open, consultative processes

dealing with planning and management of coastal resources< to recognise the interests in the coastal zone of Australia’s indigenous peoples and

incorporate these interests in management arrangements

2.1.5 National Weeds Strategy

The National Weeds Strategy (NWS: ARMCANZ et al. 1997) targets the management ofnationally significant weeds through four principles:

< Weed management is an essential and integral part of the sustainable management ofnatural resources and the environment, and requires an integrated multi-disciplinaryapproach.

< Prevention and early intervention are the most cost-effective techniques that can bedeployed against weeds.

< Successful weed management requires a coordinated national approach, whichinvolves all levels of government in establishing appropriate legislative, educationaland coordination frameworks in partnership with industry, landholders and thecommunity.

< The primary responsibility for weed management rests with landholders/landmanagers, but collective action is necessary where the problem transcends the capacityof the individual landholder/land manager to address it adequately.

The goals of the NWS are to:< prevent the development of new weed problems< reduce the impact of existing weed problems of national significance< provide cost efficient and effective means for harnessing national action on weed

management.

Before the second goal could be achieved, a list of the Weeds Of National Significance (orWONS) had to be developed. A further discussion of WONS and how they were determined ispresented below.

In 2005 the Australian Government initiated a review and revision of the NWS. A discussionpaper from the revision process recommended a number of changes to the NWS, however therevised NWS was not available at the time of writing.


6

2.1.6 Weeds of National Significance

The WONS (Weeds of National Significance) were determined from a list of 71 major weedspecies, which were derived using set criteria (see Thorp and Lynch 2000 for more information).A species was included if it:

< threatens the profitability or sustainability of Australia’s principal primary industries< threatens conservation areas or environmental resources of national significance< may require remedial action across several states and territories< constitutes a major threat to Australia’s biodiversity.

Chrysanthemoides monilifera was listed as one of the 20 WONS in 2000 (see Thorp and Lynch2000), following which a national strategy was produced (see ARMCANZ et al. 2000). Thenational strategy aims to:

< prevent further introduction and spread of bitou bush and boneseed< minimise adverse impacts of bitou bush and boneseed on biodiversity< maintain national commitment to the coordination and management of bitou bush and

boneseed.

2.1.7 Cooperative Research Centre for Australian Weed Management

The Cooperative Research Centre for Australian Weed Management (Weeds CRC) is acooperative organisation which aims to combat Australia’s weed problem, involving AustralianGovernment and state agencies, research institutions, industries and stakeholders.

The Weeds CRC is currently in it second phase. Chrysanthemoides monilifera was one of sixtarget weeds identified in the original Weed CRC’s environmental weeds program. This resultedin funding for research and the biological control program, as well as the production of bestpractice management guides for bitou bush (see Vranjic 2000) and boneseed (see Adair andAinsworth 2000). There is no such commitment to bitou bush and boneseed under the currentWeeds CRC (2004–08) program.

2.1.8 Natural Heritage Trust initiatives

There are four programs in the second stage of the Natural Heritage Trust (NHT) (2002–07):Landcare, Bushcare, Rivercare and Coastcare (NHT 2005). The Landcare program invests inactivities that contribute to reversing land degradation and promoting sustainable agriculture. TheBushcare program invests in activities that contribute to conserving and restoring habitat for ourunique native flora and fauna which underpin the health of our landscapes. The Rivercareprogram invests in activities that contribute to improved water quality and environmentalconditions in our river systems and wetlands. The Coastcare program invests in activities thatcontribute to protecting our coastal catchments, ecosystems and the marine environment (NHT2005).

The Coastcare program was started in 1995 as part of the Natural Heritage Trust’s Coast andClean Seas initiative. Coastcare ceased as a separate funding source in 2003, but the program stillprovides a framework for NRM initiatives, particularly at the regional level. Coastcare aims to


7

protect and manage Australia’s coastal and marine environments through community basedmanagement of coastal ecosystems.

The NHT, through Coastcare, has funded a range of projects in New South Wales that haveincorporated some component of bitou bush control (this funding averaged approximately$400,000 p.a. prior to the cessation of funding in 2003).

The four NHT programs target 10 Natural Heritage Areas of Activity. Actions identified in theBitou TAP address six of the ten Areas of Activity:

< protecting and restoring the habitat of threatened species, threatened ecologicalcommunities and migratory birds

< reversing the long-term decline in the extent and quality of Australia’s nativevegetation

< protecting and restoring significant freshwater, marine and estuarine ecosystems< preventing or controlling the introduction and spread of feral animals, aquatic pests,

weeds and other biological threats to biodiversity< providing landholders, community groups and other natural resource managers with

understanding and skills to contribute to biodiversity conservation and sustainablenatural resource management

< establishing institutional and organisational frameworks that promote conservation andecologically sustainable use and management of natural resources.

The NHT program also addresses issues that affect multiple Natural Resource Management(NRM) regions through its Regional Competitive Component (RCC) (there are 56 NRM regionsin Australia – for further information see NRM (2005) and in NSW see Section 2.2.12 below).Weed related projects were funded through the RCC until 2004, after which such projects are tobe funded through the Defeating the Weeds Menace initiative (see below). However, as this planalso addressed several of the key themes of the RCC, including coastal management andthreatened species, RCC funding was granted in 2005 to help with its implementation over theperiod 2005–06 through to 2007–08. This RCC funding is administered through the SouthernRivers Catchment Management Authority (see below) in conjunction with the other four coastalNRM regions in New South Wales and the DEC.

NHT funds have been secured to employ a full-time National Bitou Bush and BoneseedCoordinator for the period 2005–08. The National Coordinator’s role is to facilitate a NationalManagement Group and coordinate the implementation of the National Bitou Bush and BoneseedWONS Strategy across Australia.

In addition, the second stage of the NHT includes a new initiative, the Australian GovernmentEnvirofund. Grants of up to $50,000 are available from the Envirofund for community groups toaddress local land management issues and to carry out on-ground actions. Numerous communitygroups have received Envirofunds to work on bitou bush and boneseed control.

2.1.9 Defeating the Weeds Menace initiative

In 2004, the Australia Government made an election promise to tackle weeds. The ‘Defeating theWeeds Menace’ (DWM) program was thus initiated in 2005 (spanning 2005–08). The DWMfunding is $40 million, of which $32 million is new money allocated for weeds. One of the aims


8

of this program is to fund programs relating to the WONS, especially where this leads to on-ground management. In the first round of the DWM program funds were secured to produce aBoneseed Management Manual (DEC in prep.). Numerous bitou bush and boneseed applicationswere submitted to the second round of funding, but no decision on the success of these projectswas available at the time of writing.

2.1.10 Other national legislation, policies, strategies and programs

The Australian Government is a signatory to a number of international conventions, including theRamsar convention on wetlands of international importance, migratory bird conventions includingJAMBA (Japan–Australia Migratory Bird Agreement) and CAMBA (China–Australia MigratoryBird Agreement). These agreements are for the protection of migratory birds and their habitats.

Many migratory birds use coastal regions (including dunes and coastal vegetation) for feeding,nest sites and roosting. While the link between bitou bush infestations and declines in migratorybird populations is not clear (see Chapter 5), some initial evidence indicates that it may beextremely important. For example, little terns will not nest in areas containing dense bitou bushinfestations. Any link between bitou bush infestation and migratory bird decline or destruction ofwetlands could have major consequences for the management of bitou bush, as well as wetlandsand migratory birds.

2.2 NSW legislation, policies, strategies and programs

The NSW-specific legislation, policies, strategies and programs that influence bitou bushmanagement are presented below.

2.2.1 NSW Noxious Weeds Act

The NSW Noxious Weeds Act 1993 (NW Act) provides for the identification, classification andcontrol of noxious weeds in New South Wales. The NW Act aims to identify noxious weeds andtheir respective control measures, as well as the roles and responsibilities for their control for bothpublic and private land managers/owners.

Amendments to the NW Act in 2005 repealed the NSW Seeds Act 1982 and introduced a newclassification system of weed control classes based on the degree of threat and the distribution ofthe introduced plant within the state. These new control classes are:

Control Class 1 – State Prohibited WeedsControl Class 2 – Regionally Prohibited WeedsControl Class 3 – Regionally Controlled WeedsControl Class 4 – Locally Controlled WeedsControl Class 5 – Restricted Plants.

Under this new classification system Control Class 1, 2 and 5 noxious weeds are referred to asnotifiable weeds.


9

Prior to these amendments bitou bush and boneseed were declared noxious in all designatedcoastal councils/control areas of New South Wales (including metropolitan Sydney). Thesedeclarations have remained under the new classification system and amended listings that cameinto force on 1 March 2006 (see Appendix 1).

2.2.2 NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act

In January 1996 the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act) commenced toconserve threatened species, populations and ecological communities in New South Wales. Theobjectives of the TSC Act are to:

< conserve biological diversity and promote ecologically sustainable development< prevent the extinction and promote the recovery of threatened species, populations and

ecological communities< protect the critical habitat of those threatened species, populations and ecological

communities that are endangered< eliminate or manage certain processes that threaten the survival or evolutionary

development of threatened species, populations and ecological communities< ensure that the impact of any action affecting threatened species, populations and

ecological communities is properly assessed< encourage the conservation of threatened species, populations and ecological

communities by the adoption of measures involving cooperative management.

Contained within the TSC Act are three schedules: Schedule 1 contains lists of criticallyendangered species and communities, endangered species, populations and communities, andextinct species; Schedule 2 contains lists of vulnerable species and communities; and Schedule 3contains a list of key threatening processes (KTPs).

A KTP is eligible to be listed under the TSC Act if, in the opinion of the New South WalesScientific Committee, it:

< adversely affects two or more listed threatened species, populations or ecologicalcommunitiesor

< could cause species, populations or ecological communities that are not threatened tobecome threatened.

The Invasion of native plant communities by bitou bush and boneseed was listed as a KTP inMarch of 1999 (see NSW SC 1999a).

Until the 2004 amendments to the TSC Act the preparation of a threat abatement plan (TAP) foreach listed KTP was mandatory. However, this is no longer the case, with the requirement forpreparation of a TAP being at the discretion of the Director General, DEC.

Irrespective, a TAP must outline how the threatening process is to be managed so as to abate,ameliorate or eliminate its adverse effects on threatened species, populations or ecologicalcommunities. As a legal document under the TSC Act, a TAP requires ministers and publicauthorities to undertake the actions where appropriate, however a measure must not be included ina threat abatement plan for implementation by a public authority unless the authority’s CEOapproves its inclusion. This plan meets the requirements of a TAP for the Invasion of native plantcommunities by bitou bush and boneseed as per the TSC Act.


10

Where recovery plans are prepared and implemented for species, populations and ecologicalcommunities listed under the TSC Act they must identify any relevant threatening processes andhow they are to be ameliorated. As such some recovery plans may require the control ormanagement of bitou bush. For example, the Zieria prostrata recovery plan requires the control ofbitou bush at several locations (NPWS 1998). This interaction between recovery plan and TAPobjectives and actions needs to be considered when developing any recovery plan or TAP.

Any action that is likely to harm or damage threatened species, populations or ecologicalcommunities listed under the TSC Act requires one of the following:

< a Section 91 licence under the TSC Act, or for lands managed by the DEC aSection 171 authority issued under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974

< a certificate of exemption under Section 95 of the TSC Act< a licence under Section 132C of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974.

The control of bitou bush in some areas may require such a licence or certificate to be issued bythe DEC.

Recent Amendments to the TSC Act

TSC Amendment Act 2002In 2002 several amendments were made to the TSC Act. One such amendment with directrelevance to the Bitou TAP is the requirement for consultation with indigenous people during thedevelopment of TAPs. The preparation of a threat abatement plan under the TSC Act ‘mustconsider any special knowledge or interests that indigenous people may have in the species,population or ecological community concerned, along with appropriate measures to addressthem’. Actions have been established to address this requirement, and these are outlined inChapter 9 along with requirements included in the development of site-specific management plansfor each of the sites in the TAP.

TSC Amendment Act 2004In 2004 several additional amendments were made to the TSC Act. The amendments relevant tothis TAP are: i) as outlined above, the preparation of a TAP is no longer mandatory; ii) theaddition of critically endangered species and critically endangered ecological communities; andiii) the development of a Priorities Action Statement (PAS: see below).

The draft PAS outlines recovery and threat abatement actions for the biodiversity listed under theTSC Act (see DEC 2006a). The actions contained in this TAP for each of the TSC listed entitiesidentified in this plan as being at risk from bitou bush and boneseed invasion are included in thedraft PAS, in addition to a specific action for preparing this TAP.

2.2.3 NSW Pesticides Act

The Pesticides Act 1999 regulates the use of all pesticides in NSW, after the point of sale. Thisincludes pesticides used in agriculture, on public lands and on domestic and commercial premises.

Under the provisions of the Pesticides Act all pesticide users in NSW are required to ensure thatthey:


11

< use only pesticides registered by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary MedicinesAuthority (APVMA) which are approved for the intended situation of use

< read the pesticide registration label on pesticide containers (or have them read to them)and strictly follow the label directions

< not risk injury to persons, property and non-target plants and animals through the useof a pesticide

< obtain an APVMA permit if they wish to vary the label directions or use pattern< follow the instructions on any Pesticide Control Order relevant to the pesticide being

used< make a record of all pesticide applications< become trained or licensed where required under the Pesticides Act and the Pesticides

Regulation 1995, and< in some circumstances provide notice of their pesticide use.

Pesticides Regulations

The Pesticides Regulations establish the legislative requirements for the licensing of aerialpesticide applicator companies and the prescribed qualifications that pilots must hold before anaerial agricultural licence will be issued to them. The Regulations also outline the requirementsfor the control of prohibited residues and restricted pesticides.

Additional amendments have been included under the Pesticides Regulation 1995 to include:Pesticide Record Keeping: Records must be kept by all people who use pesticides for

commercial or occupational purposes such as on a farm, on produce, or as part of theiroccupation or business.

Pesticide Training: People who use pesticides in their business or as part of their occupationmust be trained in how to use those pesticides. Any person employed or engaged to usepesticides must also be trained.

Pesticide Notification: From 1 February 2007, new notification requirements apply topesticides applications by public authorities in outdoor public places and to pesticideapplications by licensed pest management technicians in common areas of multi-occupancy residential complexes.

2.2.4 Protection of the Environment Operations Act

Under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (POEO Act), the DEC regulatesgeneral pollution and waste matters in New South Wales. This control also applies to pesticides.The selection and use of herbicides should be undertaken in accordance with relevant legislationand regulations to prevent the pollution of water.

2.2.5 NSW National Parks and Wildlife Act

The NSW National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NPW Act) established the National Parks andWildlife Service (NPWS), now part of DEC. The Parks and Wildlife Division of DEC isresponsible for the care, control and management of all national parks, historic sites, naturereserves, Aboriginal areas, state conservation areas, karst conservation reserves, marine parks andregional parks within New South Wales in accordance with the NPW Act. DEC is alsoresponsible under the Act for the protection of native fauna and flora and Aboriginal relics. DECis responsible for the administration of the TSC Act and the Wilderness Act 1987.


12

Bitou bush projects fall within the main responsibilities of the Parks and Wildlife Division ofDEC under the NPW Act (i.e. education, maintenance of and scientific research with respect topreservation, protection and management). DEC currently undertakes education and awarenessprograms with respect to the impacts and management of bitou bush. The Parks and WildlifeDivision also undertakes maintenance with respect to control of bitou bush on their land. Inaddition, DEC contributes to the statewide coordination of bitou bush management in conjunctionwith other agencies. Research into the effects/impacts of bitou bush on native ecosystems andthreatened species, populations and ecological communities needs to be increased and the scopebroadened however (see Chapters 5 and 9).

It is an offence under the NPW Act to knowingly destroy, deface and/or damage an Aboriginalsite without the prior written approval of the DEC Director General. The control or managementof bitou bush may in some instances impact, damage and/or destroy Aboriginal cultural heritageand therefore will require a licence. Consultation with Aboriginal communities relating topotential impacts on Aboriginal cultural heritage related to bitou bush control and management isrequired and will occur during the development of site-specific management plans for eachpriority Bitou TAP site (see below).

NPW Act and weed control

The NPW Act also requires the preparation of a Plan of Management (PoM) for each reservemanaged by the Parks and Wildlife Division of DEC. The conservation of wildlife, including theconservation of threatened species, populations and ecological communities and their habitats is agoal of each PoM. Thus, a PoM provides a process for examining the occurrence and distributionof weed species, investigating management strategies and setting priorities for weed controlprograms. Regional weed strategies have also been developed to address weed problems over abroader area.

2.2.6 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act

The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) provides the framework forthe environmentally, socially and economically sound planning, use, conservation anddevelopment of land in New South Wales. The main objects of the EP&A Act that relate to theBitou TAP are to encourage:

< protection of the environment, including the conservation of native animals and plants,including threatened species, populations and ecological communities, and theirhabitats

< proper management, development and conservation of natural and artificialresources… for the purpose of promoting the social and economic welfare of thecommunity and a better environment.

The EP&A Act has specific sections which deal directly with impacts on threatened species,populations and ecological communities as well as critical habitats within New South Wales asper the TSC Act and the NPW Act.


13

2.2.7 Local Government Act

The Local Government Act 1993 (LG Act) defines the powers, duties and functions of all localcouncils in New South Wales. The LG Act provides a framework for the use and management ofcouncil-managed public land (or community land). The LG Act requires councils to use andmanage community land in accordance with a plan of management, prepared by the council.Where a threat abatement plan requires a council to implement certain measures on or in respectto community land, the plan of management must:

< state that the land, or relevant part, is affected by a threat abatement plan< identify objectives and performance targets that take account of the council’s

obligations under the threat abatement plan.In addition, local councils are required under the LG Act to control pests (including weeds) andundertake environmental conservation and protection. The control of bitou bush on council landsshould be undertaken where bitou bush is declared noxious in accordance with the NW Act.

2.2.8 Catchment Management Authorities

The Australian Government in conjunction with the states and territories established 56 NaturalResources Management (NRM) regions, based primarily on catchments. In New South Walesthere are 13 NRM regions, which are called Catchment Management Authorities (CMAs). TheCMAs are responsible for managing natural resources at the catchment scale, through strategicinvestment. Each CMA has a Catchment Action Plan (or CAP) that details their actions forachieving statewide targets established by the Natural Resource Commission (NRC). The fivecoastal CMAs are committed to bitou bush management through an RCC project (see 2.1.8above) and for the Hunter/Central Rivers, Northern Rivers and Southern Rivers CMAs morespecifically through their CAPs.

2.2.9 NSW Coastal Policy

The NSW Coastal Policy (NSW Government 1997) is a framework to manage the NSW coastalzone in an ecologically sustainable way though the balanced and coordinated management of thecoast’s unique physical and economic attributes. The NSW Coastal Policy is designed tocoordinate coastal management across state and local governments as well as the community. Thepolicy has nine goals, with three of relevance to the management of bitou bush:

< protecting, rehabilitating and improving the natural environment of the coastal zone< recognising and accommodating the natural processes of the coastal zone< protecting and enhancing the aesthetic qualities of the coastal zone.

These nine goals incorporate 138 strategic actions of which the following have direct relevance tothe management of bitou bush in New South Wales:

< The implementation of State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) 14 (CoastalWetlands) and SEPP 26 (Littoral Rainforests) will continue (Action 1.1.8).

< Recovery plans and TAPs will be implemented to protect coastal threatened species(Action 1.2.6).

< Threatening processes will be identified for coastal species in accordance with the TSCAct (including preparation of TAPs), and where possible controlled (Action 1.2.7).


14

< Coastal development proposals which pose a threat to the physical ‘well being’ of thecoastline will be approved subject to conditions which minimise impacts, or rejectedwhere they pose unacceptable threats (Action 1.4.5).

< Methods will continue to be developed and implemented to control the spread andimpact of bitou bush on coastal dunes and foreshore environments (Action 1.4.8).

< Protecting areas or items of high aesthetic value will be considered when preparingplans of management (Action 3.1.2).

2.2.10 NSW Weeds Strategy

The goal of the NSW Weeds Strategy is ‘a sustainable reduction in the negative impact of weedson the economy, community, industries and environment of New South Wales’ (NSW Agriculture1998). One outcome of the strategy is ‘the development and implementation of programs toreduce environmental degradation and the loss of biodiversity through weed invasion’. To achievethis outcome the NSW Weeds Strategy outlines seven main processes, of which four are of directrelevance to this plan:

< implement control programs for weeds, such as bitou bush, which cause majorenvironmental problems

< support TAPs for environmental weeds listed as threatening processes under the TSCAct

< undertake and promote research into the development and release of biological controlagents for major weeds

< support community bush-regeneration projects and improve coordination and follow-up control to provide sustainable long-term benefits.

2.2.11 NSW Biodiversity Strategy

The main goal of the NSW Biodiversity Strategy (NPWS 1999a) is to ‘protect the nativebiological diversity of NSW and the maintenance of ecological processes and systems’. Thestrategy establishes priority actions to address the major threats to biodiversity and maximiseconservation benefits within New South Wales. This strategy is currently undergoing a reviewand the actions within the strategy relevant to the Bitou TAP are unknown.

NSW Biodiversity Strategy and bitou bush initiatives

The NSW Biodiversity Strategy funded the development of the NSW bitou bush strategy (NPWS2001a), the recent mapping of bitou bush in New South Wales (see Thomas and Leys 2002), aswell as part of the initial development of the draft of this plan (DEC 2004).

2.2.12 Strategies to manage bitou bush in New South Wales

There are many strategies to manage bitou bush in New South Wales. A summary of the mainstrategies is presented below.

NSW bitou bush strategy

The NSW bitou bush strategy (NPWS 2001a) aims to deliver a coordinated and strategic approachto bitou bush management in New South Wales, irrespective of land tenure, by:


15

< preventing the further introduction and spread of bitou bush< minimising the adverse impacts of bitou bush on biodiversity< expanding the commitment to the management of bitou bush across all sectors (e.g.

governments, community and private).The strategy provides a framework for the development of regional and local management plans,which direct on-ground action. One of its key actions is the preparation of a threat abatement planfor bitou bush in New South Wales.

NSW North Coast bitou bush management strategy

The NSW North Coast bitou bush management strategy (Scanlon 2001) was prepared by theNorth Coast Weeds Advisory Committee to coordinate bitou bush control by a number ofstakeholders including community groups. This strategy has three objectives:

< coordinate management between stakeholders and compile all relevant information< raise community awareness and involvement< implement on-ground integrated management.

In addition to the strategy, the North Coast Weeds Advisory Committee is required by the NSWNoxious Weeds Advisory Committee (NWAC) to prepare Regional Management Plans (RMPs)for all noxious weed species in their region in accordance with the NW Act. These RMPs outlinethe actions and responsibilities of stakeholders for noxious weed control within a given timeframe. They are also the mechanism by which local control authorities (LCAs) obtain funding fornoxious weed control from the NSW Government’s Noxious Weeds Fund.

NSW South Coast bitou bush strategy

The Southern Tablelands and South Coast Noxious Plants Committee prepared the NSW SouthCoast regional bitou bush strategy (see Broese van Groenou and Wolfenden 2002) to coordinatebitou bush control by a number of stakeholders including community groups. The strategy sets outfour regional priorities:

< prevent the further introduction and spread of bitou bush< give high priority to control in lightly infested areas< reduce adverse impacts of bitou bush on biodiversity, aesthetic and recreational value

of public lands< support concerted control programs that result in shifting the southern containment line

north.The South Coast Bitou Bush Task Force was formed to address bitou bush management insouthern New South Wales (i.e. from the Illawarra to the Victorian border). This task forceoversees the implementation of the South Coast regional bitou bush strategy. In addition, theNWAC requires the preparation of an RMP for all noxious weed species.

Local government strategies

Many North Coast councils or LCAs (i.e. Byron, Greater Taree, Hastings, Great Lakes, Kempsey,Bellingen, Nambucca, Port Stephens, Tweed Shire) have developed local bitou bush managementstrategies (see Port Stephens Coastal Weed Action Group 1997; Gerrand 2000). These strategies:< identify the levels of bitou bush infestation in the local government area< highlight significant environmental features< identify control priorities which reflect environmental significance, heritage values and

visual amenity< provide appropriate control mechanisms and propose key actions and time frames to

facilitate on-ground action.


16

Other councils are in the process of developing bitou bush management plans (e.g. the plan forSydney encompassing several councils).

2.2.13 Other NSW legislation, policies, strategies and programs

Many other plans and strategies have been prepared that are relevant to the management of bitoubush in New South Wales, such as plans of management (PoM) for specific reserves or sites [e.g.the PoMs for Bundjalung NP, Broadwater NP and Iluka NR (NPWS 1999b)] and regional peststrategies developed by the NPWS (see NPWS 2002b). In recent years, such plans have changedthe management focus from specifically targeting one weed species (e.g. bitou bush), to managingweeds in the context of habitat restoration (i.e. the control of numerous weeds at once, see Joseph1995) or to a more strategic management approach (e.g. North Coast Coastal Weeds ManagementPlan – see NCWAC 2005). The realisation that the control of one species may pave the way forinvasion by other weed species aided this change. These approaches to weed management arediscussed in more detail in Chapter 7.


17

3 The biology and ecology of bitou bush and boneseed

3.1 Plant descriptions and biology

The genus Chrysanthemoides (Asteraceae) has two species, both of which are endemic to SouthAfrica. The species C. monilifera has six subspecies, all described on the basis of fruit shape. Twoof these, subsp. rotundata (DC.) T. Norl. (bitou bush) and subsp. monilifera (L.) T. Norl.(boneseed), were introduced to Australia, where they have subsequently become majorenvironmental weeds (Weiss et al. 1998). The two subspecies are capable of hybridising toproduce fertile plants with intermediate characteristics (Weiss et al. 1998). The fruit ofChrysanthemoides is different from that of other members of the Asteraceae, being a fleshy drupewhich is readily dispersed by animals, in contrast to other members of the Asteraceae which aredispersed by wind (Gosper 2004a). Dispersal of fruits by animals can lead to greater dispersaldistances than wind alone and faster dispersal/invasion rates (Smith 2000).

3.1.1 Bitou bush (Chrysanthemoides monilifera subsp. rotundata)

Bitou bush is a perennial, fast growing semi-succulent, spreading or somewhat prostrate woodyshrub, 1–3 m high and 2–6 m wide, with long stems that lie along the ground or over othervegetation. These almost prostrate stems have erect ends. This decumbent habit is accentuated if aplant grows under shade, where stems may reach more than 10 m, giving it the appearance of acreeper rather than a shrub. The leaves are entire or slightly toothed, bright green, glossy, broadlyoval shaped, 3–8 cm long. The leaves and stems of juvenile plants are typically covered withcobweb like hairs. The inflorescences are a compound head of tiny male and female flowers,surrounded by 11–13 bright yellow floral bracts, or ligulate (see photo on the cover). The fruitswhen mature are black, <10 mm in length and contain a single egg-shaped seed, 5–7 mm inlength. The seeds have a hard bone-like endocarp or seed coat. Up to 13 fruits are produced perinflorescence (Weiss et al. 1998; Vranjic 2000).

The age at which sexual reproduction (flowering) begins varies, but on average is 2–3 years aftergermination. In northern New South Wales however, seedlings may flower within their first year.In mature plants, flowering occurs during April–July, with flowers occasionally present all yearround, although Gosper (2004a) found the peak was March to May. Peak seed productiongenerally occurs during June–September (Weiss et al. 1998; Vranjic 2000), again Gosper (2004a)found a different peak being May to June. Initial seed dispersal occurs either by fruit falling offthe parent plant or by animals ingesting the fruits and either defecating or regurgitating viableseeds in a different location. The latter can result in long distance dispersal events. Dispersalagents are typically birds (e.g. honeyeaters, currawongs and silvereyes, see Dodkin and Gilmore1984) and mammals (e.g. foxes, see Meek 1998). Following the initial dispersal, seeds can be re-dispersed through mechanisms such as wind, water, vehicles and the transportation of soil.

Once mature, an individual bitou bush plant can produce up to 48,000 seeds in a year (Weiss et al.1998). Seed dormancy is relatively short, i.e. several years, but the maximum dormancy period isunknown, as are the mechanisms of seed dormancy. Seed viability (the ability of a seed togerminate) decreases with seed age; viability is very low in seed that is four or more years old(Vranjic 2000). Anecdotal evidence suggests that some seeds may remain viable for up to 10


18

years (Holtkamp pers. comm.). The soil seed bank beneath mature infestations ranges from 2,000to 5,000 seeds/m2 (Vranjic 2000).

Seed germination occurs throughout the year, mainly following rainfall. Other factors known topromote germination are fire, exposure of seeds to heating (e.g. temperatures of 60°C), removal ofthe seed coat and seed age (Weiss et al. 1998). The response of bitou bush to fire is influenced bythe fire conditions. For example, moist soils can limit the soil temperatures attained during a fire,which directly influences the level of seed mortality and heat-stimulated germination that occurs(Downey 1999). Seed germination occurs from depths of up to 8 cm (majority up to 5 cm) in theabsence of soil disturbance (Vranjic 2000).

Bitou bush can tolerate salt spray, mild frost and, to a limited extent, water-logged soil (e.g. it caninvade the edges of swamps and wetlands). Following fire or mechanical damage (e.g. cutting),plants have the ability to regenerate from adventitious buds at the base of the plant or along thestems. Vegetative reproduction occurs when the prostrate stems are buried by soil or sand (Weisset al. 1998).

3.1.2 Boneseed (Chrysanthemoides monilifera subsp. monilifera)

Boneseed is a perennial, fast growing semi-succulent, erect woody shrub, 1–2 m wide and 1–3 mhigh (rarely to 6 m). The leaves have toothed margins and are dull green, more or less broadlyobovate, and 5–7 cm long. Juvenile growth is typically covered by cobweb like hairs, with thehairs being shed with age. The inflorescences are a compound head of tiny male and femaleflowers, surrounded by 5–8 (mostly 5–6) bright yellow floral bracts, or ligulate (see photo on thecover). The fruits when mature are black, <10 mm in length and contain a single globular bone-coloured seed, 6–7 mm in length. The seeds have a hard bone-like endocarp or seed coat. Up to 8fruits are produced per inflorescence (Weiss et al. 1998; Adair and Ainsworth 2000).

The average age at sexual reproduction (flowering) is 18–24 months after germination (Weiss etal. 1998; Adair and Ainsworth 2000). In mature plants, flowering peaks during August–Octoberand fruiting peaks during November–January. Initial seed dispersal occurs either by fruit fallingoff the parent plant or by animals ingesting the fruits and either defecating or regurgitating viableseeds in a different location. The latter can result in long distance dispersal events. Dispersalagents are birds and mammals (Adair and Ainsworth 2000). Following the initial dispersal, seedscan be re-dispersed through mechanisms such as wind, water, vehicles and the transportation ofsoil.

Once mature, an individual boneseed plant can produce up to 50,000 seeds per year (Weiss et al.1998). Seed dormancy is short, i.e. several years, but the maximum dormancy period is unknown,as are the mechanisms of seed dormancy. Seed viability decreases with seed age; viability is verylow in seed that is three or more years old, with a low percentage remaining viable for up to 10years (Weiss et al. 1998). The soil seed bank beneath mature infestations ranges from 800 to3,000 seeds/m2 (Adair and Ainsworth 2000).

Seed germination occurs mainly in autumn, although germination can occur at other timesfollowing rainfall. Other factors known to promote germination are fire, heating of the seeds,removal of the seed coat, and seed age, weathering of seeds, and ingestion by animals (Adair and


19

Ainsworth 2000). Seed germination occurs from depths of up to 8 cm (majority up to 5 cm) in theabsence of soil disturbance (Weiss et al. 1998).

Boneseed is fire-sensitive (i.e. is killed by fire), intolerant of water-logged soil conditions, saltspray and mild frosts. It is relatively short-lived (10–20 years). It has a shallow root system andunlike bitou bush, is not capable of vegetative reproduction (Adair and Ainsworth 2000).

3.2 Bitou bush and boneseed as environmental weeds

Chrysanthemoides monilifera is an environmental weed in Australia, New Zealand, France, theIslands of St. Helena (South Atlantic Ocean) and Sicily (Weiss et al. 1998).

3.2.1 Arrival and spread of bitou bush in Australia

The exact date of arrival of bitou bush to Australia is unknown. The first known record is aherbarium specimen dated 1908, collected from the Stockton area near Newcastle in New SouthWales. It is thought that this infestation originated from ballast carried from South Africa (Gray1976; Cooney et al. 1982).

From 1946–1968, bitou bush was deliberately planted by the NSW Soil Conservation Service tostabilise sand dunes along the NSW coast. It was also planted along the northern NSW coast tostabilise and revegetate coastal sand dunes after they were mined for rutile and zircon (Barr 1965).Bitou bush was recommended as one of several useful secondary stabilisers for use followingsuch mining operations (Barr 1965).

The main areas where bitou bush was deliberately planted include Ballina, Byron Bay, CrescentHead, Diamond Head, Hastings Point, Iluka, Lake Munmorah, Mylestom, Port Macquarie,Redhead, The Entrance and Tweed Heads. Bitou bush was also planted to stabilise sand dunesnear Broken Hill and Menindee in western New South Wales (Cunningham et al. 1981). It wasalso introduced to Lord Howe Island, the first record of which was in 1968 near the dump; todaythere are about 1,500 plants scattered across the north and east of the island (e.g. Neds Beach andMiddle Beach). Concerns over the impact of bitou bush have led to an eradication program onLord Howe Island being initiated.

Currently bitou bush occurs along most of the NSW coast, with the densest infestations in thenorth of the state (NPWS 2001a). It also persists around Broken Hill and Menindee, as well as onLord Howe Island. Outside New South Wales it occurs in coastal areas from the Qld/NSW borderto Hervey Bay, on a number of offshore islands in Queensland, and at a limited number of sites inVictoria.

A comprehensive survey of the distribution of bitou bush in New South Wales in 1981–82showed that 660 km of the NSW coastline was infested (Love 1984). Of the area surveyed, bitoubush was the dominant plant along approximately 220 km. The NSW coast was re-surveyed in2000–01, revealing that the length of coastline infested had increased to 900 km (82%), of whichbitou bush was the dominant plant along approximately 400 km (36%) (Thomas and Leys 2002).With a few exceptions, bitou bush occurs continuously from the Shoalhaven River north to theQueensland border, with most of the north coast being heavily infested. South of the Shoalhaven


20

River to Batemans Bay, areas free of bitou bush are interspersed with heavy infestations. South ofBatemans Bay, bitou bush only occurs in isolated disjunct infestations. The survey undertaken in2000 (see Thomas and Leys 2002) estimated that more than 36,000 ha of private and public landin New South Wales were infested with bitou bush. Of this area 6,700 ha was heavily infested(bitou bush dominant), 9,000 ha was infested at a medium level (bitou bush present but notdominant) and 20,100 ha had light infestations (scattered plants). In addition, the survey recordedbitou bush up to 10 km inland. A map of the density of bitou bush in New South Wales ispresented in Appendix 11.

3.2.2 Arrival and spread of boneseed in Australia

The exact date and manner of arrival of boneseed to Australia is unknown. The first known recordis from a Sydney garden in 1856. The first known locations elsewhere in Australia includeMelbourne 1858, Adelaide 1892, Ulverstone (Tasmania) 1931 and Perth 1948 (Weiss et al. 1998).Since its introduction, boneseed has been cultivated widely in most states. The majority of thepresent day infestations can be attributed to escapes from gardens and nurseries (Adair andAinsworth 2000). Today, boneseed is widespread in South Australia (Mt Lofty Ranges), Victoria(e.g. the Mornington Peninsula, the You Yangs, Ottways NP, Dandenong Ranges NP and nearWimmera) and Tasmania (parts of the East Coast), with historic infestations in Western Australianear Perth, the status of which is unclear. In New South Wales, boneseed occurs in coastal areasfrom the Hunter River southwards, as well as in south-west New South Wales (e.g. Dareton).Additional scattered infestations occur on the Central Coast, where it usually grows together withbitou bush in non-dunal areas, and in the Sydney Metropolitan Area, where dense infestations arefound on clay soils along railway corridors.

3.2.3 Invasion by bitou bush and boneseed

Bitou bush and boneseed possess a range of attributes that contribute to their invasiveness andability to compete: rapid growth (including seedlings), a range of growth forms (bitou bush: shrubor creeper), the capacity to grow in a wide variety of habitats, high fecundity, various vectors forseed dispersal (particularly vertebrates) and seed dormancy. These attributes do not always resultin invasion or species dominance however.

Some native species have the ability to persist despite bitou bush’s vigorous growth rate anddominance. For example, bitou bush has higher seedling vigour and greater survival at each lifestage than the native shrub coastal wattle (Acacia longifolia subsp. sophorae) (Weiss et al. 1998;Vranjic et al. 2000), which nonetheless persists in bitou bush infested areas.

Bitou bush and boneseed, like many invaders, have an increased capacity to invade due to theabsence of their natural predators. Over the past 20 years six biological control agents have beenreleased on bitou bush, four of which have established, and six agents for boneseed, none ofwhich have established (see Downey et al. submitted). The lack of natural predators, anddeliberate plantings to stabilise sand dunes and remediate sand mining sites, has increased thedominance and spread of bitou bush in Australia.


21

3.2.4 Habitats invaded by bitou bush and boneseed

Both subspecies of C. monilifera have the ability to grow in a range of habitats, where they haveinvaded various ecological communities. Bitou bush occurs in coastal ecosystems containing fore-dune grasslands, dune scrub, dune forests/woodland, open and closed heaths and littoralrainforests (Dodkin and Gilmore 1984). Boneseed occurs in coastal woodlands, shrublands andopen forest, dry and wet sclerophyll forests, foothills, open forest, woodlands and mallee (Adairand Ainsworth 2000). Bitou bush and boneseed both occur in coastal regions in their native SouthAfrica, with boneseed occurring on the east and south-east coasts and adjacent mountains, whilebitou bush is restricted more to coastal areas in the east (see Weiss et al. 1998).


22

4 The impact of bitou bush and boneseed invasions onnative plant communities

The impacts of bitou bush and boneseed invasions on biodiversity are outlined below (e.g. flora inthis chapter and fauna in Chapter 5), however it is also important to discuss their impacts on theaesthetic value of coastal landscapes (e.g. sand dunes, beaches and headlands). Through theformation of a dense shrub layer, these plants can obscure entire sand dunes, convertingpicturesque coastal landscapes into significant weed infestations. In many areas, pristine beaches(and adjacent dunes and coastal vegetation) have been covered with dense infestations of bitoubush. Such values are not directly addressed in this TAP (with the exception of a brief discussionin Chapter 10), but the control of bitou bush and boneseed for the purposes of conservingbiodiversity, will help to alleviate the problem at specific locations.

4.1 Bitou bush and boneseed invasions and biodiversity

Biodiversity encompasses three levels: genetic diversity, species diversity and ecosystem diversity(Commonwealth of Australia 1996; TSC Act). Scientists and governments concur that biologicalinvasions are one of the greatest threats to biodiversity globally (IUCN 2000), and more recentlyto threatened biodiversity in New South Wales (Coutts-Smith and Downey 2006). Plants thatinvade native ecosystems can have devastating impacts on biodiversity, although the level of suchimpacts has rarely been quantified (Adair and Groves 1998).

The extent of the impact of bitou bush on biodiversity across its range was poorly documented,prior to the release of the draft of this TAP (see DEC 2004; Downey 2004). Of the studiesconducted to date investigations have only been confined to a few native plant species (i.e. Weissand Noble 1984a, b; Matarczyk 1999; Vranjic et al. 2000), or generic groups (i.e. for vertebrates(French and Zubovic 1997; Gosper 1999; Gosper et al. 2005) and insects (French and Eardley1997) - a further discussion on the impacts to fauna is presented in Chapter 5). However, suchstudies have not been resulted in a comprehensive assessment of the impacts or the species mostat risk.

Despite this lack of information, many assumptions have been made as to the extent of theimpacts across a broader range of species. For example, bitou bush impacts on other plant speciesthrough increased competition, shade and litter level. Objective data quantifying the impacts arelimited, especially with respect to the impacts on entire communities (see Dodkin and Gilmore1984; Vranjic 2000); a situation that is now being rectified mainly by the University ofWollongong. Insufficient data with respect to bitou bush invasions has long been acknowledged(Dodkin and Gilmore 1984) and this deficiency has influenced the development of some aspectsof this TAP (e.g. with respect to fauna). Research to address the lack of information forms keyactions in this TAP (see Chapter 9). Despite this lack of quantitative data, bitou bush had beenassessed as a threat to several species listed under the TSC Act, leading to its listing as a KTP(NSW SC 1999a), and more recently to many species listed under the TSC Act (see Coutts-Smithand Downey 2006). However, the initial number thought to be at risk has been greatly increasedsince the KTP listing in 1999, both in terms of TSC listed species and native plants moregenerally (see Coutts-Smith and Downey 2006, and Downey 2004, respectively). For example,the draft of this plan identified 63 plant species, two plant populations and nine endangered


23

ecological communities at risk in New South Wales (see DEC 2004), while this plan hassignificantly increased these numbers (see below).

In New South Wales very little has been documented on the distribution, abundance and impact ofboneseed. Data from elsewhere in Australia (Weiss et al. 1998; Adair and Ainsworth 2000)suggests that boneseed could pose a similar problem in New South Wales to bitou bush if it wasto increase dramatically. In addition, initial investigations into the biodiversity at risk fromboneseed in Tasmania suggest a similar level of impact to bitou bush (see Downey in press). Dueto the low levels of boneseed in New South Wales, Section 4.2 deals exclusively with bitou bushand further discussions on boneseed are presented in subsequent chapters.

4.1.1 Disturbance and bitou bush and boneseed invasions

Historically there has been a common assumption that weeds only invade following some form ofdisturbance, and in the past this assumption has been applied to bitou bush and boneseed. It isbased on the idea that disturbance events create new resources or opportunities for invaders. Manystudies have illustrated that disturbance is a precursor to weed invasion (Elton 1958; Hobbs 1991;Hobbs and Huenneke 1992; D’Antonio et al. 1999), however recent evidence suggests that forinvasion to occur, the invading plant species must be able to utilise these resources moreeffectively than existing native species (Davis et al. 2000).

Evidence is now mounting that for a wide range of species disturbance is not necessary forinvasion to occur (Weeda 1987; Rejmánek 1989; Daehler and Strong 1996; Ehrenfeld 1997;Pemberton 1998; Downey and Smith 2000; Williams et al. 2001; Downey 2002), thus disputingthe well entrenched assumption. Invasion in the absence of disturbance (Dodkin pers. comm.) hasalso been noted for bitou bush, however no objective scientific data are available regarding howthis process occurs.

It is extremely important to understand how weeds affect ecosystems once they invade. Weedsimpact upon several ecosystem properties (Gordon 1998) and physical properties (e.g.decomposition rates – see Lindsay and French 2004a) which can modify pre-invasion disturbanceregimes (Mack and D’Antonio 1998). Modification of disturbance regimes often has a greaterimpact on biodiversity than the invasion itself (Mack and D’Antonio 1998). Knowledge of thesemodifications is lacking however, as is the understanding of how these modifications impact uponthe invaded communities. A weed species has the potential to modify the disturbance regime inmore than one way (e.g. Scotch broom can enhance soil disturbance by encouraging the actions offeral pigs, as well as alter fire behaviour through structural habitat modification, see Downey2002), the impact of which is different for each type of disturbance. The ability of bitou bush orboneseed to modify disturbance regimes is unknown, however its ability to respond to fire withincreased germination and rapid seedling growth rates may have led to substantial vegetationchanges, as observed in Yuraygir NP (Thomas pers. obs.) and Billinudgel NR (Bower pers. obs.).These changes may in turn promote fire or result in greater changes following fires. Similarobservations have been made for boneseed in the You Yangs, Victoria, following experimentalfires (Melland pers. comm.). It should be noted that failure to implement adequate controlsfollowing such disturbances has led to major establishment events.


24

4.2 Plant species, populations and ecological communities atrisk

4.2.1 Why select biodiversity at risk?

While some may argue that it is more cost effective to eradicate or control new or isolatedinfestations in the first instance, such arguments do not consider the cost of not addressing largeinfestations, the loss of species which are currently under threat, or the fact that such economicassessments are based on static points in space and time (i.e. it is more cost effective to controlany infestation today than to wait till tomorrow, when it has expanded and achieved its fullpotential). In addition, the cost of impacts to biodiversity has rarely been accounted for in sucheconomic assessments. For example, the loss of an individual species due to invasion fromwidespread weeds was recently calculated to be $86,700 per year (Sinden et al. 2004), whichwhen applied to the 63 species identified in the draft TAP (see DEC 2004) results in a loss ofspecies cost of $5.46 million per year. Also, there are a range of initiatives that address new andisolated infestations (under the Noxious Weeds Act) and containment (the northern and southerncontainment lines – see NPWS 2001a and Chapter 9). In addition, given the five year life of theTAP and the current impact to biodiversity, this plan focuses in the first instance on reducing thepresent impacts, rather then reducing future ones.

Given the extent of bitou bush in New South Wales (occurring over 80% of the coastline), itsrapid expansion (36% increase in 20 years, see Thomas and Leys 2002), the duration of theinvasion (50+ years since wide-scale plantings), and the level of biodiversity present in the coastalzone (i.e. a high diversity of species over a small area), the impact from bitou bush invasion onbiodiversity is likely to be significant. In addition, the eradication of bitou bush in the short termis not feasible. Thus, a system is needed to assess the biodiversity at greatest risk and the sites atwhich control will lead to the greatest conservation outcomes for those species most at risk.

4.2.2 Selecting and prioritising plant species at risk from invasion

Given the lack of information and the need to determine plant species, populations and/orecological communities at risk from bitou bush invasion in New South Wales, the distributions ofbitou bush and all plants in New South Wales were matched for the purposes of this TAP.ArcView Geographic Information System (GIS) software was used. The distribution of bitou bushcollected during the latest survey (see Thomas and Leys 2002 for methods) was matched withflora records contained within the NPWS Atlas of NSW Wildlife (incorporating the RoyalBotanic Gardens (RBG) database of scheduled threatened species). The flora dataset wassupplemented with information from published literature, local knowledge from individuals orcommunity groups working in areas infested with bitou bush, and site inspections. The impacts onanimal species are discussed in Chapter 5.

The data derived from the distribution GIS analysis showed a total of 850 plant species, spanning151 families within the bitou bush infested areas of New South Wales. Of these, 55 were listed aseither endangered or vulnerable species under the Commonwealth EPBC Act or the NSW TSCAct, 30 of which were considered to be threatened by bitou bush. In addition, those species notcovered by such threatened species legislation occurring within the distribution of bitou bush inNew South Wales may also be classified as threatened if they were:


25

< on the Rare Or Threatened Australian Plants (ROTAP: Briggs and Leigh 1996) list< on the Australian Threatened Flora list (ANZECC 1999)< listed by Sheringham and Westaway (1995)< referred to as threatened in other publications

While this approach provided a basis for establishing those threatened plant species which may beat risk from bitou bush invasions, and thus be subjected to analysis of the threat, it does notaddress plant species not formally listed as threatened but which are likely to be or are at risk frominvasion. Therefore consideration of both threatened species and non-threatened species that arepotentially at risk by bitou bush is needed to establish a complete list of the species at risk. Suchan approach is supportive of the KTP determination in which it was acknowledged that bitou bushinvasion may cause species that are not threatened to become so (NSW SC 1999a).

In order to determine the full extent of the species at risk, the Weed Impacts to Native Species(WINS) assessment process or tool was established (see Downey in press). The WINS assessmentprocess involves four stages, being 1) a review of the literature; 2) collation and assessment of theknowledge from land managers and botanists with specific involvement, either in managing bitoubush, or the native species in bitou bush infested areas; 3) rigorous evaluation and examination ofan interim list of species potentially at risk; and 4) ranking the revised list using a model. While,stage 1 does not differ from previous attempts to determine biodiversity at risk (i.e. Grice et al.2004; Vidler 2004), stages 2 and 3 outline a new process for rapidly collating information thatwould otherwise not be available, and evaluating the quality of that information in order todetermine its integrity, respectively. When the list of species potentially at risk, as produced instage 3, is then modelled, i.e. during stage 4, and emphasis is given to the highest priorities, arobust process for quickly assessing the biodiversity at risk from weed invasions can bedetermined without quantitative data (see Downey in press, for further details and discussion).

The outcomes of stages 1 and 2 of the WINS assessment process are not presented here, insteadthe final list of species identified as potentially at risk from bitou bush invasion, i.e. the outcomeof Stage 3, is presented in Appendix 3, while the model used for Stage 4 is presented in Appendix2. The 63 plant species identified in the draft TAP as potentially at risk from bitou bush invasionusing the WINS approach, was expanded to 158 here. The additional 95 species arose from re-running various stages of the WINS assessment process. For example, stage 1 included newlypublished information (see Coutts-Smith and Downey 2006) along with new threatened speciesdeterminations, while stage 3 involved evaluation and revisions to the list of species at risk as aresult of the comments received during the public exhibition, and in stage 4 most of the 70 speciesidentified in the draft which were not modelled were added and modelled. Some species identifiedas potentially at risk during this process were not modelled however (see Table A3.2).Irrespective, the changes highlight the flexibility of the WINS assessment process and its value inrapidly determining species at risk.

The four stage WINS system identified 19 species as being at greatest risk from bitou bushinvasion (i.e. high priority species, see Table 4.1), 41 medium priority and 98 low priority species(see Appendix 3).


26

Table 4.1 The 19 plant species at greatest risk from bitou bush invasion in rank order, asdetermined from the species model (see Appendix 3), and their threatened statusalong with the formal processes for recovery.

threatened status aspecies name family name TSC Act b EPBC Act c ROTAP d

recoveryplan

actionsin PAS e

Plectranthus cremnus Lamiaceae 3K no noZieria prostrata Rutaceae E E 2E yes yesChamaesyce psammogeton Euphorbiaceae E no yesSenecio spathulatus Asteraceae E no yesAcianthus exiguus Orchidaceae 3RC- no noCalystegia soldanella Convolvulaceae no noChamaecrista maritima Caesalpiniaceae no noSophora tomentosa Fabaceae E no yesLepturus repens Poaceae no noPultenaea maritima Fabaceae V no yesStackhousia spathulata Stackhousiaceae no noIschaemum triticeum Poaceae no noVigna marina Fabaceae no noGleichenia mendellii Gleicheniaceae no noActites megalocarpa Asteraceae no noPoa poiformis Poaceae no noFontainea oraria Euphorbiaceae E E 2E draft yesDiuris praecox Orchidaceae V V 2VC- no yesWestringia fruticosa Lamiaceae no no

a E = Endangered, V = Vulnerable, as defined under the various legislation.b TSC Act = NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995.c EPBC ACT = Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.d ROTAP – Rare or Threatened Plants of Australia (see Briggs and Leigh 1996). ROTAP codes: 2 = geographic range in

Australia less then 100km; 3 = geographic range in Australia greater than 100km; E = endangered; V = vulnerable; K =conservation status poorly known; C = reserved; (-) = reserved population size is not accurately known.

e Actions in the draft Priority Action Statement (PAS – see DEC 2006a) other than those associated with implementation ofthis plan (i.e. the Bitou Bush Threat Abatement Plan).

4.2.3 High priority species

A short summary of each of the 19 high priority species, as determined by the species model (seeAppendices 2 and 3) are presented below in rank order. Species descriptions were extracted fromHarden (1990–2002) unless otherwise noted. Information is also presented on the other threats tothese species where known.

1. Plectranthus cremnus Conn (Lamiaceae)Plectranthus cremnus is a compactly branched, prostrate to decumbent aromatic herb, growing to30 cm in height and spreading to 2 m across. The white-blue purple flowers are present all year asare the dry fruits. It grows in shallow sandy soils that have been deposited by wind into thecrevices of coastal headlands where it is rare. Plectranthus cremnus is also reported to occur indunes (including stabilised dunes). The species only occurs on the north coast of New SouthWales from Lennox Head to the Kendall district, where it is restricted to a small number of sites.

Threats to P. cremnus include trampling from beach goers and weed invasion (including bitoubush). The stabilisation of sand by bitou bush may also reduce the level of wind blown materialthat can lodge into headland crevices and provide suitable substrate and habitat for P. cremnus. Inaddition, bitou bush grows over many headlands, potentially occupying suitable habitats. As thespecies flowers all year round it may be damaged by aerial application of herbicide to controlbitou bush because it is physiologically active at all times (NPWS 2001d and Appendix 10A).


27

2. Zieria prostrata J.A. Armstrong (Rutaceae)Zieria prostrata is a small multi-stemmed prostrate shrub 0.5–1 m in diameter, which forms a lowmat. It occurs on exposed headland sites in low coastal heath. In more sheltered aspects, it growsin association with open to sparse shrublands, characterised by coast banksia (Banksia integrifoliavar. integrifolia) and coastal wattle (Acacia sophorae) (NPWS 1998). It has a very restricteddistribution and is known from only four headlands within Moonee Beach NR, 20 km north ofCoffs Harbour. The four sites have approximately 1,000 plants in total. There is some geneticvariation between the four sites (NPWS 1998). To maintain the full genetic diversity, all fourlocations need be protected.

Two recovery plans have been prepared and implemented for Z. prostrata (see Griffith 1992;NPWS 1998). The main threat is displacement by exotic weeds, including bitou bush, lantana andkikuyu. Bitou bush poses a major threat as it shades individual plants with its dense canopy. Apest management plan has been prepared for Moonee Beach NR. Weed control has beenundertaken for many years and the immediate threat of weed invasion has been alleviated at allfour sites. Bitou bush still poses a serious threat of re-invasion and ongoing follow-upmaintenance/control is required in the immediate vicinity and in the surrounding areas.

3. Chamaesyce psammogeton (P.S. Green) P.I. Forst & R.J.F. Hend. (Euphorbiaceae)Chamaesyce psammogeton (synonyms: C. sparrmani, Euphorbia sparrmani) is a prostrateperennial herb that forms mats to 1 m in diameter. It grows on incipient fore-dunes in Spinifexhirsutus communities, and exposed headlands, as well as on the beach aspect of the fore-dunewith a range of herbs, vines, shrubs and grasses. It occurs sporadically north from Jervis Bay intoQueensland, as well as on Lord Howe Island. Some botanists considered it to be in danger ofextinction (Clarke and Carolin 1991) and its final determination under the TSC Act was based onthe fact that it was formerly widespread and is now only known from a few small populations (seeNSW SC 1998a). A comparison of present and historical records in New South Wales showedthat it had disappeared from some areas (e.g. Sydney: Heyligers 1998). Despite this, newpopulations have been recorded (e.g. Yuraygir NP: Flower and Clarke 2001). The majority of therecords in the NPWS Atlas of NSW Wildlife are from one survey (see Clarke 1989), whichsuggests that the distribution of this species is not fully known.

Bitou bush is one of the main threats to C. psammogeton (i.e. by growing over it due to itsprostrate habit and preference for sand dunes). Populations on the seaward edge of incipient dunesare less threatened, as bitou bush rarely establishes in these areas. These populations arethreatened by other factors however (e.g. beach erosion and the removal of habitat). The sitesrecorded by Clarke (1989) need to be revisited to establish if the species is still present, and if so,the threat posed by bitou bush.

4. Senecio spathulatus A. Rich (Asteraceae)Senecio spathulatus is a prostrate perennial herb with ascending or erect ends 15–50 cm in length.A recent taxonomic revision incorporated S. anacampserotis DC into this species (see Walsh andEntwisle 1999). Senecio spathulatus occurs on seashores from Eden, Victoria to Myall Lakes NP.Recent botanical surveys did not observe it between Nadgee and Sydney however (McDougallpers. comm.). Herbarium specimens were collected in the 1980s from Mungo Corner, MyallLakes NP, Fingal Spit, Port Stephens, Connell Hill, Kurnell and Cronulla Recreation Reserve.Bitou bush is present at all the locations documented in the 1980s. Control programs are in place


28

in the Kurnell–Cronulla area. Information on the impact of bitou bush and the infestation level atmany of these locations is required, as well as a determination of the other threats present.

5. Acianthus exiguus (D.L.Jones) Juss. (Orchidaceae)Acianthus exiguus is a rare terrestrial orchid that grows in moist areas, favouring littoralrainforest, dry rainforest, wet sclerophyll forests, dry sclerophyll forests, grassy sclerophyll forestsand dunes (including stabilised sands). The upper leaf surface is dark green, while the lowersurface is light reddish purple. Flowers are translucent greenish white with a pink and greenlabellum with lateral sepals having a faint red central stripe. Since its identification in 1987 it hasbeen identified from 11 sites along the NSW coast north from Wyrrabalong. Several of theselocations are now infested with bitou bush, and bitou bush is suspected as being a threat to thisspecies.

6. Calystegia soldanella (Roem. & Schult) Juss. (Convolvulaceae)Calystegia soldanella is a glabrous perennial herb/vine with trailing stems, which prefers growingalong the ground. This species is widespread in northern and southern temperate zones growing insandy and rocky coastal areas, but few recent records exist for New South Wales. Leaves areheart-shaped, waxy and fleshy, and provide protection from water loss in coastal habitats. Theflowers are pink to purple with white bands that are similar to that of the weed morning glory(Ipomea sp.). The low growing habit of C. soldanella makes it susceptible to invasion by bitoubush. The species may also be at threat from bush regeneration as it could be mistaken for one ofthe weedy morning glory species.

7. Chamaecrista maritima (Pedley) R.Br. (Caesalpiniaceae)Chamaecrista maritima (synonym: C. mimosoides) is a prostrate or tufted perennial sub-shrub,less than 15 cm high. It grows on grassy windswept headlands and hillsides on a variety of soilsnorth from Port Macquarie. There are few records of this species (i.e. from Norries Head,Bogangar, Korogoro Point, Hat Head, Hastings Point, Lennox Head, Boambee Head, PortMacquarie), with very few being post 1990 (i.e. Cape Byron, Sawtell, Smoky Cape, Hat HeadNP). Chamaecrista maritima can be locally common but most known populations are small. Itsmajor habitat type is Themeda grasslands, an Endangered Ecological Community (EEC) listedunder the TSC Act. Many of the known locations are infested by bitou bush.

8. Sophora tomentosa L. (Fabaceae)Sophora tomentosa is a shrub or small tree to 5 m in height, which grows in sand on frontalcoastal dunes or along the seashore. Field observations also indicate that this species preferscoarse sands on the ends of beaches (e.g. Woody Head, Bundjalung NP, Shelley Beach, PortMacquarie), at the base of headlands (e.g. Woolgoolga Headland), or protected areas adjacent tocreeks or intermittently open lagoons draining across beaches (e.g. Sandon River). It occurs northfrom Port Macquarie into Queensland and Papua New Guinea. Historically it occurred as farsouth as Port Stephens. Several populations are now thought to be extinct. One of the main threatsin New South Wales is from bitou bush invasion (i.e. competition with adults and seedlings).Bitou bush control programs at several locations have reduced the immediate threat, however,several other populations do not currently have bitou bush control programs in place.

9. Lepturus repens (G.Forst.) R.Br. (Poaceae)Lepturus repens is a prostrate spreading perennial grass that grows to about 50 cm tall, with longtrailing stolons that root at the nodes. It grows in sandy soils along the coast and is known from


29

four locations on the north coast of New South Wales, as well as on Lord Howe Island. Littleinformation is available on this species and its threats.

10. Pultenaea maritima (de Kok) Lindl. (Fabaceae)Pultenaea maritima is a prostrate mat forming shrub with hairy stems. This species, onceconsidered a prostrate form of P. vilosa, is now listed as vulnerable under the TSC Act. Thisspecies predominantly occurs within Themeda grasslands, an Endangered Ecological Community,on sea cliffs and coastal headland communities. Pultenaea maritima occurs north from Newcastleinto Queensland. Within New South Wales P. maritima is only known from 16 headlands andinformation on the population dynamics at these sites is unknown.

11. Stackhousia spathulata (Sieber ex Spreng.) R.Br. (Stackhousiaceae)Stackhousia spathulata is a perennial herb growing to 50 cm high in heath and dry sclerophyllforest in sandy areas. The inflorescence is a dense cylinder spike of white tubelike flowers.Although widely distributed in coastal districts of New South Wales, populations are often smalland infrequently encountered (Thomas pers. comm.). It usually grows on partly stabilised coastalsand dunes, occasionally on the margins of coastal lagoons and on headlands. This species hasbeen found in Themeda grasslands, an Endangered Ecological Community, on sea cliffs andcoastal headland communities.

12. Ischaemum triticeum (R.Br.) R.Br. (Poaceae)Ischaemum triticeum is a trailing perennial grass, rooting and branching at the nodes with stems to2 m long. It grows on the fore-dune of coastal sand dunes and in sandy soils deposited onheadlands and cliffs. This species is restricted to the north coast of New South Wales, fromLaurieton north. Ischaemum triticeum was probably more common in the past but sandmining andbitou bush invasion have impacted heavily and large populations are now infrequent.

13. Vigna marina (Burm.) Lindl. (Fabaceae)Vigna marina is a climbing or trailing legume with hairy stems to about 2 m long. Flowers areyellow, with 2–6 seeds in a pod, giving rise to its common name of ‘dune bean’. This speciesoccurs on the incipient dune and in exposed locations on headlands along the north coast of NewSouth Wales, north of Port Macquarie, as well as on Lord Howe Island. It is uncommon in thesouthern part of its range (i.e. Richmond River to Hastings River). On Lord Howe Island,V. marina is a characteristic species of the Lagunaria Swamp Forest Community, an EndangeredEcological Community under the TSC Act.

14. Gleichenia mendellii (G. Schied.) S.B. Andrews (Gleicheniaceae)Gleichenia mendellii is a rhizomatous terrestrial long-creeping fern. This is a recently describedspecies, grows in and around swamps, drainage lines, sheltered vertical faces of permanentlymoist coffee rock and along creek banks of coastal lowlands north from Minnie Water intoQueensland. Its distribution is disjunct, with the main populations occurring in Bundjalung NPand smaller populations in Yuraygir NP, Dirrawong Reserve and Minnie Water ForeshoreReserve. Bitou bush threatens some populations, especially those in non-water logged sites wherebitou bush grows more readily. Bitou bush may also occupy habitats which could otherwiseprovide connectivity of the disjunct populations. There is some suggestion that the control ofbitou bush in more exposed areas close to the sea may lead to salt spray damage to G. mendellii(see NPWS 2001b), but this needs further investigation. Other threats include fire, abiotic factorslike decreased moisture levels, and potentially aerial herbicide application as used to control bitoubush (Flower pers. comm. and Appendix 10A).


30

15. Actites megalocarpa (Hook.f.) Lander (Asteraceae)Actites megalocarpa is a fleshy perennial herb growing to 40 cm high in large clumps. Theflowers are yellow florets that are sometimes pale purple at the base. This species is often referredto as dune thistle. It grows in coastal sand dunes and on coastal headlands and cliffs. This speciesis occasionally mistaken for a weed. Many locations contain bitou bush.

16. Poa poiformis (Labill.) R.Br. (Poaceae)Poa poiformis is a densely tufted erect perennial grass to 1 m high, rarely with vertical or obliquerhizomes. It grows along estuaries and ocean foreshores, occasionally on coastal sand dunes andcliffs, especially south facing cliffs south from Port Stephens. Recently the species was also foundnear Port Macquarie (Dodkin pers. comm.). The species has been found in Themeda grasslands,an Endangered Ecological Community, particularly low on cliffs that are exposed to sea spray.

17. Fontainea oraria Jessup & Guymer (Euphorbiaceae)Fontainea oraria (coastal fontainea) is a dioecious shrub or small tree to 5 m in height whichgrows as part of the regrowth of inner edges of littoral rainforest. It is known from only onelocation near Lennox Head in northern New South Wales, on a basaltic headland within 1 km ofthe ocean. It is not known within conservation reserves (NPWS 1999c). This population supportsonly 10 mature trees, of which one or two are known to bear fruit (NPWS 1999c). Otherpopulations may exist but suitable habitat appears limited (Hunter et al. n.d.). Threats includedevelopment, recreational use of the area, salt dieback, competition from weeds, trampling ofseedlings, seed removal by plant collectors, exposure to sea-winds and possibly fire (Hunter et al.n.d.). While bitou bush is not mentioned by Hunter et al. (n.d.) as being present, it does occur inthe region and is known to invade littoral rainforests, particularly the edges.

18. Diuris praecox D.L. Jones (Orchidaceae)Diuris praecox is a terrestrial orchid which occurs in dry sclerophyll forest between Nelson Bayand Ourimbah. There are a total of 13 records on the NPWS Atlas of NSW Wildlife and RoyalBotanic Gardens databases. Recently an additional location was discovered at Tomaree Peninsula,Nelson Bay. Five of the database records occur within bitou bush infestations: Glenrock SRA(four records – medium infestations) and Crackneck Lookout, Wyrrabalong NP (medium–heavyinfestations). A bush regeneration program has started at Glenrock SRA to remove bitou bushfrom D. praecox habitat but this needs to be maintained and expanded. Bitou bush and lantanahave been controlled at Crackneck and these programs also need to be maintained and expanded.

19. Westringia fruticosa (Willd.) Lindl. (Lamiaceae)Commonly referred to as coastal rosemary, Westringia fruticosa is a shrub that grows to about1.5 m high. It grows near the sea and harbour foreshores, often on exposed cliffs in skeletal soils.This species has been widely cultivated for its hardy nature and small white flowers. Westringiafruticosa can be found scattered in Themeda grasslands, an Endangered Ecological Community,on sea cliffs and coastal headlands. Bitou bush occurs at or within close proximity to manylocations.

4.2.4 Selecting and prioritising plant populations at risk

Under the TSC Act threatened native biodiversity can be listed as either an individual species, aspecific population of a species (either listed as threatened or not) or an ecological community.While the assessment process for determining the plant species at risk has been presented above,


31

this process does not account for the other types of threatened biodiversity that may be at riskfrom bitou bush invasion (i.e. plant populations and ecological communities). Here the process fordetermining and prioritising plant populations is outlined, while ecological communities arepresented below (see Section 4.2.6).

In the draft plan, the prioritisation of populations and ecological communities was not subjected toany form of modelling (see DEC 2004). However, for those plant populations and ecologicalcommunities deemed to be at risk (see below) a modified version of the species model was usedhere to determine their priority (see Appendix 4). In essence the model is the same, minus theattribute for persistence which could not be easily determined for specific populations, as suchinformation was rarely available, or for ecological communities, as amalgamating suchinformation for multiple species is extremely difficult and may not provide a useful assessment asthe effects of individual species may be masked.

As the site model (see below) allows for individual populations of species at risk to be assessedbased on the relative threat from bitou bush, only those populations listed under the TSC Act wereexamined here. The locations of each of these populations were matched against the distributionof bitou bush. Only those populations that occurred within the distribution or within closeproximity to bitou bush were selected and modelled. Three endangered plant populations fittedthe criteria (see Appendix 5, Table A5.1), two of which were ranked as at greatest risk from bitoubush invasion (i.e. high priority, see Table 4.2) and the other as a low priority.

Table 4.2 The two plant populations at greatest risk from bitou bush invasion in rank order,as determined using the model (see Appendix 5), and their threatened status alongwith the formal processes for recovery.

plant population a family name threatened status b recovery plan actions in PAS c

Glycine clandestina (broad leaf form) Fabaceae E no noZieria smithii (low growing form) Rutaceae E no yes

a As outlined defined and listed under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act).b E = Endangered, as defined under the TSC Act.c Actions in the draft Priority Action Statement (PAS – DEC 2006b) other than those associated with implementation of this

plan (i.e. the Bitou Bush Threat Abatement Plan).

4.2.5 High priority plant populations

A short summary of each of the two high priority plant populations, as determined by thepopulation and ecological community model (see Appendices 4 and 5) are presented below inrank order. Species descriptions were extracted from Harden (1990–2002) unless otherwise noted.In addition, information is also presented on the other threats to these species where known.

1. Glycine clandestina Wendl. (Fabaceae) – broad leaf form (R. Pullen 13342)Glycine clandestina broad leaf form (hereafter referred to as G. clandestina (blf)) occurs incoastal grasslands at Scotts Head on the mid-north coast. It is a distinctive form of the widespreadspecies G. clandestina not found elsewhere. Glycine clandestina is thought to be a speciescomplex, which is a species with several distinct forms present. It is threatened by loss of itsgrassland habitat and from the risk of bitou bush invasion (NSW SC 2001). At present, bitou bushoccurs on the margins of this grassland site and in higher densities in nearby coastal banksia


32

vegetation. Monitoring of the population and removal of bitou bush seedlings (and adults) iscurrently not being undertaken (Johnson pers. comm).

2. Zieria smithii Jackson (Rutaceae) – low growing form (or Z. sp. aff. smithii)Zieria smithii low growing form, headland form, or Z. sp. aff. smithii (hereafter referred to asZ. smithii (lgf)) is a low growing semi-prostrate shrub similar in habit to Z. prostrata, unlike thetype species (Z. smithii), which is an erect robust shrub to 2 m in height. Recent genetic workshowed this taxon to be a distinct form, a headland ecotype of Z. smithii (Hogbin and Crisp 2003)or Z. smithii (lgf). The population at Diggers Head (north of Coffs Harbour) was listed asendangered because it contained <3 individual plants (NSW SC 1998b). The known threats areweed invasion from bitou bush, kikuyu (NSW SC 1998b) and lantana (Hogbin 1999). The CoffsHarbour City Council has undertaken bitou bush control at this site over the last few years.

Since the listing of Z. smithii (lgf) at Diggers Head as an Endangered Population severaladditional populations have been discovered. A targeted Z. prostrata and Z. smithii (lgf) survey of51 sites (mostly headlands) from Treachery Head (near Myall Lakes) to Bare Bluff (north ofCoffs Harbour) recorded Z. smithii (lgf) at 10 of these sites (Hogbin 1999), nine of which werenew locations. The distribution of Z. smithii (lgf) stretches from Boomerang Point (south ofForster) to Cape Byron (Hogbin 1999). Population sizes ranged from a few to several hundredindividual plants. Weed invasion (primarily bitou bush) was the main threat at the majority ofthese ‘new’ sites, specifically: Boomerang Point (medium–heavy infestation); Grants Headland(light infestation); Nobby Head, Port Macquarie (heavy infestation); Big Hill, south of CrescentHead (medium infestation); and the track to Connors beach, Hat Head (medium infestation).Zieria smithii (lgf) has also been recorded on Cabbage Tree Island (adjacent to Tea Gardens) andat Byron Bay (Hogbin 1999). As bitou bush poses one of the major threats to these additionalpopulations they were included in this TAP (see Appendices 7 and 8).

4.2.6 Selecting and prioritising ecological communities at risk

While the majority of coastal ecological communities in New South Wales are potentially at riskfrom bitou bush invasion due to its wide distribution (along 80% of the coastline), information onthose at risk is limited. The distribution of bitou bush in New South Wales (see Thomas 2002;Thomas and Leys 2002) could not be used to determine those ecological communities at riskbased on the degree of overlap, because there is no comparable dataset for coastal vegetationcommunities (see Benson 1999). The selection of the ecological communities potentially at riskwas therefore undertaken using the WINS assessment process. As outlined above, this also allowsfor examination of both formally listed Endangered Ecological Communities (EECs) and non-listed communities. Stage 4 of the WINS system used the model presented in Appendix 4.

Using the WINS system 26 ecological communities were identified as being potentially at riskfrom bitou bush invasion. Fifteen are EECs and 11 were not formally listed ecologicalcommunities. Eight of these 26 ecological communities were ranked as at greatest risk from bitoubush invasion (i.e. high priority, see Table 4.3), eight as medium priority and 10 as a low priority(see Appendix 5, Table A5.2). Another nine ecological communities were identified as beingpotentially at risk from bitou bush invasion but were not modelled due to insufficient information(see Appendix 5, Table A5.3).


33

Table 4.3 The eight ecological communities at greatest risk from bitou bush invasion inrank order, as determined using the model (see Appendix 5), and their threatenedstatus along with the formal processes for recovery.

ecological communities threatened status a, b recovery planactions in

PAS c

Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub EEC (EPBC & TSC Act) yes yesLittoral Rainforest (including SEPP26 and Sutherland Shire

Littoral Rainforest)EEC (TSC Act), SEPP 26 d some e yes

Kurnell Dune Forest EEC (TSC Act) no yesCoastal Banksia Woodlands (Banksia integrifolia) n/a n/aThemeda (Themeda triandra) grassland on sea cliffs & coastal

headlands in the NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin and South EastCorner bioregions

EEC (TSC Act) no no

Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub equivalent communities (i.e.Coastal Sand Wallum Heath)

n/a n/a

Frontal Dune Vegetation Complex n/a n/aCoastal Sand Dune complex (Acacia longifolia var. sophorae) n/a n/a

a EEC = Endangered Ecological Community as defined under the threatened species legislation, SEPP = State EnvironmentPlanning Policy.

b TSC Act = NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995, and EPBC ACT = Commonwealth Environment Protectionand Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

c Actions in the draft Priority Action Statement (PAS – DEC 2006b) other than those associated with implementation of thisplan (i.e. the Bitou Bush Threat Abatement Plan).

d Littoral rainforests are classified as SEPP 26 (i.e. those which do not occur within conservation reserves) and an EEC. TheSEPP 26 classification includes a 100 m buffer zone.

e Management or non-statutory recovery plans exist for a few individual rainforests or wetlands.

4.2.7 High priority ecological communities

A short summary of each of the eight high priority ecological communities, as determined by thepopulation and ecological community model (see Appendices 4 and 5) are presented below inrank order. Information is also presented on the other threats to these ecological communitieswhere known.

1. Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub (Sydney)The Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub (ESBS) is a heath/scrubland community (occasionallyforming woodland or low forest) confined to aeolian sand deposits. It currently occupies <3%(137.5 ha) of its original distribution (5,300 ha). Approximately 33 hectares of the ESBS occurs inconservation reserves (Botany Bay NP, La Perouse and Sydney Harbour NP, North Head: NPWS2003a). The remaining isolated remnants are restricted to the Eastern Suburbs region of Sydney inthe LGAs of Botany, Randwick, Waverley and Manly (NSW SC 1997, 2002; NPWS 2003a).There are 23 main sites, many of which contain several patches of scrub. Threats to thecommunity are: fragmentation; altered nutrient, water and fire regimes; habitat loss or degradationfrom development; weed invasion; grazing and erosion by horses and rabbits; erosion by bicyclesand motorcycles; excessive pedestrian use; seed collection; and physical damage from illegalaccess and dumping. The recovery plan for ESBS encompasses a broader range of threats (i.e.Phytophthora cinnamomi, see NPWS 2003a). Bitou bush co-occurs at various densities at 13 ofthe 23 ESBS sites and control programs have commenced in Botany Bay NP and the NSW GolfCourse (NSW Golf Club), at St Michael’s Golf Course and in several smaller patchesadministered by Randwick Council, and on York Road.


34

2. Littoral rainforests (including SEPP 26 and Sutherland Shire Littoral Rainforest)Littoral rainforests occur only on the coast and are found at locations in the NSW North CoastBioregion, Sydney Basin Bioregion and South East Corner Bioregion (NSW SC 2004). Littoralrainforests are recognised as having high conservation significance because they contain elementsof both subtropical and dry rainforests and a high diversity of plants and animals, including manyrare and threatened species (Mills 1996; McDonald 1999). The plant species in this ecologicalcommunity are predominantly rainforest species with evergreen mesic or coriaceous leaves, andvines may be a major component of the canopy, however, there is considerable floristic variationbetween stands (NSW SC 2004). Littoral rainforests also provide habitat for many migratory andnomadic animals.

Littoral rainforests are very rare and occur in many small stands – less than a quarter of theiroriginal extent remains. In total, littoral rainforests comprise less than one percent of the total areaof rainforest in New South Wales. Although a number of stands exist in reserves (e.g. 90 ha standin Iluka NR), there are at least 130 stands of littoral rainforest of state significance which are notencompassed within a formal conservation reserve. These stands are small, mostly degradedremnants extending from the South Coast to the Tweed River, with a total area less than 100 ha(Mills 1996), and most have been gazetted under the State Environmental Planning PolicyNumber 26 (SEPP 26). The SEPP 26 gazettal includes a 100 m buffer around each remnant. Notethat not all stands of this community have been included in mapping for SEPP 26, especiallystands which are already protected by formal reserves. In 2004, littoral rainforests in the NSWNorth Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner bioregions were listed as an EEC under theTSC Act. While this listing replaces and incorporates the Sutherland Shire Littoral Rainforestlisting under the TSC Act (NSW SC 1998c), it does not make the SEPP 26 classification defunct.The term littoral rainforest as used here encompasses those littoral rainforests listed under boththe TSC Act and SEPP 26.

Bitou bush poses a serious threat to littoral rainforest, especially in northern New South Wales.Over the last 10 years, land managers and/or community groups in New South Wales havecommenced many littoral rainforest restoration programs. Many of these programs have involvedgeneral weed control, however control of bitou bush is often a low priority because it occursprimarily at the margins and other weeds are more prevalent within the core of the rainforest.

3. Kurnell Dune Forest (Sydney)Kurnell Dune Forest (KDF) is a low open sclerophyll forest community with a distinct mesophyllelement. It is found on sand, often in association with areas of sclerophyll heath and scrub (NSWSC 1999b). The KDF community has been greatly reduced since European settlement and in 1999was listed as an EEC under the TSC Act. Patches occur within the Sutherland Shire (including theKurnell Peninsula and the City of Rockdale) on a range of public and private land. Threats aredisturbance and weed invasion (including bitou bush), particularly on the Kurnell Peninsula.Since the early 1990s the former NPWS (now the Parks and Wildlife Division of DEC) hasconducted extensive bitou bush control programs including aerial spraying, and involvingcontractors, NPWS staff and a number of volunteer groups. In 1998 Sutherland Shire Councilbegan a major bitou bush control program on the Kurnell Peninsula. To date, bitou bush has beenmanaged on the eastern margins of the KDF community, specifically in Charlotte Breen Reserve(Kurnell). Recently a joint bitou bush control program between Sutherland Shire Council and theParks and Wildlife Division of DEC commenced in the Boat Harbour Reserve and adjacent areas.A detailed survey needs to be conducted of a patch of KDF reported from Towra Point NR, wherea dense infestation of bitou bush occurs.


35

4. Coastal Banksia WoodlandCoastal Banksia Woodland communities are an open forest to shrubland on deep sand soilsusually in close proximity to the ocean. The ecological community comprises numerous smallbanksia tree species including coast banksia (Banksia integrifolia var. integrifolia), which is themost prolific species. Other dominant species include Casuarina glauca, Hibiscus tiliaceus,Acacia sophorae, Casuarina equisetifolia, Lophostemon confertus, Acacia melanoxylon,Glochidion spp., Callitris columellaris and Acacia aulacocarpa (Tweed Shire Council 2004).Bitou bush readily invades Coastal Banksia Woodland communities in New South Wales.

5. Themeda grasslands on sea cliffs and coastal headlandsThemeda grasslands on sea cliffs and coastal headlands in New South Wales are described as aunique ecological community (see Adam et al. 1989). This ecological community is found in theNSW North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner bioregions, on sea cliffs and coastalheadlands. The structure of the community is typically closed tussock grassland, but may be openshrubland or open heath with a grassy matrix between the shrubs (NSW SC 2005). Thecommunity belongs to the Maritime Grasslands vegetation class of Keith (2004). Due to itshighly restricted distribution, small patch size and ongoing threats to the community, it wasrecently listed as an EEC under the TSC Act (NSW SC 2005).

The dominant species is Themeda triandra, but some suggest that it may be a separate headlandform or subspecies (Dodkin pers. comm.). This ecological community also contains scatteredshrubs in many stands, most frequently Pimelea linifolia, Banksia integrifolia and Westringiafruticosa. These and other woody species often have dwarf growth forms. Although a number ofwoody species are listed as part of the community, these are usually sparsely distributed and maybe absent from some stands. Tussocks of Poa poiformis may be found in some stands of thecommunity. A number of threatened species occur in some stands of the community, includingDiuris byronensis (Synonym: Diuris sp. aff. Chrysantha), Pultenaea maritima, Rutidosusheterogama, Thesium australe (Cohn 2004) and Zieria prostrata (Hogbin 2001). The endangeredpopulation of the low growing form of Zieria smithii at Diggers Head is also found in thiscommunity. The community is the major habitat for a number of other species, includingChamaecrista maritima, Plectranthus cremnus and Stackhousia spathulata examined here.Invasion of bitou bush and other weeds is acknowledged as a major threat to the persistence ofThemeda grasslands (NSW SC 2005).

6. Coastal sand wallum heathCoastal sand wallum heaths are a heath assemblage dominated by a shrub layer of wallum banksia(Banksia aemula), Leptospermum trinervium, Isopogon anemonifolius, and Ricinocarpuspinifolius to a height of 2 m. Wallum sand heaths are scattered along the NSW coast north fromSydney with some areas being exposed to intense disturbance from tourism and recreation. Thisdisturbance can lead to erosion and dune destabilisation. Sand mining has destroyed some areaswith many of these areas being invaded by bitou bush (Keith 2004). Coastal sand wallum heath isa known habitat for several threatened species including the grey-headed flying fox, black flyingfox, eastern blossom bat and squirrel glider; all of which are identified in Chapter 5 as potentiallyat risk from bitou bush invasion.

7. Frontal dune vegetation complexThe frontal dune vegetation complex ecological community occurs as a low to mid-high tussockgrassland of variable crown cover, dominated by Spinifex sericeus, that occurs on the exposed


36

fore-dunes and to a lesser extent on exposed parts of dunes a short distance inland, but still withinthe coastal dune zone. Dominant species in this ecological community include: S. sericeus, Carexpumila, and Vigna marina, along with occasional species like coast wattle (Acacia sophorae),coast banksia (Banksia integrifolia var. integrifolia) and a number of non-endemics (Tweed ShireCouncil 2004). This ecological community is closely associated with other frontal dune vegetationcommunities, like coastal Acacia communities and coastal banksia woodland. In some instancesthis ecological community may include an intergrade with littoral rainforest (Tweed Shire Council2004).

8. Coastal sand dune complex (Acacia longifolia var. sophorae)The coastal sand dune complex ecological community forms on sand substrates and is dominatedby species such as coastal wattle (Acacia longifolia var. sophorae) which in some situations havebeen actively planted as part of a dune stabilisation program. Other species present includeblackwood wattle (Acacia melanoxylon), hickory wattle (A. aulacocarpa) and golden wattle(A. saligna) (a non-local native species). In northern New South Wales, other species thatsometimes occur in this community include umbrella cheese tree (Glochidion sumatranum),cheese tree (G. ferdinandii), brown kurrajong (Commersonia bartramia), macaranga (Macarangatanarius), coast banksia (Banksia integrifolia var. integrifolia), broad-leaved paperbark(Melaleuca quinquenervia), swamp mahogany (Eucalyptus robusta), pink bloodwood (Corymbiaintermedia), and coast teatree (Leptospermum laevigatum). Bitou bush and other weeds likecamphor laurel (Cinnamomum camphora) pose a threat (Brewer and Whelan 2003; Tweed ShireCouncil 2004).

4.2.8 Revising the priority lists of species, populations and ecological

communities

While an extensive investigation of the biodiversity that was potentially at risk from bitou bushinvasion in New South Wales was undertaken here, there may be other species, populations andecological communities which are threatened by bitou bush which were not considered. Thus thisprioritisation process is not static, especially given that there were species and ecologicalcommunities identified, but not modelled (see Appendices 3 (Table A3.2) and 5 (Table A5.3)).These models can be re-run at any time. Given the objectives of the TAP however, any suchchanges are unlikely to influence the implementation of the TAP actions, as the TAP aims tomaintain commitment to priority sites for its five year duration. After this a full review will beundertaken, at which stage new priorities may be established.


37

5 The impact of bitou bush and boneseed invasions onfauna

In the past, studies on the effect of plant invasions on fauna have received little attention (Frenchand Eardley 1997; Adair and Groves 1998). However, recent studies involving a range of weedspecies have highlighted the diverse ways in which birds and mammals (Lawrie 2002),invertebrates (French and Eardley 1997), reptiles (Hoefer pers. comm.) and amphibians(Wellington pers. comm.) interact with weeds. Some interactions have negative effects on fauna.For example, Spartina invasions can convert tidal mudflats into grasslands, resulting in the loss ofhabitat for many wading birds (see Lane 1992). Some interactions have positive effects on fauna.For example, introduced plants with spines or thorns can provide protection to rare mammals likethe southern brown bandicoot (see Regel et al. 1996). Such weed–fauna interactions can alsoaffect groups of species in different ways. For example, bird species were both negatively (8species) and positively (10 species) affected following Scotch broom invasion (see Bell 1990).Weeds affect fauna in different ways: altering food resources, feeding substrate, nesting/breedingsites, shelter and protection from predators, roosting and perching sites, and movement corridors.

An audit system has been proposed by Lawrie (2002) based on observations of animals (or animalsigns such as scats) within infested areas, to determine weed–fauna interactions. In Australia 225bird species have been recorded interacting with 482 introduced plant species, and 43 mammalsinteracting with 55 introduced plant species (Lawrie 2002). The information obtained by this auditsystem does not provide a complete picture however, as it is biased towards positive interactions.For example, declines in fauna density are unlikely to be recorded without rigorous studies. Inaddition, the proposed audit system does not provide detailed information on the exact nature ofeffects on fauna and detailed studies are needed in some areas to provide information in additionto that obtained from the proposed audit system.

The removal of weeds from sites that have been infested for many years may affect fauna thathave modified their lives as a result of these infestations. For example, the removal ofblackberries in Belair National Park, South Australia may lead to a decline in the threatenedsouthern brown bandicoot, as blackberries provide protection from predators (see Regel et al.1996). Blackberry removal programs therefore need to consider the introduction of replacementmeasures to protect these threatened bandicoots. Historically, such impacts have rarely beenconsidered in weed control programs.

Information on the interactions between weeds and fauna, both positive and negative, needs to becollected and incorporated into weed management strategies (Lawrie 2002). Information on theeffect on fauna of controlling weeds also needs to be collected and incorporated into suchstrategies.

5.1 Interactions between bitou bush and vertebrates (birds andmammals)

Information on the impact of bitou bush invasion (and its control programs) on vertebrates (nativeor introduced) is limited. Dodkin and Gilmore (1984) highlighted the need to collect informationon the impacts of bitou bush on fauna, however, only a handful of studies have been publishedsince. The impact of bitou bush invasion on fauna was acknowledged by the NSW Scientific


38

Committee in its determination of bitou bush as a KTP (NSW SC 1999a). The determinationidentified three threatened fauna species potentially at risk from bitou bush, namely the easternbristlebird (Dasyornis brachypterus), little tern (Sterna albifrons) and beach stone-curlew (Esacusneglectus).

Anecdotal and observational evidence suggests that bitou bush invasion can result in the declineof some native bird populations, for example those that nest or roost in hind-dunes such as littleterns (S. albifrons: Ross pers. comm.). In addition, monthly counts of shorebirds on PelicanIsland, off Port Macquarie showed that as bitou bush and lantana increased on the island, birddensities declined (NPWS 2002a). The contribution of bitou bush and lantana to this decline,while suspected, is unknown. The effects of bitou bush invasion on bird communities are notconsistent across bird species. On the South Coast, canopy-feeding generalists and understoreyinsectivores were found to be more abundant in some bitou bush infested areas than some areas ofnative vegetation (French and Zubovic 1997).

The sprawling branches, dense foliage cover, long flowering period and abundant fleshy fruitproduction of bitou bush may provide shelter and food for some animals (French and Eardley1997). However, simply because bitou bush offers a potential food resource does not mean thatanimals utilise or prefer this resource to their typical diet. The presence of bitou bush did notappear to affect fruit removal rates by birds for co-occurring native shrub species (Gosper et al.2005). Bitou bush may only be a minor food resource for birds, as fruits are only present for ashort period of the year, however during fruiting, this temporary food source may be exploited bygeneralist feeders, rather than specialists as highlighted by the list of species reported to consumebitou bush fruits (Dodkin and Gilmore 1984 and Table 5.1).

Not all bird species that consume bitou bush fruits are effective dispersers (e.g. crimson rosella(Platycercus elegans)), and for many other birds effective dispersal is only assumed (e.g. from theoccurrence of bitou bush plants beneath emergent trees/perching sites). European red foxes(Vulpes vulpes) consume high quantities of bitou bush fruits and are effective dispersers of itsseeds (Meek 1998). Unlike many native coastal plants, bitou bush flowers in winter and providesan important food source for many animals during late winter/early spring (French and Eardley1997). Conversely, the reduction in native species that flower in summer due to bitou bushinfestation may result in a food shortage for many animals such as specialist frugivores,nectarivores and insectivores (Dodkin and Gilmore 1984). Twenty-three bird species and threemammal species have been reported to feed on bitou bush (Table 5.1).

French and Zubovic (1997) recommend further study to elucidate the responses of individual birdspecies to bitou bush invasions. Of particular concern is the role of coastal habitats in providingsources of nectar for fauna over winter, a period of regional shortage, following bitou bushinvasion and competition (Dodkin and Gilmore 1984; Law et al. 2000; Gosper 2004b). Similarstudies for mammals are also needed, especially given that the only mammal species for whichthere is information are introduced ones, and nectar/pollen feeding bats (see Table 5.1).

Subsequent to the release of the draft TAP (see DEC 2004), information has been compiled onfauna species which may be at risk from bitou bush invasion (Table 5.2). Unfortunately, most ofthis information was not available prior to completion of this plan and thus no assessments havebeen made of the exact nature of the threat or how the impacts due to bitou bush invasion mightbe reduced or sites where control will be beneficial. In addition, it appears that the WINSassessment tool (see Downey in press) may also be useful in determining fauna at risk, based on


39

trials for lantana. Again this was discovered too late to be of use in the development of this TAP.It is anticipated that during the five years of this plan that such information be formulated and thatpriority sites for fauna be established. However, given that some of the sites or plant speciesidentified in Table 5.2 are also listed in Appendix 7 it is hoped that control at these sites will alsohave positive benefits for such species.

Table 5.1 Birds and mammals that have been reported to feed on bitou bush/boneseed(alphabetical order).

birds mammalscommon name reference common name referenceAustralia raven 2 cattle* 1common blackbird* 1 rabbit* 1black-faced cuckoo-shrike 2 European red fox* 1, 3common koel 1crimson rosella 2, 5eastern rosella 2emu 1grey currawong 4house sparrow* 2lewins honeyeater 1, 2noisy miner 1mistletoebird 1, 2olive-backed oriole 1, 2pied currawong 1, 2red wattlebird 1, 2red-whiskered bulbul* 2regent bowerbird 1silvereye 1, 2satin bowerbird 2southern figbird 1superb fairy-wren 2common starling* 1, 2white-cheeked honeyeater 1yellow-faced honeyeater 2

Reference: 1. Dodkin and Gilmore (1984); 2. Gosper (1999); 3. Meek (1998); 4. Loyn and French (1991); 5. Weiss (1983).* = Introduced species

5.2 Interactions between bitou bush and invertebrates

Interactions between plant invasions and invertebrates are much less understood than that forbirds and mammals. On the south coast of New South Wales, examination of the composition oflitter invertebrates (i.e. species richness and relative abundance) between sites with and withoutbitou bush showed no difference in overall species richness or abundance (French and Eardley1997). However, Collembola (springtails) were more abundant in infested sites, while Dermaptera(earwigs), Hymenoptera (wasps, sawflies, bees and ants) and Blattodea (cockroaches) were moreabundant in uninfested sites. Litter invertebrates were not identified to species level, which maymask actual differences. For example, a particular genus may occur across a range of habitats,while the species within that genus may vary within these habitats. Several other studies oninsects and bitou bush are currently being conducted (Wilkie pers. comm.).


40

Table 5.2 Fauna suspected of being threatened by bitou bush invasion in New South Wales(alphabetical order). The exact nature of the threat has not been determined andthus caution should be shown when inferring any threatened status.

threatened status afauna common name TSC Act EPBC Act suspected reason for threat suggested sites for

possible controlbirds beach-stone curlew E listed in NSW SC (1999a)

black-winged petrel V bitou bush grows in nesting sitescoastal emu Populationeastern bristlebird E E listed in NSW SC (1999a)flesh footed shearwater V bitou bush grows in nesting sitesgould’s petrel E bitou bush grows in nesting sites

(Gosper 2004b)Cabbage Tree and Boondelbah

Islands, as well as adjacent siteson the mainland near Hawk’sNest.

little shearwater V bitou bush grows in nesting siteslitte tern E bitou bush grows over or close to

nesting sites, and listed in NSWSC (1999a)

Quibray Bay in Towra Point NR

masked booby V bitou bush grows in nesting sitespied oystercatcher V bitou bush grows close to preferred

habitat and nesting sitesFive Islands NR

red-capped plover bitou bush grows close to preferrednesting sites

red-tailed tropic bird V bitou bush grows in nesting sitesregent honeyeater E E bitou bush competes with food

sources (Gosper 2004b)swamp mahogany (Eucalyptus

robusta) – in the central coastregion

sooty tern V bitou bush grows in nesting sitesswift parrot E E bitou bush competes with food

sources (Gosper 2004b)swamp mahogany (Eucalyptus

robusta) – i.e. Perkins BeachReserve, Port Kembla

threatened shorebirds encroaching on nest/roost sites(Bower pers. comm.)

Belongil Spit

mammals black flying fox V loss of coastal banksia woodland mayimpact on food source

common blossom bat V loss of coastal banksia woodland mayimpact on food source

eastern bentwing bat V loss of coastal banksia woodland mayimpact on food source

eastern long-eared bat V loss of coastal banksia woodland mayimpact on food source

greater broad-nosed bat V loss of coastal banksia woodland mayimpact on food source

grey-headed flying fox V V loss of coastal banksia woodland mayimpact on food source

koala (Hawks Nest & TeaGardens)

Population Hawks Nest & Tea Gardens

little bentwing bat V loss of coastal banksia woodland mayimpact on food source

squirrel glider V loss of coastal banksia woodland mayimpact on food source

yellow-bellied sheathtail-bat

V loss of coastal banksia woodland mayimpact on food source

invertebrates Lord Howe Islandplacostylus

E

a E = Endangered, V = Vulnerable, Population = Endangered Population, as defined under TSC Act = NSW ThreatenedSpecies Conservation Act 1995, EPBC ACT = Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act1999.


41

6 Determining priority sites for bitou bush control

The widespread distribution of bitou bush (80% of the coastline), and to a lesser extent boneseed,in New South Wales makes it impossible and impractical to control all infestations across theirentire range. Therefore, control programs should be targeted. When addressing biodiversityconservation, control efforts must result in the greatest benefit to biodiversity.

As outlined in Chapter 4 and Appendices 2–5, the biodiversity most at risk from bitou bushinvasion has been determined and ranked in terms of the threat posed to native plant communities.This process identified 158 plant species, three plant populations and 26 ecological communitiesat risk from bitou bush invasion (see Table 6.1). Thus, these entities should be used as a basis forensuring that control programs focus on biodiversity conservation.

Table 6.1 The biodiversity at risk from bitou bush invasion and their priority as determinedin the models (see Appendices 3 and 5).

priority

biodiversity at risk a High Medium Low Total

plant species 19 41 98 158plant population b 2 0 1 3ecological communities 8 8 10 26

total entities 29 49 109 187

a Including biodiversity listed as threatened (i.e. under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995: TSC Act) andthose not formally listed as threatened.

b Plant populations as defined under the TSC Act.

6.1 Selecting and prioritising sites

Specific locations for all priority species, populations or ecological communities (i.e. high,medium and low priority, hereafter collectively referred to as ‘entities’) within New South Waleswere determined initially with the aid of distribution information supplied by a wide range ofpeople (including staff from the DEC and local councils). This information was combined withdata from the NPWS Atlas of NSW Wildlife (including the Royal Botanic Gardens Database) andother sources (e.g. Harden 1990–2002; local site surveys and inspections). Locations wereselected irrespective of land tenure. It is acknowledged that this list is not definitive, as somelocations may have been inadvertently overlooked, the distribution data for some species isincomplete, and additional locations may be discovered in the future (as outlined in Section 4.2.8this process can be re-run to establish additional priorities).

Once locations were identified for each entity they were given a unique name and number. Entitylocations were grouped into multi-species sites when they occurred within close proximity to eachother to prevent excessive numbers of sites, and to combine locations that would be best managedcollectively (see Appendix 6 for further details).

For each location, the density of bitou bush present was recorded (high, medium and low, as usedby Thomas 2002). Locations without bitou bush were excluded from the final list of priority sites


42

(Appendix 7). This information was combined with an assessment of current control beingundertaken at each location to provide a measure of the effectiveness of control. An assessmentwas also made of the actual impact from bitou bush and other threats present at each site. Last, ameasure of the status of the entities at each location, along with the importance of the location tothe entities’ overall status, was determined.

These assessments were given numerical values and modelled to produce a score for each entitylocation (see Appendix 6). The assessment score for each entity location was then combined withthe entity’s priority (see Appendices 3 and 5) to give an entity matrix score (e.g. high priorityspecies at a high priority location).

Sites were divided into one of five control categories according to the site’s highest entity matrixscore. The sites within each control category were then ranked by calculating a site matrix value.The site matrix value was simply the sum of the entity matrix scores for all entities at a site. Siteswith higher site matrix values were ranked highest, thus favouring sites with high priority entities,which also had a large number of other entities present (an explanation of the site ranking processis given in full detail in Appendix 6). The complete list of sites and their ranks, split into the fivecategories is presented in Appendix 7.

6.1.1 Control categories

The site assessment process (see Appendix 6) identified 349 sites for the 151 entities for whichlocations were identified (no site locations were identified for 34 species and 2 ecologicalcommunities, see Table A7.7, Appendix 7). The 349 sites were separated into the five controlcategories as per Table 6.2, in which control category 1 represents the highest priorities for action.

Table 6.2 The number of sites in each of the five control categories (see Appendices 6 and 7for further information).

control categories1 2 3 4 5 total

number of sites 169 71 67 37 5 349

Complete lists of sites in each control category are presented in Appendix 7 (Tables A7.1–A7.5).

6.2 Bitou bush control

6.2.1 Control category 1 sites (high priority)

By undertaking control of bitou bush at the 169 control category 1 sites, significant biodiversityconservation will be achieved. In addition, control of bitou bush at these sites is expected to havebiodiversity benefits beyond reducing, abating or ameliorating the threat to the high priorityentities identified here, in terms of medium and low priority entities as well as those not identifiedin this plan. A list of the control category 1 sites is presented in Table A7.1 in Appendix 7. Thecontrol category 1 sites that will conserve each of the 29 high priority entities (19 plant species, 2populations and 8 ecological communities) are listed in Appendix 8 (Tables A8.1, A8.2 and A8.3,respectively). These lists also contain information on the number of other entities present, and the


43

land tenure at each site. A summary of the site information for each of these 29 entities ispresented in Table 6.3, comparing the number of control category 1 sites with the total number ofsites examined here.

Table 6.3 A site summary for each of the high priority plant species, populations andecological communities identified in Appendices 3 and 5.

high priority entities ranknumber of control

category 1 sites examinedtotal number of sites

examinedspecies

Plectranthus cremnus 1 13 17Zieria prostrata 2 3 5Chamaesyce psammogeton 3 21 26Senecio spathulatus 4 7 9Acianthus exiguus 4 4 4Calystegia soldanella 4 1 4Chamaecrista maritima 4 2 2Sophora tomentosa 4 10 14Lepturus repens 4 1 1Pultenaea maritima 4 12 13Stackhousia spathulata 4 24 24Ischaemum triticeum 4 10 11Vigna marina 4 9 10Gleichenia mendellii 14 8 9Actites megalocarpa 14 3 3Poa poiformis 14 2 3Fontainea oraria 17 2 2Diuris praecox 17 6 7Westringia fruticosa 19 15 17

populationsGlycine clandestina (broad leaf form) 1 3 3Zieria smithii (low growing form) 1 8 10

ecological communitiesEastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub 1 5 13Littoral Rainforest (including SEPP 26 &

Sutherland Shire Littoral Rainforest)1 84 128

Kurnell Dune Forest 1 3 4Coastal Banksia Woodlands (Banksia integrifolia) 4 18 23Themeda (Themeda triandra) grassland on sea cliffs

& coastal headlands in the NSW North Coast,Sydney Basin & South East Corner bioregions

4 29 40

Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub equivalentcommunities (i.e. Coastal Sand Wallum Heath)

4 2 2

Frontal Dune Vegetation Complex 4 21 25Coastal Sand Dune complex (Acacia longifolia var.

sophorae)4 23 30

6.2.2 Control category 2–5 sites

In this plan control is not initially directed at sites in control categories 2–5. Through theidentification of these lower priority entities and sites however, it is anticipated that individuallandholders/managers will undertake control at category 2–5 sites that are significant at a regionalor local level. Any control programs at such sites will have broader biodiversity benefits for awide range of species, populations and ecological communities.


44

6.2.3 Control at locations not addressed in this plan

Control of bitou bush currently occurs at many locations for a number of different reasons:< biodiversity conservation (including many of the sites identified in Appendix 7)< neighbour relations (including community relations)< asset management (e.g. cultural heritage values)< infrastructure management (e.g. control at picnic areas, walking tracks, camping

grounds and roads)< fostering research aimed at improved management< delivering broader strategic outcomes [e.g. actions in other strategies such as the

National Bitou Bush and Boneseed Strategy (ARMCANZ et al. 2000), the statestrategy (NPWS 2001a) and regional strategies (e.g. Scanlon 2001)].

While this plan specifically targets the control of bitou bush for biodiversity conservation, thereare other reasons for undertaking bitou bush control, as outlined above. Thus, it is important thatcontrol for these other reasons continues at locations not addressed in this plan, as it deliversbroader outcomes as well as reducing the bitou bush problem.


45

7 Control of bitou bush and boneseed

7.1 Control techniques

A range of techniques is available for the control of bitou bush and boneseed and often acombination of methods is used: aerial and ground application of herbicides; biological control;physical removal; slashing; and burning. In addition, revegetation can be used to suppressrecruitment of seedlings once the initial control has occurred. These techniques have changedlittle over the past decade (see earlier review by Stanley et al. 1989). In part this is because site-specific conditions dictate which methods can be used (Stanley et al. 1989; Adair and Ainsworth2000; Vranjic 2000: further discussion presented below). The introduction of new biologicalcontrol agents is the main exception. Best practice guidelines recommend an integrated approachto control spanning several years, with the final combination of control treatments being site-specific (see Adair and Ainsworth 2000; Vranjic 2000).

Physical techniques include the use of machinery, hand removal (e.g. the removal of individualplants by hand) and fire. These techniques are typically employed in densely infested areascontaining few native species. Any potential disturbance to aboriginal sites as a result of thesetechniques needs to be addressed in site-specific plans (see below and Appendix 9). Machinery isused to slash or knock down dense infestations, often as an initial operation to allow othertechniques to be used. It is impractical for use over large areas. As many plants re-sprout aftersuch treatments, follow-up control is nearly always required. The cost of using machinery variesdepending on access, topography, vegetation and the equipment being used. Average costs are$900–1,200/ha. Hand removal is used to remove small to medium sized plants, particularly inlightly infested areas or for isolated plants. Hand removal can be very effective followingprevious control programs. The cost of hand removal varies depending on access, topography,vegetation, and the infestation level. Average costs exceed $600/ha. This method is best suited tovolunteers and the costs can be reduced substantially if volunteers are used. Fire can kill matureplants and reduce the seed bank through heat/smoke stimulated germination. The effects willdepend on the intensity and duration of the fire (see Downey 1999). The need to consider impactsto non-target species, protection of life and property and the need to obtain a permit addconsiderably to the time and cost involved in using this technique. In addition, follow-up controlis essential because of increased seedling recruitment. Fire may also cause additional problemssuch as erosion, habitat loss for fauna and the provision of a suitable environment for other weedspecies to establish.

The use of herbicides is the most effective method of controlling bitou bush. Glyphosate is themost commonly used herbicide, although when impacts on grasses need to be avoidedmetsulfuron methyl is preferred. Glyphosate and metsulfuron methyl are typically applied inwinter when bitou bush is flowering and the growth or activity of native plants is reduced.Herbicide application during winter reduces off-target effects in most native plant communities(see aerial spraying section below for more detailed information). Herbicides can be applied as afoliar spray or by painting the herbicide onto cut stumps. Average costs are $300-500/ha for spot-spraying using a vehicle mounted spray-rig, and $800+/ha for painting cut stumps, depending onsite conditions (as documented above for hand removal).

The NSW aerial spraying program for bitou bush was developed following trials undertaken byNSW Agriculture (now DPI) in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Initial trials focused on ground


46

spraying to determine which herbicides were most effective in controlling bitou bush. Followingthis further trials were undertaken to determine the impact of over-spray on native species andthereby ascertain appropriate application rates. The results showed that spraying in winter reducedthe impact on natives while delivering effective control of bitou bush. In addition, the rate ofherbicide required to kill bitou bush during winter was very low (using glyphosate). Trials weresubsequently undertaken using aerial techniques at four sites along the NSW coast from JervisBay to Yamba. The results supported the ground spraying trials, suggesting that effective controlof bitou bush could be achieved using aerial spraying in winter, while limiting off-target damage.Recently best practice guidelines were developed for the aerial boom spraying of bitou bush inNew South Wales (see Broese van Groenou and Downey 2006). All aerial spraying programs tocontrol bitou bush in New South Wales should follow these guidelines. Aerial application usinglow rates of glyphosate (0.76 kg active ingredient/ha) is a very effective technique that is usedwidely for the control of bitou bush. This technique is very cost-effective ($100–205/ha) andallows large areas to be treated rapidly.

The NPWS (now the Parks and Wildlife Division of the DEC) recently gained approval fromAPVMA to aerial spot-spray bitou bush using a helicopter. Average costs are not yet available butshould be similar to that of other forms of aerial spraying.

The NSW Pesticides Act 1999 encompasses a range of regulations which users must comply with(see Section 2.2.3 and the Act for further information).

Herbicides and physical techniques are often combined to give more effective control, e.g.cutting and painting the stumps of mature plants with herbicide, and strategic burning precedingor following the use of herbicides. In heavily infested areas the cost of this combined techniquemay exceed $15,000/ha (Jack pers. comm.). Many of these combined techniques form the basisfor Integrated Weed Management (discussed further below).

Biological control involves the use of other live organisms to control weeds (or other pests). Anational research program on biological control of bitou bush has been operating since 1986 (seeDowney et al. submitted). Host specificity testing in South Africa revealed 19 possible agents forthe control of Chrysanthemoides monilifera (bitou bush and boneseed) in Australia (see Adair andEdwards 1996). Over the past 19 years extensive work has been undertaken to assess and releaseas many agents from this list as possible. The biological control program for bitou bush in NewSouth Wales has all but exhausted this list; resulting in the release of six biological control agents,four of which have established in the wild: the bitou tip moth (Comostolopsis germana Prout),bitou tortoise beetle (Cassida sp.), bitou seed fly (Mesoclanis polana Munro) and bitou leaf rollermoth (Tortrix sp.). One of the released agents, the bitou seed fly is now well established along theNSW coastline and populations of the fly have commonly reduced seed production by over 50%.The latest introduction, the bitou leaf roller moth, has been released at 45 sites along the NSWcoast, however it has only established at six sites, all of which are on headlands. Research showsthat the bitou leaf roller suffers from predation in dune environments (see Downey et al.submitted). Future releases will be targeted to headlands to aid establishment. At high densities,larvae of the moth are capable of decimating plants and it is the most destructive agent found todate. It is too early to draw any conclusions from these releases, but Australian and South Africanscientists are confident of the bitou leaf roller moth’s potential to have a major impact on bitoubush in Australia. Without further host-specificity testing in South Africa, it is unlikely that anyadditional agents will be released to control bitou bush in Australia. For boneseed, however, there


47

are several potential agents, three of which are currently being tested/examined (see Downey et al.submitted).

Biological control programs are a long-term option for control, the time frame of which can beinfluenced by the longevity of the target species. For example, the actions of a seed fly whichparasitises the seeds of a long-lived plant (e.g. 25 years) will not alter the longevity of anindividual plant, but rather will reduce the seed bank, leading to a reduction in recruitment andplant density over subsequent generations.

Integrated weed management (IWM) strategies and best practice management guidelines (seeAdair and Ainsworth 2000; Vranjic 2000) outline holistic approaches using a combination ofcontrol techniques (Sindel 2000). This is because the use of a single technique is rarely successfulin the long term (Groves 1989; Holtkamp et al. 1999) and may lead to negative outcomes (e.g.herbicide resistant biotypes). In essence, an holistic approach aims to remove existing plants,deplete the soil seed bank, reduce re-invasion (either by the same or other weed species), andrehabilitate and re-vegetate the site with desirable indigenous species (i.e. locally occurringnatives). In addition, IWM establishes a framework to manage sites following the initial controlevent. The nature of bitou bush invasions means that an IWM strategy for this weed needs to belong-term if it is to reduce the initial infestation as well as deplete the soil seed bank. Lack ofappropriate follow-up controls or commitment to follow-up controls will quickly result in re-infestation by bitou bush (Vranjic 2000).

7.2 Issues associated with bitou bush and boneseed control

Often there is more than one weed species present at a site and in many cases, the control of onespecies may provide an opportunity for another to proliferate. Where there is more than one weedspecies present, bush regeneration techniques should be adopted (see Buchanan 1989). The idealstrategy is to replace bitou bush with native species in such a way that the process of naturalregeneration and succession is sustainable and bitou bush is not simply replaced by other weeds orre-invades itself. Some of the species that flourish after bitou bush control are even more difficultto control, e.g. glory lily (Gloriosa superba), ground asparagus (Asparagus aethiopicus), mirrorbush (Coprosma repens) and ehrharta (Ehrharta villosa), or at least as difficult to control, e.g.lantana (Lantana camara). The cost of multiple weed control varies depending on the weedspecies present, the density and age of the infestation/plants, and the control methods used.Average costs are $600–20,000/ha.

Concerns over the use of herbicides have been raised with respect to their potential impacts onnon-target species. Best practice guidelines for aerial boom spraying have been developed to helplimit some of these concerns (see Broese van Groenou and Downey 2006). Even so, recent studiesand reviews have revealed that some native plant and animal species are susceptible to herbicideapplication as used to control bitou bush (e.g. Pimelea spicata). Species that are susceptible to orpotentially susceptible to herbicides are presented in Appendices 10A and 10B as well as in thebest practice aerial spraying guidelines. These species, along with any others identified in thefuture should be considered when undertaking herbicide control of bitou bush or boneseed. Thelists in Appendix 10B contain information on the susceptibility of 280 species to Round-up® 360and 85 species for metsulfuron methyl. However, different formulations of glyphosate or theuse of surfactants or other additives could alter the response of the species on these lists. Inaddition, herbicides should be used with extreme caution in areas where priority plant species,


48

populations and ecological communities occur. The effects of herbicide are not known for manyof the priority species (including those in priority ecological communities) and they shouldtherefore be considered potentially at risk until data are available.

Low rates of glyphosate used for aerial application (0.76 kg active ingredient/ha) have minimalimpact on most native species, with less than 10% exhibiting mortality or severe damage (Toth2002). No threatened species were examined in Toth’s 2002 study. The study also only looked atimpacts on adult plants, not seedlings. Studies that have investigated the effects of glyphosate onseedlings show that seedlings experience greater impacts than adults. For example, Acaciasophorae seedlings were affected by herbicide while the adults were not (Toth et al. 1996), butPimelea spicata seedlings and adults were both affected by the herbicides at rates used to controlbitou bush (Matarczyk 1999; Matarczyk et al. 2002). In the case of P. spicata this knowledge hasinfluenced control programs (Pomery pers. comm.). Studies have recently begun on the impact ofmetsulfuron methyl, which is also used in aerial spraying (Toth pers. comm.; Appendix 10B). Theeffects of herbicides on herbs or annuals have not been examined, however several nativeterrestrial orchids appear to be susceptible to glyphosate (Jones and Weston pers. comm.).

Some formulations of glyphosate contain a polyoxethylene amine (POEA) surfactant that is toxicto some frogs (see Bidwell and Gorrie 1995; Mann and Bidwell 1999). Only formulations ofglyphosate containing non-POEA surfactants are registered for use in aquatic situations (NRA1996). Consideration should also be given to using these formulations in any terrestrial situationthat is a potential habitat for frogs, particularly those frog species listed under the threatenedspecies legislation (TSC or EPBC Acts), and at sites identified in relevant recovery plans, e.g. forthe green and gold bell frog (NPWS 2003b). Any other herbicide, surfactant or adjuvant that mayhave adverse effects on aquatic organisms should be avoided in any terrestrial situation bufferingan aquatic ecosystem. A list of the aquatic organisms most likely to be impacted is presented inAppendix 10A, Table 10.2, and should be considered in all control programs.

A recent examination of leaf litter invertebrates showed no significant effect of herbicides onthese invertebrates (see Lindsay and French 2004b).

When using other control techniques with biological control agents it may be important toleave untreated patches of the target weed to maintain populations of the biocontrol agents.

A recent study of weed impacts on threatened species revealed that bush regeneration andincorrect identification of natives as weeds posed a significant threat to native species (Couts-Smith and Downey 2006). If bush regeneration techniques/activities are to be undertaken withinthe habitat of threatened entities (species, populations or endangered ecological communities)they must follow an interim draft checklist developed by DEC for such instances [the finalchecklist was not available at the time of writing].

7.3 Follow-up treatments

Lack of appropriate follow-up treatments will result in re-invasion by bitou bush (Stanley et al.1989; Vranjic 2000). The extent and duration of any follow-up treatment will depend on manyfactors including:

< the original seed bank size< the length of seed dormancy period (>5 years)< the distance to other bitou bush infestations (i.e. re-invasion source)


49

< the control technique(s) employed (e.g. fire can deplete soils seed banks)< the extent and condition of the invaded native plant communities that are present.

Follow-up techniques must be employed prior to seed production from any new cohort orregrowth of surviving plants. Seedlings are capable of producing seed within 24 months, withsome observations on the north coast of New South Wales suggesting that newly germinatedplants can set seed within 12 months (Thomas pers. comm.). The timing of follow-up controltreatments must be sufficiently flexible to allow maximum recruitment, as well as prevent seedproduction. Follow-up controls should also ensure that enough time has elapsed for most bitoubush seedlings to reach a size/age that makes them easy to see amongst the re-sprouting nativevegetation. Seedling mortality appears to be high, therefore delaying follow-up control techniqueswill also be more cost-effective, provided the follow-up treatment occurs prior to first flowering.

Follow-up control techniques will vary depending on the level of recruitment observed for bitoubush and the other weed species present. The two most common methods are hand removal orspot-spraying of seedlings. However, biological control agents can be employed to help limitestablishment, particularly in the longer term where they can reduce spread and lower plantvigour.

7.4 A staged approach to bitou bush control

At many sites the density and area infested by bitou bush is such that it cannot be controlled in asingle control event/action. Thus, the control of bitou bush at these sites needs to occur in stages.

The first stage is the removal of bitou bush and other weed species from the immediate vicinityof the species, population or ecological community at risk. This will reduce the direct threat in theshort term.

The second stage is the expansion of stage one to cover a larger area of the bitou bush infestationat the site. In this stage, the removal of bitou bush should be prioritised to areas containingsuitable habitat for the priority species, populations and ecological communities to expand into inthe future and decrease the threat by providing a bigger buffer zone between bitou bush and thethreatened entity. Stage two involves the follow-up control of bitou bush seedlings that germinatewithin all previously controlled areas (including stage one areas).

The third and subsequent stages involve the further expansion of earlier stages with the aim ofremoving all bitou bush from the site and surrounding areas to prevent re-invasion. This stage alsoincludes the continual follow-up control of bitou bush seedlings in all previously controlledstages/areas of the site (i.e. stages one and two areas).

This staged approach can be beneficial for a number of reasons:< control is focused on an area for which there are sufficient resources available.< land managers are forced to think about the follow-up control constraints.< control can be focused initially on areas where priority species, populations or

ecological communities occur, or on other priority areas.< a staged approach aids in the protection of threatened ecological communities (e.g.

littoral rainforests as discussed below).< a plan can be drawn up to manage large infestations.


50

The staged approach must:< be planned before any control is undertaken, with all stages clearly marked and the

timing of each stage determined, preferably incorporated into a site-specificmanagement plan (see below)

< only control areas for which there are resources available to undertake the subsequentstages, including most importantly the follow-up treatment of seedlings. Irrespective ofthe initial control measure implemented, follow-up treatments are required to controlrecruitment (as described by Vranjic 2000).

7.4.1 Littoral rainforest - an example of a staged approach

Bitou bush poses a serious threat to littoral rainforest. It threatens littoral rainforests in two mainways. First, it invades the margins, where it competes with or suppresses the species that protectthe rainforest. The exposed margins are then subject to further degradation particularly on theseaward fringes, which are exposed to salt spray and desiccating winds. Second, bitou bushestablishes in canopy gaps where it suppresses regrowth and reduces recruitment of native plants.Canopy gaps can occur naturally or through the competitive effect of bitou bush at the margins.Long-term monitoring of bitou bush-infested littoral rainforests shows that where small gaps inthe canopy occur, lantana and native species may replace bitou bush. However, in larger gaps andon the margins, bitou bush remains the dominant species (Hunter pers. comm.).

The staged approach is necessary in the control of bitou bush invasion of margins to ensure that itdoes not result in exposure of the littoral rainforest following the removal of bitou bush fromwhere it replaces the forest’s protective vegetation. Thus stage 1 would involve a staggeredremoval of bitou bush from the forest edge, especially on the seaward side of littoral rainforests,to maintain the forest’s protective buffer from wind and salt spray. For the control of bitou bush incanopy gaps, stage 1 would involve the systematic removal of all plants from within the canopy,especially in forest gaps, while stage 2 would involve the removal of bitou bush from the forestmargins, and stage 3 removal from the surrounding habitat.

7.5 Site-specific management

Best practice management guidelines (Vranjic 2000) and the NSW bitou bush strategy (NPWS2001a) both emphasise the importance of site-specific strategies or management plans for thecontrol of bitou bush. Previously there has been no framework for developing such strategies, butrather information was presented on a series of bitou bush densities and invaded habitats alongwith a range of control options (see Vranjic 2000).

The use of site-specific management strategies should not result in broader managementobjectives being compromised. To avoid this occurring and still ensure effective site management,a framework has been developed for compiling site-specific management strategies/plans (seebelow) as well as a proforma for preparing a site-specific management plan (see Appendix 9).

7.5.1 A framework for site-specific management plans

While the development of site-specific management plans is dependent on local factors andconditions, each plan [for the purposes of this TAP] must be based on a core set of attributes.These form a framework for the development of site-specific management plans for the control of


51

bitou bush at priority sites (i.e. control category 1 sites). Each site-specific management planshould:

< be developed in consultation with relevant stakeholders< clearly identify and determine the roles and responsibilities of all stakeholders for each

stage of the plan< identify Aboriginal cultural heritage sites (including those covered under the NPWS

Aboriginal Heritage Information System)< involve consultation with indigenous people with respect to any special knowledge or

interest in the site or the species, population or ecological community (i.e. traditionalfoods) and control programs at that site, including the likely social, cultural andeconomic consequences

< specify the priority species, populations and ecological communities present as perthreat abatement or recovery plans (or for any other legislative requirement), as well asany other species of high conservation value

< identify the most appropriate management techniques for the level of bitou bushpresent, as well as for other aspects of the site including the native flora, non-targeteffects, the terrain, access, and other local conditions, as well as for the priorityspecies, etc. identified above (including remediation methods, e.g. fencing)

< ensure all pesticide applications comply with the Pesticides Act (see Chapter 2) andAPVMA regulations

< identify the milestones, performance criteria and measures to be achieved during thelife of the plan (including the staged approach to management; see above)

< outline a follow-up control program to prevent re-invasion/re-infestation of the siteafter the initial control (in line with the staged approach)

< outline any monitoring programs being undertaken to evaluate the effectiveness ofbitou bush control programs

< identify other weed species that are likely to invade following the removal of bitoubush and outline a control program to address the problem

< identify training requirements for all stakeholders and/or persons who will undertakethe management actions (including volunteers), e.g. the application of herbicides

< identify and incorporate all threat abatement and recovery plan actions relevant to thesite (e.g. the Green and Gold Bell Frog Recovery Plan: see NPWS 2003b)

< identify and incorporate all relevant actions outlined in the draft Priority ActionStatement (PAS – DEC 2006b)

< outline the long-term management of the site (i.e. site history).For the purposes of achieving the outcomes of this plan a proforma has been prepared to help landmanagers prepare site-specific management plans (see Appendix 9). At all control category 1sites, a site-specific management plan should be prepared using this proforma and the frameworklisted above.

7.6 Infestation levels and control options

As bitou bush infestations increase in density and area, control programs need to follow astrategic staged approach to help reduce re-invasion of treated areas. Below are some genericoptions for consideration.

Light infestations

Lightly infested areas consist of isolated bitou bush plants and/or small clumps of plants. Theimpact on the native flora from light infestations is typically low. Control of bitou bush in lightly


52

infested areas is best achieved with directed application of herbicides and/or hand removal(including cut/stump techniques), as these techniques minimise non-target impacts. Control at thelight infestation level prevents a worsening scenario. Sites need to be monitored regularly tocontrol and prevent re-invasion by bitou bush.

Medium infestations

Medium density infestations consist of areas where bitou bush is present throughout the area butis not the dominant plant species. Some impacts to native flora are evident. Control of bitou bushin medium infestations is best achieved with application of herbicides and/or hand removal, asthese techniques minimise non-target impacts. Such sites need to be actively managed to controlrecruitment.

Heavy infestations

Heavily infested areas are dominated by bitou bush, the extreme scenario being a monoculture.Control techniques for heavily infested areas vary as follows, depending on the invadedvegetation community (based on Vranjic 2000).

In coastal fore-dunes and headlands control can be achieved using a combination of biocontrol,herbicide and mechanical removal. Fire is generally not recommended because it increases therisk of erosion. Fire may be considered however, if dune areas are stable or follow-up techniquessuch as installing brush-matting can be implemented immediately following any fire event.

In coastal heath, woodlands and grassy hind-dunes control can be achieved using a multi-stage,spray–burn–spray strategy incorporating biocontrol agents (see Vranjic 2000 for more details).The re-establishment of bitou bush biocontrol agents within treated areas depends on theproximity of agents to the treated area and their abundance in such areas, the size of the areatreated, the level of bitou bush recruitment following control, and the impact of the biocontrolagent on seedlings and adult plants. The timing of the use of fire as a control technique variesfrom site to site. Control burns are most effective in autumn on the south coast of New SouthWales, and in spring on the north coast. The full implications of a biocontrol–spray–burn–spraystrategy to control bitou bush in coastal vegetation communities have not been determined. Theuse of fire should be approached with caution and planned carefully, as fire will not be suitable inall instances.

Rainforests (littoral or otherwise) are typically fire-sensitive and therefore should be managedto prevent fires. In rainforests, bitou bush can be most effectively controlled using a combinationof biocontrol, spot-spraying and hand removal of plants. Germination of bitou bush seedlingswithin rainforests occurs at a low level, except where the canopy has been damaged, increasinglight penetration. Bitou bush seeds are typically dispersed into the rainforest from surroundinginfestations, rather than from seeds produced on plants within the rainforest, because seedproduction is greatly reduced in shaded conditions. Priority should be given to the control of bitoubush infestations surrounding rainforests rather than plants within the forest. Control of bitou bushon the seaward side of littoral rainforests needs to be staged carefully to maintain the forest’sprotective buffer from wind and salt spray. Bitou bush often invades and replaces this protectivevegetation.


53

7.7 Areas presently free of bitou bush and boneseed in NSW

Maintaining areas that are presently free of bitou bush and boneseed will be beneficial tobiodiversity, as native species, populations and ecological communities in these areas will remainunaffected by bitou bush invasions. This however, is outside the scope of this plan (as outlinedpreviously) and should be addressed through more appropriate strategies e.g. the national WONSstrategy for bitou bush/boneseed (ARMCANZ et al. 2000).

7.7.1 Areas at risk of invasion by bitou bush and boneseed

Some vegetation communities are known to be susceptible to bitou bush invasion (e.g. fore-dunes,hind-dunes and headlands). Our knowledge of other vegetation communities (e.g. forestcommunities) is rudimentary however. Anecdotal evidence suggests that open coastal forestslacking a true shrub layer, on both clay and sandy soils, are more susceptible to invasion thanclosed ones. Bitou bush also poses a threat to the outer margins of closed forests (e.g. littoralrainforests). Dry heath may also be susceptible, especially where disturbance reduces plantcompetition near bitou bush infestations. Boneseed poses a similar threat, but to communitiesfurther inland.

7.8 The ‘no change in current management’ control option

An alternative control option is the ‘no change in current management’ approach. At present thereis a range of bitou bush control programs in place to conserve native flora and limit bitou bushspread, at various sites throughout New South Wales. These control programs involve manyagencies (e.g. Parks and Wildlife Division of DEC, Department of Lands, NSW State Forests andlocal councils), the community (through community groups) and private landholders. In addition,there is a national strategy (ARMCANZ et al. 2000) and state strategy (NPWS 2001a) to prioritisebitou bush management. There is however a need for an overall strategy for bitou bush control forthreatened species, because:

< some control programs do not have conservation objectives, apart for the assumptionthat control alone will result in biodiversity outcomes (see Downey 2003a, b, submittedfor further discussion).

< the objectives of some control programs are unclear. In particular, the species that areexpected to benefit from bitou bush control are not always identified (Downeysubmitted).

< where species are identified, an objective basis for predicting that the species issusceptible to bitou bush invasion is not always provided. In particular, there may beno information that species targeted by bitou bush control will benefit other than theobservation that they are present or absent from their ‘preferred’ habitat.

< some programs are likely to be ineffective because control is not targeted at priorityspecies and follow-up programs are inadequate, or control occurs over too small anarea or too short a timeframe to prevent re-infestation.

< there is no consistent plan applying across all land tenures. Greater collaborationbetween landholders is fundamental to the success of control programs.

< measures of effectiveness for these programs are often inadequate and, in particular, donot measure the response of targeted species to bitou bush control. Thus, no measure isavailable on the effectiveness of control programs, or whether target species recover


54

following removal of bitou bush therefore indicating they were limited by bitou bushinvasion.

< years of bitou bush control have not provided information on which species areaffected by bitou bush invasions.

An integrated approach to broad-scale weed management that incorporates plant conservation islong overdue. Such an approach is needed in order to deliver conservation outcomes from weedmanagement (Downey 2003a, b, submitted). Thus, the ‘no change in current management’ controloption would be a retrograde step which will not benefit biodiversity conservation.

The cost of ‘doing nothing’ in terms of controlling bitou bush for biodiversity conservation can beassessed using the estimated cost of losing a species due to weed invasion, being $86,700 perspecies per year (see Sinden et al. 2004) and the number of species identified here as being at risk(158). Thus, the cost of ‘doing nothing’ equates to $13.7 million per year.

Lastly, given the scale of the problem the cost of doing nothing at sites where species arethreatened far outweighs the economic benefits of controlling new or isolated infestations.Arguments have also been made that control for biodiversity should also address potential orfuture impacts. Again, given the scale of the problem, the limited nature of resources, and theaims of a threat abatement plan, the current impacts to biodiversity are so great andimmediate that they outweigh any potential or future impacts to un-infested areas. Such controlprograms are thus outside the scope of this plan and should be addressed in other plans (i.e.regional strategies).

7.9 Roles and responsibilities with respect to bitou bush control

The declaration of bitou bush as a noxious weed under the Noxious Weeds Act requires landmanagers to control bitou bush (a list of all the local control authorities in New South Wales, inwhich bitou bush or boneseed is declared noxious, is presented in Appendix 1). In addition, thecontrol of bitou bush and boneseed in areas containing threatened species may require a licence(see Chapter 2 for further details).

7.9.1 The role of the Bitou TAP in bitou bush management in NSW

The role of the Bitou TAP is to prioritise the control of bitou bush in New South Wales forspecies, populations and ecological communities at risk and their locations where control willhave the greatest biodiversity outcomes (see Chapters 4 and 6 and Appendices 3, 5 and 8). Whilethe TAP aims to address the highest priorities, lower priorities (both threatened biodiversity andsites) should be used to establish regional and local priorities for bitou bush control. The prioritylists are not definitive and other species and ecological communities in New South Walesthreatened by bitou bush invasion may be identified in the future. The control of bitou bush otherthan for the priorities established here is outside the scope of this TAP, except for the species thatco-occur at control category 1 sites. Control of bitou bush at lower priority sites (i.e. Category 2,3, 4 and 5 sites) is the responsibility of local land managers and other strategies e.g. regional bitoubush strategies. Other funding sources should be maintained to combat bitou bush whereprograms are already in place or in other important areas.


55

8 Monitoring the recovery of priority biodiversity andthe control of bitou bush

8.1 Developing a monitoring system for control category 1 sites

To determine the effectiveness of any weed control program, a monitoring program must bedeveloped and implemented. Monitoring programs must take measures from both controlled anduncontrolled areas in order to detect any changes in bitou bush attributed to the control program.In addition, given that this plan is focused on biodiversity at risk, monitoring must be tailored tothose entities identified as being at risk. Many variables can be measured and a number ofmonitoring techniques can be used. The following measures must be addressed at control category1 sites described in the TAP:

< the response of bitou bush (adults and seedlings) to the control program, measured bydetailed and frequent assessments of plant abundance and vigour, as well as throughregular observations from photo points both prior to and post control

< the response of the high priority plant species, populations and ecologicalcommunities to the control program, measured by a similar range of measures asdescribed for bitou bush above

< the response of other weed species to the control program, measured by regularsurveys of the other weed species along with their relative abundance. More detailedmeasures can be obtained using similar response variables as described for measuringthe response of bitou bush above (e.g. plant vigour).

Additional measures can help to determine the effectiveness of control programs with respect tothe broader invaded community and should be collected where resources are available:

< the response of a broader suite of native species (both plants and animals),populations and ecological communities to the control program, measured by similarrange of measures as described for other weed species above

< the response of biocontrol agents following the control program, measured by the rateof attack and density of the agents taken at regular intervals following control.

Measuring these variables is difficult and sampling methods need to consider several factors:< the timeframe required to measure a response, for example, to determine bitou bush

recruitment/seed bank depletion rates accurately a timeframe of at least five years isrequired to account for seed dormancy

< differences between controlled areas and non-controlled areas, or before and aftercontrol need to be accounted for

< the timing of individual measures or samples (e.g. summer) and interval between them< the level of replication needed to provide credible results< how the data will be analysed/presented< a balance between too simplified and too complicated data collection techniques< a standard and consistent way of collecting data< experimental non-treatment and control sites< commitment to maintaining the integrity of the sampling design and regime over the

course of the monitoring program.A more detailed discussion on monitoring bitou bush, the biodiversity at risk and other weeds ispresented below, followed by a proposed monitoring system for this plan.


56

8.1.1 Measuring the effect of control programs on bitou bush infestations

The effectiveness of bitou bush control programs can be measured directly from the response ofbitou bush. For example, through plant survival and recruitment following control. While theexact techniques for collecting such information have not been finalised with regards to themonitoring of this plan, each measure is discussed with examples below.

Measuring survival

Most control methods do not result in 100% mortality, so it is important to monitor the number ofplants that survive control treatments, both as an indicator of the success of a control program,and as an indicator for determining the interval for follow-up control.

Plants that survive control treatments can produce seed in a shorter timeframe than plants thatgerminate following the same control treatment. Hence, plants that survive initial treatments willrequire earlier follow-up treatment if the input of fresh seed is to be limited. In order to controlweed seed banks, a measure of bitou bush plants that survive control treatments (e.g. missedtotally, treated but re-sprouting, or unaffected) needs to be determined for each method used. Thiscan be measured using quadrat counts or photopoints.

Measuring recruitment

Recruitment from the seed bank will have important implications for the long-term success of anybitou bush control program. Firstly, the time taken to exhaust bitou bush seed banks is unknown,but is thought to be 5–10 years (Stanley et al. 1989; NPWS 2001a). An understanding of seedpopulation dynamics will allow more effective control programs to be developed, in part frombetter predictions of the follow-up control period. Secondly, some control measures will reducebitou bush seed bank densities more than others. For example, fire stimulates seeds to germinateas well as killing others (as examined for a range of weed species, see Downey 1999). Thus, acombination of fire and herbicide is likely to reduce soil seed banks to a lower level than eithermethod would if used alone.

The probability of a seed becoming a reproductive adult is unknown. Therefore, the optimalperiod in terms of maximum impact on bitou bush between the initial control and any follow-uptreatment is also unknown. Data from the environmental weed Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius)showed that less than 2% of seedlings became reproductive adults (Downey and Smith 2000).This information provides insights into when follow-up control programs should be undertaken. Ifseedling mortality in bitou bush is similarly high, follow-up treatments should target olderseedlings because they have a greater probability of becoming reproductive. In addition,premature follow-up control treatments may kill seedlings that would die anyway, as well as missmany seeds that have not yet emerged. Lastly, the location of bitou bush seedlings may suggestinvasion patterns (i.e. under roosting trees). This information can be used to target specific areasin follow-up control programs or subsequent stages of control, to prevent re-invasion.

The recruitment levels of the other species present also have important implications for the long-term success of any bitou bush control program. The number of seedlings of priority taxa canindicate their ability to recover/regenerate following bitou bush control programs. A lack ofseedlings may require additional recovery techniques like revegetation, but such techniques areoutside the scope of this TAP. The number of other weed seedlings will indicate the need for


57

other control programs. Thus, any monitoring program needs to measure the recruitment of bitoubush and other species present.

Recruitment can be measured in a number of different ways depending on the aim of themonitoring program, including seedling counts, soil seed bank counts, and seedling growth rates.Thus, monitoring for this component of the plan will be determined in consultation withstakeholders in the immediate future.

8.1.2 Measuring the response of high priority species, populations and

ecological communities to bitou bush control

The effectiveness of bitou bush control programs can also be monitored by measuring theresponse of biodiversity (i.e. species, populations and ecological communities) to the controltechnique used. Unfortunately, many weed control programs do not monitor native species.Monitoring the response of native species is not that different from monitoring the response of theweed species. The main issue is choosing the native species to monitor and finding a suitablemonitoring technique for those selected. With respect to this plan, the native species orbiodiversity has been identified in Appendices 3 and 5. The ecology literature and textbooks covermonitoring in detail, so the specifics are not presented here. Note that factors which confound theresponse of biodiversity to bitou bush control can include bitou bush recruitment levels from theseed bank; re-invasion rates of bitou bush post-control; the percentage of the overall bitou bushinfestation treated; and the percentage of plants that persist after control actions. Theseconfounding factors can be accounted for during any monitoring program with an appropriateexperimental design and methodology.

Hence, monitoring for this component of the plan will be determined in the immediate future,based on the priority species present at each site, and in consultation with stakeholders.

8.1.3 Measuring the response of other weed species to bitou bush control

The control of one weed species, in this case bitou bush, can lead to the invasion of a site byanother weed species. Sometimes this secondary invader can be more difficult to control than theoriginal weed species, for example, glory lily following bitou bush control along the north coastof New South Wales. Hence, it is important to monitor the response of any such weed speciesduring and after the control of bitou bush. This can be done using similar monitoring techniquesto those outlined for bitou bush in Section 8.1.1.

8.1.4 Proposed monitoring system

It is not possible to monitor every species, population and ecological community at every siteidentified in this plan. Thus, a monitoring system is needed. While the mechanics of whichmethods to use for which biodiversity at which sites is still to be developed, an overview of theapproach is presented here, using a two-tier monitoring program to measure responses. The two-tier monitoring program should be used to monitor robust (tier two) and less robust (tier one)species, populations and ecological communities. In some instances the populations of priorityspecies or the size of priority populations/ecological communities are such that it is impossible toundertake monitoring.


58

Where populations of priority species or the size of priority populations/ecological communitiesare not sufficiently robust the following protocol should be followed (first tier):

< before and after measurements of bitou bush, priority species, populations andecological communities and other weed species continued over time.

Where populations of priority species or the size of priority populations/ecological communitiesare sufficiently robust, the following protocol should be followed (second tier):

< treated and untreated plots, replicated to allow statistical analysis of data< before and after measurements of bitou bush, priority species, populations and

ecological communities and other weed species continued over time< frequency of measurement adequate to allow reliable analysis/interpretation of the

results/trends.

Detailed monitoring protocols which outline the exact methods, biodiversity examined and siteswill be developed in consultation with site-managers in the first year of this plan. These protocolsare also likely to outline the monitoring required for other sites so that land managers can assessthe effectiveness of their control programs. Again, this will occur in consultation with landmanagers.

8.2 Monitoring other variables of importance to the TAP

There are a range of objectives and actions outlined in Chapter 9 in addition to the control of bitoubush at control category 1 sites, that are aimed at increasing our understanding of the impacts ofbitou bush to biodiversity, and therefore developing more effective management strategies toreduce such impacts. A summary of the monitoring programs required for such actions is outlinedbelow.

8.2.1 Measuring the response of priority species to herbicide

Herbicides have been used successfully to control bitou bush in Australia for many years.However, as discussed in Section 7.2, there are concerns over the use of herbicides and in someinstances this requires further investigation. For example, the herbicide application used for bitoubush control adversely affected P. spicata plants (see Matarczyk 1999; Matarczyk et al. 2002).Apart from P. spicata the effect of herbicide application on the priority species identified in thisplan is limited. The following discussion refers primarily to assessment of the impact ofherbicides used to control bitou bush on the priority plant species, populations and the specieswithin those ecological communities listed in this TAP. The impacts on all non-target speciesshould also be determined during any such assessment.

The best practice guidelines for the aerial boom spraying of bitou bush in New South Wales (seeBroese van Groenou and Downey 2006) presents information on the impacts of herbicides tonative species, based on visual assessments (both for species that are impacted and those thatshow tolerance). These lists are reproduced in Appendix 10B, and contain information on thesusceptibility of 280 species to Round-up® 360 and 85 species for metsulfuron methyl. Note thatdifferent formulations of glyphosate or the use of surfactants or other additives could alterthe responses of the species on these lists.

Information on the susceptibility of the priority biodiversity identified in Appendices 3 and 5 asbeing at risk, needs to be collected/collated. Thus, any monitoring program established as part of


59

the TAP should include some measure to assess herbicide damage/tolerance. The best practiceguidelines suggest that as a starting point, data be collected in the manner used to date (i.e. visualobservations at 8 weeks and 6 months after application), with records being forwarded to JohnToth for inclusion in the current lists (see Broese van Groenou and Downey 2006).

In addition to monitoring herbicide impacts, this plan outlines the need for more detailed researchassociated with herbicide impacts (see Action 2.2 in Chapter 9). Potential research projects couldfocus on the effects of herbicide application for bitou bush control on: i) native seedlings; ii)priority taxa, at both the adult and seedling stages; and iii) other native species. Understanding theimpacts on priority biodiversity is extremely important to the outcomes of this TAP. As manyhave small population sizes and the effect of herbicide is relatively unknown, in situ testing is notrecommended. Monitoring programs must assess the impacts of herbicide use on both seedlingsand adults of each priority species, and also on a range of non-target species. Where a priorityspecies exhibits signs of herbicide damage, action must be taken immediately to prevent furtherdamage, as in the case of P. spicata.

8.2.2 Measuring the response of priority species to non-herbicide control

A recent report showed that the control of weeds posed a significant threat to native species(Coutts-Smith and Downey 2006). For example, bush regeneration was a threat to 15 species andthe misidentification of natives as weeds was a threat to eight. Other studies have also shownnegative effects of weed control on native species. For example, some native species in SouthAustralia were negatively affected by boneseed control that involved high levels of soildisturbance (Thomas et al. 2000). Thus, the effects of any control technique on native speciesshould be assessed in order to reduce any adverse effects of that technique on biodiversity. This isespecially so for those species outlined here as being at risk when implementing control ofbitou bush at priority sites.

8.2.3 Measuring the spread of bitou bush and boneseed in NSW

Bitou bush has significantly increased its distribution within New South Wales in the last 20 years(see Thomas and Leys 2002). Such information can only be obtained from repeated surveys overa sufficient period to show change. Given the dramatic increase (i.e. 36%) observed between thelast two surveys (i.e. Love 1984 and Thomas 2002), an interval of around 20 years appears to betoo large to alter management strategies to compensate for any such changes in distribution.Based on previous results, it is important that on-going monitoring of bitou bush spread beundertaken at shorter intervals. This will provide a better understanding of the rates of spread,which will help in the long-term control strategy for bitou bush in New South Wales. In the finalyear of this TAP, the NSW coastline should be re-surveyed (see Love 1984; Thomas 2002) todetermine the status of both bitou bush and boneseed. Information on the distribution can beused to determine future initiatives and control programs, as well as to help determine the overallsuccess of the initiatives currently being implemented and those proposed in the TAP.

8.2.4 Specific monitoring and research to help reduce impacts

A range of monitoring programs and research initiatives needs to be carried out in order to betterunderstand the impacts of bitou bush and boneseed invasions. The monitoring and researchprograms outlined below would be of great benefit to the broader control of bitou bush and


60

boneseed, and if information is available, will help with the review of this plan at the end of fiveyears.

Monitoring should be undertaken regularly (e.g. annually) to identify new infestations/populationsof bitou bush and boneseed as well as to identify those existing populations that are re-invadingcoastal and surrounding regions of New South Wales. Such populations should be treated soonafter detection to prevent further spread. This is best done prior to first flowering. While theimpact of a single plant may be insignificant, it is prudent to remove it as a preventative strategy.

Understanding the ways in which bitou bush and boneseed threaten biodiversity is of greatimportance, as most of the species identified as being at risk from bitou bush invasion in this TAPwere selected using anecdotal evidence (i.e. derived through the WINS assessment process) andnot quantitative studies. Such studies are desperately needed, along with studies concerning thebroader ecology of bitou bush and boneseed such as seed dormancy, germination rates, seedlingsurvivorship and establishment rates. In addition, long-term studies are needed to determine thelikely success of the biocontrol program.

8.2.5 Monitoring fauna impacts

While the impacts of bitou bush invasion on fauna have not been defined here in the same manneras those for flora, in part due to a lack of information (see Chapter 5), monitoring the impacts ofboth invasion and control on fauna should be considered during any monitoring programassociated with any bitou bush control program. Such monitoring could be focused on genericgroups of fauna (i.e. birds) or more specifically on individual groups (e.g. shorebirds), dependingon the resources available (time and dollars), skill/knowledge level of the observer and level ofunderstanding required. As outlined in Section 8.1.4, more detailed information on monitoringtechniques will be developed within the first year of the TAP, this will include investigations intomonitoring requirements for determining the impacts on fauna. Monitoring of fauna will also helpto meet Actions 6.1 and 7.1 and the shortcomings outlined in Chapter 5.


61

9 A strategy to minimise the impact ofChrysanthemoides monilifera on priority biodiversityin New South Wales

9.1 Background

The rapid expansion of bitou bush along the NSW coast over the last 20 years has had significantimpacts on coastal ecosystems and native plant communities. In 1999, these impacts wereacknowledged when the invasion of native plant communities by Chrysanthemoides moniliferawas listed as a key threatening process under the TSC Act. Chrysanthemoides monilifera has alsobeen listed as a Weed Of National Significance (WONS) and in New South Wales, bitou bush isdeclared as a noxious weed (under the NW Act). Recently, national, statewide and regionalmanagement strategies have been developed to combat the problem. This TAP focuses bitou bushand boneseed control programs across New South Wales on specific areas where the threat tobiodiversity is greatest in accordance with the TSC Act.

Bitou bush control programs have been undertaken across coastal New South Wales for severaldecades. While some local infestations have been successfully controlled and the containmentlines are being moved, control programs have not prevented the spread of bitou bush, in part dueto the scale of the problem and until recently, the absence of a statewide approach to combat it.

Currently, resources are insufficient to control bitou bush effectively in all areas in which itoccurs. In order to utilise resources effectively, control and management efforts need to befocused on the areas where the benefits of control will be greatest. This TAP focuses onidentifying those species, populations or ecological communities that are at the greatest risk frombitou bush invasion. The identification of such biodiversity is then used to establish priority sitesfor control programs. It is important to remember that control is still needed for reasons other thanbiodiversity conservation (e.g. around access roads, for public use of beaches and the preventionof new infestations).

The distribution of boneseed in New South Wales is such that it currently poses limited threats tobiodiversity and most of the remainder of this chapter deals with bitou bush only, unless boneseedis specifically mentioned.

9.2 Aims and objectives of the Bitou TAP

The main objective of this plan is to prioritise bitou bush control to areas where the outcomes ofsuch controls are most beneficial to native biodiversity, particularly but not exclusively,threatened flora (species, populations and ecological communities). The effectiveness of thecontrol programs will be measured through comprehensive monitoring programs.

A core component of this TAP is the coordination of control programs across different landtenures and land management organisations throughout New South Wales. The Bitou TAP doesnot aim to replace or reduce existing priority control programs identified in the national, NSWand regional strategies. For example, carrying out bitou bush control in lightly infested areas,where further spread and/or an increase in density is prevented, is currently cost-effective andshould continue.


62

In addition, it must be noted that this is a threat abatement plan (TAP) and not a recovery plan.The aim of a TAP is to reduce one specific threat which is applied to many threatened entities,whereas a recovery plan aims to reduce the major threat/s to one species/entity. Thereforeintensive recovery efforts are not outlined in this plan other than control. Such recovery efforts arebest addressed by recovery plan actions and/or Priority Action Statement (PAS) actions, andimplemented by the individual land manager.

The Bitou TAP has eight objectives, listed in Table 9.1, and the following sections outlinestrategies to address each of these objectives. A summarised list of actions for each of the eightobjectives is also given in Table 9.2 (presented at the end of this Chapter). Links to other TAPs,recovery plans and the PAS will be considered when implementing the actions under this TAP.

The justification for most of these actions has been outlined in the preceding chapters, however,where justification is needed, a short discussion is presented under each of the actions below.

Table 9.1 Bitou TAP objectives

No. Objective1 Ensure that bitou bush (and boneseed) control is undertaken in areas where the benefits to threatened

species, populations and ecological communities are greatest2 Evaluate the effectiveness of control programs with respect to the response of priority species,

populations and ecological communities3 Evaluate the ways in which bitou bush causes the decline of native plant species4 Ensure that all stakeholders are involved/participate at each of the priority sites5 Ensure implementation and administration of the Bitou TAP is undertaken6 Determine the effects of bitou bush invasions on fauna7 Determine the effects of bitou bush control on fauna8 Establish guidelines for future control programs and research projects based on the outcomes of this

TAP

9.3 Objective 1: Priority bitou bush control programs

Objective 1 Ensure that bitou bush (and boneseed) control is undertaken in areas where thebenefits to species, populations and ecological communities are greatest.

In developing the actions and setting priorities for this objective, the key assumptions underlyingeffective control programs for bitou bush (and boneseed) include:

< no single management strategy is recommended. Thus, site-specific management plansneed to be developed and implemented for each priority site (Objective 2).

< follow-up control is needed to prevent re-infestation and/or re-invasion. Therefore, allcontrol programs must be long-term and account for more than an initial control area inyear one (i.e. a staged approach for control: see Section 7.4). Sources for re-infestationshould also be identified where possible. The need for follow-up controls is outlined inChapter 7 (above).

< other threats are present at many of the priority sites. Managing these additional threatsis beyond the scope of the Bitou TAP. The mechanism to address these other threats isthrough recovery plans as specified under the TSC Act and EPBC Act, and more


63

recently the draft Priority Action Statement (PAS) as specified under the TSC Act. Theexception is where the threat comes from another weed species which may eitherincrease or replace bitou bush following control. At such sites, control programs mustaddress these weed species as well.

< resources are limited and must be directed to species, populations and ecologicalcommunities and sites where the benefits will be greatest.

< commitment to the priority species, populations and ecological communities and sitesoutlined in this TAP are to be maintained for its five year duration.

< best practice management acknowledges that sustainable control is a medium to long-term undertaking.

< the effect of control measures on target and non-target species needs to be consideredat all sites.

9.3.1 Action 1.1

Action 1.1 DEC and the Department of Lands (DoL) will undertake bitou bush control programs athigh priority (control category 1) sites on their estate. In addition, the DEC and DoL willseek agreement from councils to ensure bitou bush control programs are undertaken athigh priority sites on council administered land. The DoL will liaise and encourage Trustmanagers of Crown land to undertake bitou bush control programs at high priority sites.DEC will liaise and encourage landholders to undertake bitou bush control programs athigh priority sites on private lands. To measure the biodiversity benefits, bitou bushcontrol will not occur in areas designated as experimental ‘no-treatment’ areas (seeObjective 2).

As outlined in Chapter 6 and Appendix 6, high priority sites are those identified as controlcategory 1 sites. The list of control category 1 sites and the entities at risk they contain arepresented in Table A7.1, Appendix 7. A list of control category 1 sites conserving each highpriority entity is also presented in Appendix 8.

Although control is already occurring at some of these high priority sites, the objectives of manyof these programs are different from those outlined in this TAP. For example, many programssimply aim to control bitou bush over the entire site rather than focusing on the protection of thebiodiversity at threat. Thus, site-specific management plans will be used to help re-align suchcontrol programs with the objectives of the TAP (see Action 1.2 below).

While boneseed has not been recorded at the majority of control category 1 sites, it should becontrolled if detected, in a similar manner to bitou bush.

Performance criteria for Action 1.1

< Control programs will be established at 75% (127) of the high priority (control category 1) siteswithin two years of publication date of this TAP.

< Existing bitou bush control programs at all priority sites (i.e. control category 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5sites) and in other areas where threatened species, populations and/or ecological communitiesoccur will continue.


64

9.3.2 Actions 1.2 and 1.3

Action 1.2 At control category 1 sites, DEC and the DoL will help to develop and implement site-specific management plans for bitou bush control programs, based on currently availablebest practice guidelines. DEC will work with councils and private landholders that agreeto Action 1.1, to develop site-specific management plans.

Action 1.3 Indigenous communities will be encouraged to assist with the development of site-specific management plans.

Site-specific management plans (Action 1.2)

Site-specific management plans are required for all control category 1 sites. Each plan will followthe framework established in Chapter 7, and should be completed using the proforma presented inAppendix 9.

Consultation with indigenous people/communities (Action 1.3)

Indigenous people/communities are encouraged to participate in the implementation of this TAP.In the first instance indigenous people’s/communities’ views will be considered during thedevelopment of site-specific management plans, especially relating to cultural values of sites,species, populations and ecological communities, as well as potential impacts that may arise fromcontrol.

Performance criteria for Actions 1.2 and 1.3

< Site-specific management plans to control bitou bush will be developed for 75% (127 sites) ofthe control category 1 sites within two years of the publication date of this TAP.

< Indigenous people are involved in the development of site-specific management plans.

9.3.3 Action 1.4

Action 1.4 Control of bitou bush is to continue at both the northern and southern containmentzones in NSW.

The NSW bitou bush strategy outlines the need for the northern and southern containment zonesto prevent the spread of bitou bush (see NPWS 2001a). However, the exact location of thesecontainment zones and their management were not identified in the strategy. Work is currentlybeing undertaken at both the northern and southern most distribution of bitou bush in New SouthWales, being the Tweed and Moruya/Jervis Bay regions, respectively.

Commitment to these containment zones is crucial in limiting future impacts to biodiversity notjust in New South Wales. However, what is needed to formalise the process is to: i) define andmap the current northern and southern containment zones; ii) outline a strategy with all relevantstakeholders to move each containment zone during the course of this plan; iii) ensure that controlundertaken in these areas follows best practice; iv) maintain controlled areas and preventrecruiting plants from seeding; and iv) determine the success of the program by assessing the levelof recruitment within the ‘contained’ area.


65


< The density of bitou bush at both the northern and southern containment zones is reducedand the zones receded within five years of the publication date of this TAP.

9.4 Objective 2: Monitor the effectiveness of bitou bush controlprograms

Objective 2 Evaluate the effectiveness of control programs at control category 1 sites withrespect to the response of priority plant species, populations and ecological

communities.

9.4.1 Action 2.1

Action 2.1 DEC will coordinate the monitoring/measurement of bitou bush control programs atcontrol category 1 sites.

The primary objective of this TAP is to reduce the impacts of bitou bush on priority plant species,populations and ecological communities. To achieve this objective bitou bush populations willneed to be reduced. Although control programs may result in visible or obvious reductions in thedensity of bitou bush, it is still important to undertake an evaluation of the control program(s)used in terms of their success in achieving biodiversity conservation objectives. Such evaluationsmust consider:

< the effectiveness of the control programs on bitou bush infestations (including re-infestation rates of bitou bush, either from the seed bank or surrounding populations)

< the response of the priority plant species, populations or ecological communities to thecontrol of bitou bush

< the response of other weed species to the removal and/or the control of bitou bush.Information on the monitoring process is outlined in Chapter 8 and a specific monitoring protocolwill be developed in the near future.


< Establish monitoring objectives.< Establish an experimental protocol to collect data/information.< Establish experiments at as many sites as possible to critically determine the effects of control

on bitou bush, priority species and non-target species (including other weed species), using thetier one or tier two monitoring program (discussed in Chapter 8), within 18 months of thepublication date of this TAP.

< Maintain commitment to undertaking the monitoring programs established over the course ofthis TAP.

< Publish and report on the results as part of the review of the TAP (including incorporation ofresults into best practice guidelines) to land managers and researchers. Results from both tiersof monitoring to be presented.


66

9.4.2 Action 2.2

Action 2.2 DEC will foster research into the effects of herbicide on priority species.

Herbicides have been used successfully to control bitou bush in Australia for many years.However, concerns have been raised about the impact of herbicides on native flora and fauna. Thespecies listed in Appendix 10B were examined and their tolerance to herbicides was noted. Theseherbicide lists contain some of the priority species listed in Appendix 3 of the TAP, however theeffect of herbicides on other priority species is unknown (see Section 8.2.1). This requiresinvestigation so that high priority species are not threatened by the application of bitou bushcontrol techniques using herbicides.


< Establish experiments to determine the effects of herbicides, as used for bitou bush control,on priority species (including seedlings). Species of highest concern are listed in Appendices 3and 5, as well as those in Appendices 10A and 10B.

< Collect data where possible during the tier one monitoring programs.

9.4.3 Action 2.3

Action 2.3 DEC will coordinate a statewide (NSW) survey of bitou bush and boneseed infestations(including offshore islands).

Bitou bush has significantly increased its distribution within New South Wales in the last 20 years(see Section 8.2.3). The sample interval, while sufficient to show this dramatic increase, was toolong to establish effective management strategies to reduce the problem. By re-mapping thedistribution of bitou bush and boneseed in the final year of this plan, the information collected canbe used to revise the plan and thus ensure it is addressed effectively. In addition, the intervalbetween surveys will be half that of the previous ones.

9.4.4 Action 2.4

Action 2.4 DEC and other stakeholders will determine the distribution of boneseed in New SouthWales and develop a containment/eradication strategy.

Information on the distribution of boneseed is critical given that it is not yet widespread in NewSouth Wales, but has the potential to become a serious environmental weed as evident inTasmania, South Australia and Victoria. Once such information is collected/mapped (Action 2.3above), effective management strategies can be developed to prevent impacts on biodiversity (i.e.containment or eradication).

Performance criteria for Action 2.3 and Action 2.4

< Re-survey the NSW coastline (including offshore islands) to determine the extent of bitoubush and boneseed in New South Wales in the final year of the Bitou TAP.

< Special attention to be given to areas free of bitou bush and boneseed during the last survey.< Establish management objectives for boneseed following the completion of mapping.


67

9.5 Objective 3: Native plant species and bitou bush

Objective 3 Evaluate the ways in which bitou bush causes the decline of native plant species.

9.5.1 Action 3.1

Action 3.1 DEC will foster research into the decline in native plant species as a result of bitou bushinvasions.

The way in which weed invasions contribute to native plant species decline is not clearlyunderstood. Native species respond in a range of ways to plant invasions, such as rapidly goingextinct, declining slowly, persisting at lower densities, or surviving only in the seed bank. Theresponse observed is in part dependent on the length of time the weed species remains in theecosystem. Weed invasions have the ability to modify ecosystem properties and processes oncethey have invaded. For example, invasive weeds can alter fire regimes (Mack and D’Antonio1998), biogeochemistry and hydrology (Gordon 1998). In addition, some introduced weed speciesexhibit differing characteristics between their exotic and native ranges. For example, in its exoticrange Scotch broom has a larger seed size (Buckley et al. 2003 [large seeds can result in greaterseedling establishment (Harper 1977)]), higher plant densities (Paynter et al. 2003) and largerseed banks (Downey 2002). While some information is available on how bitou bush impacts onnative species (see Chapter 4), it is imperative that we obtain a greater understanding of theprocesses involved and the magnitude of any impacts.

Recent research (i.e. Mason et al. 2004) has indicated that the type of bitou bush controlundertaken (i.e. aerial spraying versus bush regeneration) has consequences for the floristicdiversity of an ecosystem. Thus, there is a need for monitoring as outlined in Action 2.1 and aneed for additional research into ecosystem impacts of both invasion and control.


< Establish experiments to determine the ways in which bitou bush causes a decline in nativeplant species.

< Collect data where possible during the monitoring programs (tier one only).

9.6 Objective 4: Public involvement and awareness

Objective 4 Ensure that all stakeholders are involved/participate at each of the controlcategory 1 sites.

9.6.1 Action 4.1

Action 4.1 DEC and other agencies will coordinate the training of volunteers (and otherstakeholders) who wish to participate in control programs at control category 1 sites.


68

Community groups and bitou bush control

There is strong community support for bitou bush management in New South Wales. Hundreds ofvolunteers along the coast have contributed significantly to its control over the past severaldecades. These efforts require external support due to the scale of the problem. A furtherdiscussion on the role of community groups and bitou bush is presented in the NSW Strategy(NPWS 2001a).

While there are many community groups working in coastal ecosystems in New South Wales, notall of them are undertaking work associated with bitou bush management. It is important from theperspective of this TAP to know which groups are undertaking bitou bush control, for severalreasons. First, to raise awareness of the TAP and its objectives. Second, to provide training andguidance where needed to achieve wider implementation of the TAP. Last, to identify the highpriority sites requiring the support of additional volunteers and/or other resources. Evaluation ofthe work undertaken by volunteers would help with identification of training needs for volunteers,as well as providing an assessment of the volunteer component at each control category 1 site.

Community involvement and training

A recent study estimated that expenditure on bitou bush and boneseed control programs inAustralia was between $1–2 million p.a. (Centre for International Economics 2001).Approximately half the input into bitou bush control is estimated to come from in-kind supportfrom the work of volunteers involved in community programs like Dunecare and Coastcare(NPWS unpublished data). In line with the Australian Government and state governments’commitment to community involvement in natural resource management, the Bitou TAPencourages community involvement at all sites, not just those in control category 1. Somemembers of the community and stakeholders may however require training before they canundertake some control actions to:

< limit damage associated with implementing control techniques, especially wherespecific techniques are required (e.g. P. spicata).

< prevent inadvertent damage to conservation values through incorrect identification ofplant species (e.g. the need to distinguish between juveniles/seedlings of bitou bushand Scaevola calendulacea which are both common on fore-dunes).

< ensure that threatened species, populations and ecological communities are adequatelyprotected under the TSC Act (see Section 2.2.2).

< comply with regulations relating to undertaking work on threatened species, as per theTSC Act.

< comply with regulations under the Pesticides Act. Accreditation may require somestakeholders/community members to gain specific skills.

Similar training for volunteers and stakeholders is also a priority in both the NSW bitou bushstrategy (see NPWS 2001a) and the North Coast strategy (see Scanlon 2001).


< Source training providers and develop training courses/programs.< Maintain accredited training programs throughout the five year duration of the TAP, to

accommodate new volunteers and offer updates and refresher courses.< Establish a database of those who are working/volunteering at high priority sites, and monitor

their progress at regular intervals during the life of the Bitou TAP.


69

9.6.2 Action 4.2

Action 4.2 DEC and other agencies will undertake public awareness programs on the impacts ofbitou bush, especially to biodiversity, and the importance of its control.

Public awareness of bitou bush and boneseed

Public understanding of the issues involved with environmental weeds has increased in recentyears through initiatives like Weed Buster Week and Australia’s 20 Worst Weeds (or the WeedsOf National Significance). It is extremely important that public awareness of weeds and theirimpacts on biodiversity is maintained, especially for environmental weeds like bitou bush.

It is important to keep the public informed of new conservation initiatives, such as threatabatement plans. As the Bitou TAP is the first TAP for a weed species in Australia, it isparamount that it receives positive public support. A public awareness campaign will also help tomaintain volunteer commitment over the five year period of the TAP and seek valuable supportfor the TAP from the wider community. The public will be kept informed on the progress of theTAP’s implementation.

Performance criteria for Action 4.2< Establish a poster, fact sheet and webpage for the Bitou TAP and place signage at selected

control category 1 sites.< Establish a program to report significant events in bitou bush management to the general

public, or provide for regular updates, especially at control category 1 sites.

9.7 Objective 5: Bitou TAP coordinator

Objective 5 Ensure implementation and administration of the Bitou TAP is undertaken.

9.7.1 Action 5.1

Action 5.1 DEC will support a position to coordinate the implementation of the Bitou TAP.

TAP Coordination

The biodiversity outcomes established in this TAP can only be achieved through statewidecoordination and implementation of the Bitou TAP. Full implementation will require theestablishment of bitou bush control programs at 169 control category 1 sites across a range of landtenures throughout New South Wales. Once established, coordination of these sites will be neededfor five years to maintain the integrity of the TAP. The design, implementation and analysis ofexperiments to measure the responses of priority plant species, populations and ecologicalcommunities to bitou bush control at these sites will need to be undertaken. Given the scale ofthese actions it is essential that a coordinator be appointed to effectively implement this TAP,without which the actions of the plan could not be achieved.

The specific role of the TAP coordinator will be to:


70

< coordinate the implementation of bitou bush control at control category 1 sites(including guidance where needed for private landholders and other stakeholders, e.g.in the development of site-specific management plans).

< work with landholders to ensure commitment is maintained at control category 1 sitesfor the five years of the plan.

< establish and implement a protocol for monitoring the effectiveness of controlprograms at control category 1 sites (including best practice management).

< liaise with research organisations to establish herbicide trials on nominated non-targetspecies.

< liaise with research organisations to establish sites where the impact and control ofbitou bush on fauna is studied (including supervision of postgraduate students anddevelopment of experimental protocols).

< liaise with training providers and/or regional stakeholders.< collate and analyse data collected through the implementation of the plan, especially

with regard to improving best practice methodology, and report results.< monitor the spread of bitou bush and boneseed in New South Wales.< prepare a revised plan within five years of the date of commencement of this plan.< prepare and implement an education and awareness program to promote the TAP.< perform day to day administration of the TAP including providing regular program

reports to the DEC Executive and other stakeholders.

Performance criteria for Action 5.1< A position is established, following the approval of the Bitou TAP, to coordinate its

implementation.< Progress reports are provided on a regular basis.< The coordinator reviews the current TAP and prepares a second plan five years after the date

of commencement of this TAP.

9.8 Objective 6: Impact of bitou invasions on fauna

Objective 6 Determine the effects of bitou bush invasions on fauna.

9.8.1 Action 6.1

Action 6.1 DEC will foster research into the effects of bitou bush invasions on fauna.

The final determination of the NSW Scientific Committee for listing of bitou bush/boneseed as aKTP identified three threatened fauna species potentially at risk (NSW SC 1999a). Ground-nesting shorebirds such as little terns are affected by bitou bush through its incursion ontobreeding/roosting sites, for example, on the southern shores of Quibray Bay in Towra Point NR(Shepherd pers. comm.). Observations suggest that bitou bush can lead to the decline in a range ofnative shorebirds (NPWS 2002). Several recent studies have started to fill these knowledge gaps,especially for birds (see French and Zubovic 1997; French and Eardley 1997; Gosper 2004b).

Detailed studies of the impacts of bitou bush (and boneseed) invasions on a range of fauna speciesare lacking (see Chapter 5). For example, the host plant Viola betonicifolia of the endangeredbutterfly Argyreus hyperbius subsp. inconstans appears to be threatened by bitou bush invasion in


71

northern New South Wales, from Port Macquarie to the NSW/Qld border (Moss pers. comm.), butno data are available to determine the impacts. If data shows that V. betonicifolia is threatened bybitou bush then any reduction in bitou bush should have positive outcomes for this species as wellas for the endangered butterfly.

Performance criteria for Action 6.1< Establish a system to prioritise fauna species (or groups of species, e.g. waders) that are at risk

from bitou bush invasions.< Develop research projects on the effects of bitou bush invasions on priority fauna species.< Initiate these research projects during the TAP. The results of these works could then inform

subsequent Bitou TAP’s.

9.9 Objective 7: Effect of bitou bush control on fauna

Objective 7 Determine the effects of bitou bush control on fauna.

9.9.1 Action 7.1

Action 7.1 DEC will foster research into the effects of bitou bush control on fauna.

There have been a few studies on the effects of removing a weed from an ecosystem on fauna (seereview in Gosper 2004b), especially when the weed has become dominant and may have been sofor many years or decades. Weed infestations may change the density and/or abundance of faunaas well as how they interact with their ‘new’ environment containing these weeds, and as suchthey may be seriously affected if these weeds are suddenly removed. Some weeds may play animportant role in the conservation of some threatened species, e.g. the southern brown bandicoot(see Regel et al. 1996), and thus their removal could further threaten them. The disturbanceinvolved in removing weeds may also affect many fauna species long after the actual controlevent has taken place (e.g. from increased light, soil disturbance, trampling of the ground and/orthe effects of management techniques like fire). Also, some native species may take many years torecover following control (i.e. Turner and Virtue in press). The vast majority of bitou bush controlprograms, like those for most other weed species, have operated on the assumption that theremoval of the weed and restoration of native vegetation will result in improved habitats fornative species (see Downey submitted).

The techniques used to control bitou bush may also impact on fauna. For example, as has alreadybeen discussed in Chapter 7, the surfactants used with some herbicides may have adverse effectson some frog species. Information on such impacts is scarce. A preliminary list of the specieslikely to be affected is presented in Appendix 10A. Some frog species (e.g. green and gold bellfrogs) are known to utilise bitou bush in their habitat, and the removal of bitou bush may thereforehave adverse effects especially during broad scale control programs (Wellington pers. comm.).The draft green and gold bell frog recovery plan raises the concern that the control of bitou bushwith herbicide could pose a real threat to the species and warrants further investigation (NPWS2003b).


72

While some studies on the effects of herbicide on litter invertebrates were inconclusive (seeLindsay and French 2004b), other studies showed that herbicide did have an effect oninvertebrates (Eijsackers and Van de Bund 1980).

Performance criteria for Action 7.1< Establish a system to prioritise fauna species (or groups of species, e.g. waders) that are at risk

from bitou bush control.< Establish sites where studies can be undertaken to determine the effects of bitou bush control

on fauna.< Develop research projects on the effects of bitou bush control on fauna.< Initiate these research projects during the TAP. The results of these works could then inform

subsequent Bitou TAP’s.

9.10 Objective 8: Review data and set future priorities

Objective 8 Establish guidelines for future control programs and research projects based on

the outcomes of this TAP.

9.10.1 Action 8.1 and 8.2

Action 8.1 DEC and other stakeholders will examine new data and integrate it into futurecontrol/management strategies and best practice guidelines for bitou bush.

Action 8.2 DEC and other stakeholders will examine new data and establish future priorities forbitou bush research.

The best practice management guides for bitou bush (see Vranjic and Groves 1999; Vranjic 2000)and boneseed (see Adair and Ainsworth 2000) should be revised, as new information becomesavailable. Also, the concept of focusing weed control on biodiversity outcomes as presented inthis TAP is a new approach in weed management (see Downey 2003a, b, submitted), andtherefore the outcomes of this TAP should determine future management and research objectivesfor bitou bush and boneseed in Australia.

Performance criteria for Action 8.1< Re-evaluated management plans and control strategies based on data collected in Actions 6.1

(fauna and bitou bush), 7.1 (fauna and control), 3.1 (decline of native plants), 2.1 (monitoringof control programs) and 2.2 (herbicide impacts), as well as any other data available, during thefinal year of the Bitou TAP.

Performance criteria for Action 8.2< Determine future research objectives based on data collected in Actions 6.1 (fauna and bitou

bush), 7.1 (fauna and control), 3.1 (decline of native plants), 2.1 (monitoring of controlprograms) and 2.2 (herbicide impacts), as well as any other data available, during the final yearof the Bitou TAP or the development of subsequent Bitou TAPs.

Note: ‘other stakeholders’ referred to in Actions 8.1 and 8.2 are those stakeholders who participate in Actions2.2, 3.1, 6.1 and 7.1. These have not been identified at this time.


73

Table 9.2 Summary of the Bitou TAP objectives and actions

Objective 1 Ensure that bitou bush (and boneseed) control is undertaken in areas where the benefits to

species, populations and ecological communities are greatest.

Action 1.1 DEC and the Department of Lands (DoL) will undertake bitou bush control programs at high priority (controlcategory 1) sites on their estate. In addition, the DEC and DoL will seek agreement from councils to ensure bitoubush control programs are undertaken at high priority sites on council administered land. The DoL will liaise andencourage Trust managers of Crown land to undertake bitou bush control programs at high priority sites. DEC willliaise and encourage landholders to undertake bitou bush control programs at high priority sites on private lands. Tomeasure the biodiversity benefits, bitou bush control will not occur in areas designated as experimental ‘no-treatment’ areas (see Objective 2).

Action 1.2 At control category 1 sites, DEC and the DoL will help to develop and implement site-specific management plansfor bitou bush control programs, based on currently available best practice guidelines. DEC will work with councilsand private landholders that agree to Action 1.1, to develop site-specific management plans.

Action 1.3 Indigenous communities will be encouraged to assist with the development of site-specific management plans.

Action 1.4 Control of bitou bush is to continue at both the northern and southern containment zones in NSW.

Objective 2 Evaluate the effectiveness of control programs with respect to the response of priority species,

populations and ecological communities.

Action 2.1 DEC will coordinate the monitoring/measurement of bitou bush control programs at control category 1 sites.

Action 2.2 DEC will foster research into the effects of herbicide on priority species.

Action 2.3 DEC will coordinate a statewide (NSW) survey of bitou bush and boneseed infestations (including offshore islands).

Action 2.4 DEC and other stakeholders will determine the distribution of boneseed in NSW and develop acontainment/eradication strategy.

Objective 3 Evaluate the ways in which bitou bush causes the decline of native plant species.

Action 3.1 DEC will foster research into the decline in native species as a result of bitou bush invasions.

Objective 4 Ensure that all stakeholders are involved/participate at each of the control category 1 sites.

Action 4.1 DEC and other agencies will coordinate and contribute to training volunteers (and other stakeholders) who wish toparticipate in control programs at control category 1 sites.

Action 4.2 DEC and other agencies will undertake public awareness programs on the impacts of bitou bush, especially onbiodiversity, and the importance of its control.

Objective 5 Ensure implementation and administration of the Bitou TAP is undertaken.

Action 5.1 DEC will support a position to coordinate the implementation of the Bitou TAP.

Objective 6 Determine the effects of bitou bush invasions on fauna.

Action 6.1 DEC will foster research into the effects of bitou bush invasions on fauna.

Objective 7 Determine the effects of bitou bush control on fauna.

Action 7.1 DEC will foster research into the effects of bitou bush control on fauna.

Objective 8 Establish guidelines for future control programs and research projects based on the outcomes of

this TAP.

Action 8.1 DEC and other stakeholders will examine new data and integrate it into future control/management strategies andbest practice guidelines for bitou bush.

Action 8.2 DEC and other stakeholders will examine new data and establish future priorities for bitou bush research.


74

10 Social and economic impacts of the Bitou TAP

The implementation of the Bitou TAP will have positive social benefits. As a majorenvironmental weed infesting 80% of the NSW coastline and threatening many plantcommunities, any reduction in the distribution of bitou bush will result in enhanced protection ofbeaches and a reduction in impacts on coastal biodiversity in New South Wales. The reductionsproposed in this TAP are for specific areas, rather than general reductions in distribution, the latterbeing outside the scope of this TAP.

Raising the awareness of bitou bush with the public through many of the outcomes in this TAPwill help to maintain and augment the historically strong community support for bitou bushcontrol across the state. Improved understanding of the threats to biodiversity posed by bitoubush, in particular to fauna, will help to ensure that support for bitou bush control programscontinues into the future. These actions will also raise the awareness of the potential threat posedby boneseed in New South Wales.

There is widespread public appreciation that bitou bush is a threat to native flora and that itimpacts upon coastal environments. There is also widespread public expectation that bitou bushshould be controlled on all public lands. The prioritisation of bitou bush control to specific sitesmay be unpopular where such priorities do not match existing programs (e.g. control in moreconspicuous areas, such as in urban reserves, along roadsides, popular beaches and coastalrecreation areas). However, it must be noted that this TAP is solely directed at reducing the threatto biodiversity and not control per se. This TAP aims to address this issue through a publiceducation program – Action (4.2). Given that bitou bush occupies 80% of the NSW coastline andpotentially threatens all terrestrial coastal plant communities, it is expected that the communitywill generally support a plan that prioritises and directs control programs to areas which are at thegreatest risk from invasion, rather than only where bitou bush is most conspicuous. Nevertheless,DEC, the Department of Lands and local governments will continue to be involved in manyexisting collaborative programs outside the scope of this TAP, which have broader conservationobjectives, public support or address priorities identified in the national, state and regional bitoubush management strategies.

An economic analysis of the cost of bitou bush and boneseed control has not been undertaken, asis the case for the vast majority of environmental weeds in Australia. However, informationderived from a model used for Scotch broom shows that for small infestations, control providessignificant long-term economic benefits. Biological control programs can provide economicbenefits, however the cost of such programs is beyond the reach of individual control programsand the bitou bush and boneseed program has almost exhausted the list of potential agents (seeDowney et al. submitted). In addition, control strategies that targeted both weed and seed bankdensities resulted in lower control costs in the long term (see Odom et al. 2002).

The economic benefits of the Bitou TAP are difficult to determine, especially given the difficultyof developing an accurate estimate of the cost of environmental weeds, let alone the economicbenefit of reducing threats to specific species, populations or ecological communities.Investigations are currently under way to establish if an economic analysis can be undertaken ofthe TAP with the University of New England.


75

The main economic benefit of the Bitou TAP is that it provides a consistent framework for controlmeasures to be undertaken at control category 1 sites for the five years of the TAP (Action 1.1).As with this TAP, previous control programs have been dependent on the continuity of funding,either in the form of community grants or recurrent funds. Where funding has ceased prior to thecompletion of a control strategy, any successes of that control program may be quickly lost asbitou bush can re-invade rapidly. In these cases, continuity of funds would most likely haveresulted in greater long-term control of bitou bush. Where funds cease and re-invasion occursthere are also likely to be negative social impacts, for example, disillusionment of volunteergroups. The Bitou TAP seeks to ensure that funding is maintained at control category 1 sites forthe duration of the TAP, and thus prevent such failures. It is also anticipated that by identifyingsites in the other control categories this enables regional and local priorities to be developed,which should help to maintain control programs currently in place at these locations.

No other economic or social impacts from this plan are envisaged. There are no public healthissues related to the implementation of the plan. Actions 2.2 (research into herbicides andthreatened species), 2.3 (monitoring of control programs), 6.1 (bitou bush impacts on fauna) and7.1 (bitou bush control and fauna) aim to obtain further data on bitou bush control methods withrespect to native plants and animals. Thus, identifying any potential effects of the TAP on floraand fauna, combined with Action 8.1 (re-evaluated new control programs), will lessen any suchimpacts in the future.

The Bitou TAP will not significantly affect public access or recreational use of public lands,although some existing control programs to protect threatened species and ecologicalcommunities may limit the use of some coastal areas during the TAP. The plan will notsignificantly affect development applications or other activities that require approval under theEP&A Act (Section 2.2.6), except where a condition of consent refers to the removal of all bitoubush on a particular site. No impacts on aboriginal/indigenous heritage are expected. Any site-specific impacts will be addressed during the development of site-specific management plans(Action 1.2).

There are a number of social impacts on indigenous people that arise from bitou bush invasion.For example, the impact of bitou bush on availability, abundance and access to traditional foods,and the impact of bitou bush invasion on the degradation of and access to culturally significantsites. It is anticipated that indigenous people will make such social impacts known during thedevelopment of site-specific management plans so that they are accounted for in this plan.

There are significant adverse social and economic impacts that could arise from not implementingthis plan. Bitou bush is a major threat to the biodiversity identified in this plan (see Appendices 3and 5). These entities will continue to be threatened in the absence of such a plan. The continuedthreat posed by bitou bush will add to the cost of recovering these entities, and this cost willincrease with time. The longer the threat is imposed the greater the risk of additional entitiesbecoming threatened and those entities that are threatened becoming extinct. Any such extinctionis likely to have major social implications, especially if a plan to prevent such extinctions wasprepared but not adopted.


76

11 Costs and implementation of this TAP

It is a requirement of the TSC Act that a TAP outlines the cost of implementing the proposedactions. As a number of actions, or parts thereof, outlined in Chapter 9 were implemented in the2005–06 financial year, the actual costs associated with each of these actions is presented here asa reflection of the estimated cost of implementing each action in this TAP. This assumes thatthese stakeholders will maintain a similar level of commitment in the future and that there isminimal variation between years in the cost of implementing actions.

Those proposed actions not funded in 2005–06 are not presented in the costings table, but arediscussed below. These actions are predominantly associated with future research objectivesaimed at filling the knowledge gaps identified during the preparation of this TAP. These arecrucial for the longer-term management of bitou bush and to understand better the impact onbiodiversity.

Implementing this TAP in the future will depend on similar levels of commitment fromgovernment authorities, private industry and the community. Where possible, additional fundswill be sought from new sources by the respective land managers, researchers and the community,to implement unfunded actions or parts thereof.

11.1 Summary of the current expenditure associated withproposed actions outlined in this TAP

During the 2005–06 financial year, several of the actions proposed in this plan, or parts thereofwere undertaken. The cost of implementing these actions in 2005–06 (hereafter referred to as thecurrent expenditure) was $2,845,500 (see Table 11.1). This included expenditure by the DEC,Department of Lands, the five coastal CMAs, Lord Howe Island Board, numerous coastalcouncils and the University of Wollongong. It must also be noted that the current cost is not areflection of any commitment to this plan in the future, however it is anticipated that thesebodies will provide a similar level of commitment for these actions in the future.

The current expenditure highlights the:< degree to which actions within this plan are already being undertaken, across a range of

land tenures by a range of stakeholders, and< estimated cost of implementing this plan.

Table 11.1 partitions the current expenditure for a range of actions outlined in the TAP by variousagencies/land managers responsible. The current expenditure is presented as agency expenditure,both ‘in-kind’ (i.e. staff time) and cash, and external contributions, which includes volunteer ‘in-kind’ and cash grants.


77

Table 11.1 The expenditure in 2005–06 by various agencies for implementing a range ofproposed actions, or parts thereof identified in the Bitou TAP.

Expenditure in 2005–06 ($) b

Action Description Priority aResponsibility/

funding source c

Cashexpenditure

($ 000) dIn-kind($ 000) e

Externalcontribution

($ 000) fTOTAL($ 000)

Total acrossall funding

sources($ 000)

DEC 300 344 354 998DoL 72 0 - 72

Councils 110 132 71 313Coastal CMAs - - 460 460

1.1 bitou bush control 1

Other* 27 204 102 333

2,176

DEC 46 38 2 861.2 site-specific management plans 1 Councils 1 16 1 18 104

1.3include indigenous values in site

management plans 1 DEC 0.6 - - 0.6 0.6

1.4strategy containment of bitou bush

(i.e. northern and southerncontainment zones)

1 Councils 20 16 32 68 68

DEC 3 5 15 232.1 monitoring of priority sites 1 Councils 15 - 7 22 45

2.2research into herbicide impacts to

native plants 2 DEC 2.1 0 0 2.1 2.1

DEC 1 0.3 - 1.3Councils 0.5 - 3 3.52.3 survey bitou bush 3

Other* - 2 11 1317.8

2.4survey boneseed in NSW and

develop a containment anderadication strategy

3 DEC - - - - -

3.1understanding native plant species

decline in bitou bush invaded areas 1 Other** 253 - 62 315 315

DEC 8 1 - 94.1

training of volunteers to work withbitou bush 1 Councils 2 2 2 6 15

4.2public awareness of the TAP and the

impacts of bitou bush 2 Councils - - 0.3 0.3 0.3

DEC 91 0.4 - 91.45.1 TAP coordination 1 Councils - 1 4 5 96.4

6.1 determine impact on fauna frombitou bush 2 - - - - -

7.1 impacts of bitou bush control onfauna

2 - - - - -

8.1 review data and develop guidelines 3 Councils - 1.3 0 1.3 1.3DEC - 0.2 - 0.2

Councils - - 0.6 0.68.2 establish future priorities 3Other - 3.2 - 3.2

4

Total 952.2 766.4 1,126.9 2,845.5 2,845.5

a Priority ratings are: 1–action critical to meeting plan objectives, 2–action contributing to meeting plan objectives, 3–action desirable, but notessential for the implementation of this TAP

b The funds spent on each action by various agencies in the 2005–06 financial yearc DEC (Department of Environment and Conservation), DoL (Department of Lands), Coastal CMAs (Northern Rivers CMA, Hunter Central

Rivers CMA, Hawkesbury Nepean CMA, Sydney Metro CMA and Southern Rivers CMA), and Councils (Ballina Council, BellingenCouncil, Kempsey Council, Hastings Council, Greater Taree City Council, Great Lakes Council, Port Stephens Council, Pittwater Council,Warringah Council, Randwick Council, Sutherland Council, Illawarra District Weeds Authority, Shoalhaven City Council, Eurobodalla ShireCouncil). Other* – Lord Howe Island Board; Other** – University of Wollongong

d Cash expenditure represents the salary component for temporary staff and other costs such as the purchasing of survey and laboratoryequipment

e In-kind contribution represents the salary component of permanent staff and volunteer timef External contributions including cash grants

11.2 Breakdown of the current costs (2005–06)

11.2.1 Bitou bush control at priority sites (Action 1.1)

Control programs are currently being undertaken at 126 of the 169 control category 1 sitesidentified in this plan (see Appendix 7), on a range of land tenures. Expenditure on bitou bushcontrol programs at these sites (Action 1.1) in the 2005–06 financial year totalled $2,176,000 (see


78

Table 11.1). Not all these control programs are directed at conserving the species identified in thisplan.

In addition, bitou bush control occurred at a large number of the other sites identified in Appendix7 (i.e. control categories 2, 3, 4, 5) during 2005–06. Expenditure on control programs at theselower priority sites are not presented here, but are likely to be substantial.

11.2.2 Development of site-specific management plans (Actions 1.2 and 1.3)

The expenditure in 2005–06 for the preparation or updating of site-specific management plans forthe control of bitou bush at priority sites (Action 1.2) was $104,000. This amount is likely toincrease during the implementation of the TAP, as site-specific management plans will need to bedeveloped and updated for additional sites. The development of site-specific management plans isimperative to ensure control is effective and that the impact to priority plant species, populationsor ecological communities is minimal at each priority site.

There has been limited consultation to date with indigenous people during the development ofsite-specific management plans (Action 1.3), as reflected in only $600 being spent during the2005–06 financial year for this action (see Table 9.1). It is expected that this amount will increaseas more site plans are developed in consultation with indigenous people.

11.2.3 Bitou control in northern and southern containment zones (Action 1.4)

Total expenditure for control at control category 1 sites in the southern containment zone was$68,350 in 2005–06 (see Table 11.1). A value for control in control category 1 sites in thenorthern containment zone was not available at the time of writing. It is expected that the amountof control undertaken in the northern containment zone was similar to, but probably more than inthe southern containment zone, hence a realistic total estimate for Action 1.4 in 2005–06 would beapproximately $140,000.

11.2.4 Monitor bitou bush control programs at priority sites (Action 2.1)

Monitoring is the key to evaluating the success or failure of the Bitou TAP, as well as bitou bushcontrol programs and the recovery of species at risk. The total expenditure on monitoring bitoubush control programs and the response of biodiversity at risk at some of the control category 1sites in 2005–06 was $45,260 (see Table 11.1). The cost of monitoring at priority sites variedwidely and is expected to be significantly greater during the implementation of the TAP.

There are a number of problems with the current monitoring programs with respect to meeting theobjectives of this TAP. These include: i) the aims and objectives of existing monitoring programsdiffer; ii) the level of monitoring and the methods used varies at different sites; iii) numerousmanagers ‘own’ the data, making compilation difficult; and iv) such variation makes analysisacross sites and species virtually impossible. Thus, future monitoring programs must be uniform ifcomparable data is to be collected and analysed.

11.2.5 Determining the effects of herbicide on threatened species (Action 2.2)

The expenditure in 2005–06 for determining the effects of herbicides on threatened species was$2,100 (Table 11.1). In most cases, this occurred as part of an existing monitoring program. Data


79

on the impact of herbicide on threatened species, or more generally native species is limited, andmost of it is anecdotal. Such information is necessary to manage and protect threatenedbiodiversity better and hence has been given a priority rating of 2 (contributing to the planobjectives). Rigorous examination needs to be undertaken by researchers into the effects ofherbicides on threatened species.

11.2.6 Monitoring the spread of bitou bush and boneseed (Action 2.3)

The expenditure in 2005–06 on monitoring the spread of bitou bush and boneseed was $17,778(Table 11.1). This was mostly for localised surveys rather than for a comprehensive statewidesurvey like that carried out in 2001 (see Thomas 2002; Thomas and Leys 2002). However, it isproposed to re-survey the distribution and abundance of bitou bush and boneseed in years 4 and 5of this TAP. Changes prior to this are unlikely to be significant. Thus, this action was given apriority rating of 3 (being desirable, but not essential for the implementation of this TAP).

11.2.7 Developing a management strategy for boneseed (Action 2.4)

There was no expenditure on mapping boneseed and creating a containment and/or eradicationstrategy for boneseed in 2005–06. As outlined in Chapter 9 and elsewhere in this text, boneseed isnot currently a major problem in New South Wales, however it has the potential to be, given itsdistribution in Tasmania, South Australia and Victoria. Thus it is important that we haveinformation on the distribution of boneseed, from which effective management strategies can bedeveloped to contain or eradicate it. Given that boneseed is currently not posing a significantthreat to biodiversity and is unlikely to do so in the next five years, this action was given a priorityrating of 3 (being desirable, but not essential for the implementation of this TAP).

11.2.8 Decline in native plants due to bitou bush (Action 3.1)

In 2005–06, expenditure on research into how bitou bush contributes to native plant speciesdecline was $315,261. This represents the stipend of several Ph.D. students, an external grant, andthe in-kind contribution by several staff members and students at the University of Wollongong.

11.2.9 Coordination and training of volunteers (Action 4.1)

At present a number of volunteers and community groups undertake actions outlined in this TAP,primarily Action 1.1 – control at priority sites. The value of such volunteers and communitygroups in delivering the objectives of this TAP is substantial. Coordination and training of suchvolunteers and community groups is essential if the objectives of this TAP are to be achieved. Inaddition, there are a number of other reasons why coordination and training are essential, e.g.legal requirements under the Pesticides Act and Threatened Species Conservation Act, as well asinsurance issues. In 2005–06, the expenditure associated with coordinating and training volunteerswith respect to the actions outlined in this TAP for control category 1 sites, was $14,955 (Table11.1). There is an on-going need for coordination and training of volunteers, which needs to bestandardised to meet the objectives of the TAP.

11.2.10 Public awareness of the Bitou TAP (Action 4.2)

Estimated expenditure on education programs at a very limited number of control category 1 sitesin 2005–06 was $320 (Table 11.1). The implementation of this TAP will require continual support


80

from all stakeholders. Such support can only be achieved through an on-going public awarenesscampaign.

11.2.11 Bitou TAP coordinator (Action 5.1)

Expenditure on preparing and coordinating the Bitou TAP in 2005–06 was $96,440 (Table 11.1).This comprised the salary of a DEC Project Officer ($79,000) plus an operating budget for travel,editing and printing ($12,400), in addition to ($5,040) for council coordination.

11.2.12 Bitou bush and fauna (Actions 6.1–7.2)

There was no expenditure in 2005–06 for undertaking research into the impacts of bitou bush onfauna (Action 6.1) or the impacts of bitou bush control on fauna (Action 7.1). Data on the impactof bitou bush and its control on fauna are limited. Such information is necessary to manage andbetter protect threatened biodiversity, and hence it has been given a priority rating of 2(contributing to the plan objectives). In addition, such information is needed in order to addressthe impacts of bitou bush invasion on fauna when the TAP is revised (i.e. five-years from therelease of this plan). Rigorous examination needs to be undertaken by researchers into the effectsof bitou bush invasion and its control on fauna.

11.2.13 Establish future priorities (Actions 8.1 and 8.2)

The expenditure for integrating new data into management strategies/guidelines (Action 8.1) in2005–06 was $1,280 and for establishing future priorities (Action 8.2) was $4,099.

New information collected on i) the impact of herbicides used to control bitou bush on nativespecies (Action 2.2); ii) reasons for native species decline (Action 3.1); and iii) interactionbetween bitou bush and fauna (Actions 6.1 and 7.1) should be collated and incorporated into bestpractice guidelines (Action 8.1) and assessment of future priorities (Action 8.2). This action isproposed for the final year of the TAP and thus is given a priority rating of 3 (being desirable, butnot essential for the implementation of this TAP).


81

12 References

Adair, R.J. and Edwards, P.B. (1996). An attack strategy against Chrysanthemoides monilifera, a weed of native vegetation inAustralia. In: V.C. Moran and J.H. Hoffman (eds) Proceedings of the IX International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds,19–26 January 1996, pp. 429–34, University of Capetown, Stellenbosch.

Adair, R.J. and Groves, R.H. (1998). Impact of Environmental Weeds on Biodiversity: A review and development of a methodology.Environment Australia, Canberra.

Adair, R.J. and Ainsworth, N. (2000). Best Practice Management Guide 4: Boneseed Chrysanthemoides monilifera subsp. monilifera.Cooperative Research Centre for Weed Management Systems, Adelaide.

Adam, P., Stricker, P., Wiecek, B.M. and Anderson, D.J. (1989) The vegetation of sea cliffs and headlands in New South Wales,Australia. Australian Journal of Ecology 14, 515–547.

ANZECC (Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council) (1999). Threatened Australian Flora. Prepared by theEndangered Flora Network, Environment Australia, Canberra.

ARMCANZ (Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand), ANZECC (Australian and New ZealandEnvironmental and Conservation Council) and Forestry Ministers (1997). The National Weeds Strategy: A strategic approach toweed problems of national significance. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.

ARMCANZ (Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand), ANZECC (Australian and New ZealandEnvironmental and Conservation Council) and Forestry Ministers (2000). Weeds of National Significance Bitou Bush andBoneseed (Chrysanthemoides monilifera ssp. rotundata and monilifera) Strategic Plan. National Weeds Strategy ExecutiveCommittee, Launceston.

AVH (Australia’s Virtual Herbarium) (2006) Australia’s Virtual Herbarium. Council of Heads of Australian Herbaria. (Available athttp://www.chah.gov.au/avh/ – last updated 21/02/2006).

Barr, D.A. (1965). Restoration of coastal dunes after beach mining. Journal of Soil Conservation Service of New South Wales 21, 199–209.

Bell, S.A.J. (1990). Effects of the Weed Scotch Broom on Bird Communities in Open Forests on Barrington Tops. Bachelor of Science,Honours Thesis, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW.

Benson, J. (1999). Setting the Scene: The native vegetation of New South Wales. Native Vegetation Advisory Council of New SouthWales, Sydney.

Bidwell, J.R. and Gorrie, J.R. (1995). Acute toxicity of a herbicide to selected frog species. Technical series 79, Western AustralianDepartment of Environmental Protection, Perth.

Brewer, I.M. and Whelan, R.J. (2003). Changes in dune vegetation over 60 years in a sand-mined area of the NSW lower North Coast.Cunninghamia, 8 (1), 85–92.

Briggs, J.D. and Leigh, J.H. (1996). Rare or Threatened Australian Plants, 1995 revised edition. CSIRO, Australia.Broese van Groenou, E.A. and Downey, P.O. (2006) Best practice guidelines for the aerial boom spraying of bitou bush in NSW.

Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW), Hurstville.Broese van Groenou, E.A. and Wolfenden, J.A.J. (2002). South Coast Regional Bitou Bush Strategy. Arnhem Environmental Impact

Assessors, Armidale.Buchanan, R.A. (1989). Bush Regeneration Recovering Australian Landscapes. TAFE (Technical And Further Education) NSW,

Sydney.Buckley, Y.M., Downey, P.O., Fowler, S.V., Hill, R., Memmot, J., Norambuena, H., Pitcairn, M., Shaw, R., Sheppard, A.W., Winks,

C., Wittenberg, R. and Rees, M. (2003). Are invasives bigger? A global study of seed size variation in two invasive shrubs.Ecology 84 (6), 1434–1440.

Centre for International Economics (2001). Impact Assessment. Technical Series 6. CRC for Weed Management Systems, Adelaide.Clarke, P.J. (1989). Coastal Dune Vegetation of New South Wales. Technical Report No. 89/1, Coastal Studies Unit, University of

Sydney and Soil Conservation Service of New South Wales, Sydney.Clarke, P.J. and Carolin, R.C. (1991). Beach Plants of New South Wales. Sainty and Associates, Sydney.Cohn, J.S. (2004) Effects of slashing and burning on Thesium australe R Brown (Santalaceae) in Coastal grasslands of NSW.

Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales 125, 57–65.Commonwealth of Australia (1996). A National Strategy for the Conservation of Australia’s Biological Diversity. Department of

Education, Science and Technology (DEST), Canberra.Cooney, P.A., Gibbs, D.G. and Golinski, K.D. (1982). Evaluation of the herbicide ‘Roundup’ for control of bitou bush

(Chrysanthemoides monilifera). Journal of Soil Conservation Service of New South Wales 38, 6–12.Coutts-Smith, A.J. and Downey, P.O. (2006). Impact of weeds on threatened biodiversity in New South Wales. Technical Series no. 10,

CRC for Australian Weed Management, Adelaide.Cunningham, G.M., Mulham, W.E., Milthorpe, P.L. and Leigh, J.H. (1981). Plants of Western New South Wales. New South Wales

Government Printer and Soil Conservation Science of NSW, Sydney.D’Antonio, C.M., Dudley, T.L. and Mack, M. (1999). Disturbance and biological invasions: Direct effects and feedbacks. In: Walker,

L.R. (ed.) Ecosystems of Disturbed Ground: Ecosystems of the world 16. pp. 413–452. Elsevier, Amsterdam.Daehler, C.C. and Strong, D.R. (1996). Status, prediction and prevention of introduced cordgrass Spartina spp. invasions in Pacific

estuaries, USA. Biological Conservation 78, 51–58.Davis, M.A., Grime, J.P. and Thompson, K. (2000). Fluctuating resources in plant communities: A general theory of invasibility.

Journal of Ecology 88, 528–534.DEC (Department of Environment and Conservation) (2004). Draft Threat Abatement Plan: Invasion of Native Plant Communities by

Bitou Bush/Boneseed (Chrysanthemoides monilifera). Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW), Hurstville.DEC (Department of Environment and Conservation) (2006a). Introducing the Threatened species Priorities Action Statement.

Department of Environment and Conservation, NSW.DEC (Department of Environment and Conservation) (2006b). Atlas of NSW Wildlife. Department of Environment and Conservation

(NSW), Hurstville.DEC (Department of Environment and Conservation) (in prep.). Boneseed Management Manual. Department of Environment and

Conservation (NSW), Hurstville.DEH (Department of Environment and Heritage) (2005). The Commonwealth Coastal Policy: Commonwealth of Australia, May 1995.

website: http://www.deh.gov.au/coasts/publications/coastal-policy/summary.html (Last updated: 29/8/2005).


82

Dodkin, M.J. and Gilmore, A.M. (1984). Species and ecosystems at risk – a preliminary review. In: Love, A. and Dyason, R. (eds)Proceedings of a Conference on Chrysanthemoides monilifera, Port Macquarie. pp. 33–52. NSW National Parks and WildlifeService and NSW Department of Agriculture, Sydney.

Downey, P.O. (1999). Fire and Weeds: A management option or Pandora’s box? In: Bushfire ’99: Australian Bushfire Conference,Albury, July 1999, pp. 111–117. Charles Sturt University, Albury.

Downey, P.O. (2002). Disturbance and Invasion Ecology of Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius (L.) Link) in Australia. PhD.Dissertation. University of New England, Armidale.

Downey, P.O. (2003a). Invasive Species and Plant Conservation: woody weeds. In: Brown, C.L., Hall, F. and Mill, J. (eds) PlantConservation: approaches and techniques from an Australian perspective. Module 4 (pages unnumbered). Australian Network forPlant Conservation, Environment Australia, Canberra.

Downey, P.O. (2003b). Threat Abatement Plans: weeds and plant conservation. In: The Proceedings of the 12th Biennial NoxiousWeeds Conference, Taree, NSW, 1–3 July 2003, (pages unnumbered). Greater Taree City Council, Taree.

Downey, P.O. (2004). Bitou bush management and plant conservation: establishing priorities for control. In: B.M. Sindel and S.B.Johnson (eds) The Proceedings of the 14th Australian Weeds Conference, Wagga Wagga, September 2004. pp. 697–700, WeedsSociety of New South Wales, R.G. and F.J. Richardson, Melbourne.

Downey, P.O. (in press) The weed impact to native species (WINS) assessment tool – results from a trial for bridal creeper (Asparagusasparagoides (L.) Druce) and ground asparagus (Asparagus aethiopicus L.) in southern New South Wales. Plant ProtectionQuarterly x, x–x.

Downey, P.O. (submitted) Determination and management of alien plant impacts on biodiversity. In: Tokarska-Guzik, B., Brock, J.,Brundu, G., Child, L., Daehler, C., and Pyšek, P. (eds) Plant Invasions. pp xx–xx. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Downey, P.O. and Cherry, H. (2005). Delivering strategic conservation outcomes through the integrated management of bitou bush, aWeed of National Significance. In: Second Victorian weeds conference proceedings, 17–18 August 2005, Bendigo. pp. 41–5.R.G. and F.J. Richardson, Melbourne.

Downey, P.O. and Smith, J.M.B. (2000). Demography of the invasive shrub Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius) at Barrington Tops,NSW: insights for management. Austral Ecology 25 (5), 477–485.

Downey, P.O., Holtcamp, R. Ireson, J.E., Kwong, R., and Swirepik, A. (submitted.). A review of the Chrysanthemoides moniliferabiological control program in Australia: 1986–2005. Plant Protection Quarterly.

Ehrenfeld, J.G. (1997). Invasion of deciduous forest preserves in the New York metropolitan region by Japanese barberry (Berberisthunbergii DC.). Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society 124 (2), 210–215.

Eijsackers, H. and Van de Bund, C.F. (1980). Effects on soil fauna. In: Hance, R.J. (Ed.) Interactions Between Herbicides and the Soil.pp. 255-305. Academic Press. London.

Elton, C.S. (1958). The Ecology of Invasions by Animals and Plants. Chapman and Hall, London.Flower, P. and Clarke, M.J. (2001). Review of Environmental Factors: the control of bitou bush by aerial application of glyphosate in

central Yuraygir National Park 2001–2005. NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service, North Coast Region, Hurstville.French, K. and Eardley, K. (1997). The impact of weed infestation on litter invertebrates in coastal vegetation. In: Klomp, N. and Lunt,

I. (eds) Frontiers in Ecology: Building the links, pp. 89–102. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam.French, K. and Zubovic, A. (1997). Effect of the weed Chrysanthemoides monilifera (bitou bush) on bird communities. Wildlife

Research 24, 727–735.Gerrand, D. (2000). Hastings Council Bitou Bush Control Strategy. Hastings Council and Coastcare.Gordon, D.R. (1998) Effects of invasive, non-indigenous plant species on ecosystem processes: lessons from Florida. Ecological

Applications 8 (4), 975–989.Gosper, C.R. (1999). Plant food resources of birds in coastal dune communities in New South Wales. Corella 23 (3), 53–62.Gosper, C.R. (2004a). Fruit characteristics of invasive bitou bush, Chrysanthemoides monilifera (Asteraceae), and a comparison with

co-occurring native plant species. Australian Journal of Botany 52, 223–230.Gosper, C.R. (2004b). Consequences of Weed Invasion and Control on Plant-bird Interactions and Bird Communities. PhD Thesis,

University of Wollongong, Wollongong.Gosper, C.R., Whelan, R.J. and French, K. (2005). The effect of invasive plant management on the rate of removal of vertebrate-

dispersed fruit. Plant Ecology, Online Issue, December 2005.Gray, M. (1976). Miscellaneous Notes on Australian Plants. 2. Chrysanthemoides (Compositae). Contributions from Herbarium

Australiense 16, 1–5.Grice, A.C., Field, A.R. and McFadyen, R.E.C. (2004). Quantifying the effects of weeds on biodiversity: beyond blind Freddy’s test.

In: B.M. Sindel and S. Johnson (eds.). The Proceedings of the 14th Australian Weeds Conference, Wagga Wagga, September2004. pp. 464–468, Weeds Society of New South Wales, R.G. and F.J. Richardson, Melbourne.

Griffith, S.J. (1992). Species Recovery Plan Zieria prostrata ms. Endangered Species Program Project No 195. Australian NationalParks and Wildlife Service, Canberra.

Groves, R.H. (1989). Ecological control of invasive terrestrial plants. In: Drake, J., di Castri, F., Groves, R.H., Kruger, F., Mooney,H.A., Rejmánek, M. and Williamson, M. (eds) Biological Invasions: A global perspective, pp. 437–461. John Wiley, New York.

Groves, R.H., Boden, R. and Lonsdale, W.M. (2005). Jumping the Garden Fence: Invasive garden plants in Australia and theirenvironmental and agricultural impacts. WWF-Australia, Sydney.

Harden, G.J. (1990). Flora of New South Wales Volume 1. New South Wales University Press, Sydney.Harden, G.J. (1993). Flora of New South Wales Volume 3. New South Wales University Press, Sydney.Harden, G.J. (1994). Flora of New South Wales Volume 4. New South Wales University Press, Sydney.Harden, G.J. (2000). Flora of New South Wales Volume 1: supplement. New South Wales University Press, Sydney.Harden, G.J. (2002). Flora of New South Wales Volume 2, 2nd edition. New South Wales University Press, Sydney.Harper, J.L. (1977). Population Biology of Plants. 9th impression (1994), Academic Press, London.Heyligers, P.C. (1998). Some New South Wales coastal plant distributions: A comparison of herbarium records with transect survey

data. Cunninghamia 5 (3), 645–664.Hobbs, R.J. (1991). Disturbance a precursor to weed invasion in native vegetation. Plant Protection Quarterly 6 (3), 99–104.Hobbs, R.J. and Huenneke, L.F. (1992). Disturbance, diversity, and invasion: Implications for conservation. Conservation Biology 6

(3), 324–337.Hogbin, P. (1999). Targeted Survey for Zieria prostrata and Zieria sp. aff. smithii (headland form). Report to Northern Zone, NSW

National Parks and Wildlife Service, Coffs Harbour.Hogbin, P.M. (2001) Conservation outcomes arising from research into the population genetics, taxonomy and reproductive ecology

of the endangered plant Zieria prostrata. PhD, Australian National University, Australia.


83

Hogbin, P.M. and Crisp, M.D. (2003). The evolution of the coastal neospecies Zieria prostrata and its relationship to the Zieria smithiispecies complex. Australian Systematic Botany 16 (4), 515–525.

Holtkamp, R.H., Edwards, P.B. and Adair, R.J. (1999). Biological control of bitou bush: just around the turn of the millennium? In:Bishop, A.C., Boersma, M. and Barnes C.D. (eds) Twelfth Australian Weeds Conference: papers and proceedings, 12–16September 1999, Hobart, Tas, pp. 667–669. Tasmanian Weeds Society Incorporated, Devonport Tasmania.

Hunter, J., Jay, A., Nicholson, N., Nicholson, H. and Horton, S. (n.d.). Species recovery plan for Fontainea oraria (Jessup andGuymer). Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service Endangered Species Program Project No. 155.

IUCN (the World Conservation Union) (2000). IUCN guidelines for the prevention of biodiversity loss caused by alien invasivespecies. Species Survival Commission, website: http://www.iucn.org/themes/ssc/pubs/policy/invasivesEng.htm

Joseph, R. (1995). Rainforest Remnants Restoration and Rehabilitation Project Brunswick Heads Nature Reserve. Unpublished reportto NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service, Lismore.

Keith, D.A. (2004). Ocean shores to desert dunes: the native vegetation of New South Wales and the ACT. Department of Environmentand Conservation, Hurstville.

Lane, B.A. (1992). Impact of Spartina on international migratory waders: In: Fraser-Quick, G. and Phillips, A. (eds) The Sea HasWeeds Too! Proceedings of a conference on the problem of Spartina, May 1991. pp. 14–20. Bird Observers Club, MarineEducation Society of Australasia, Australasian Wader Studies Group, Department of Conservation and Environment, SouthGippsland Conservation Society, Inverloch.

Law, B., Mackowski, C., Schoer, L. and Tweedie, T. (2000). Flowering phenology of myrtaceous trees and their relation to climate,environmental and disturbance variables in northern New South Wales. Austral Ecology 25, 160-178.

Lawrie, S. (2002). An audit system to account for birds and mammals utilising weed species. In: Spafford Jacob, H., Dodd, J. andMoore, J.H. (eds) Thirteenth Australian Weeds Conference: papers and proceedings, 8–13 September 2002, Perth, WA, pp. 108–111. R.G. and F.J. Richardson, Melbourne.

Lindsay, E.A. and French, K. (2004a). Chrysanthemoides monilifera ssp. rotundata invasion alters decomposition rates in coastal areasof south-eastern Australia. Forest Ecology and Management 198, 387–399.

Lindsay, E.A. and French K. (2004b). The impact of the herbicide glyphosate on leaf litter invertebrates within bitou bush,Chrysanthemoides monilifera ssp rotundata, infestations. Pest Management Science 60, 1205–1212.

Love, A. (1984). Distribution of bitou bush along the New South Wales coast. In: Love, A. and Dyason, R. (eds) Proceedings of aConference on Chrysanthemoides monilifera, Port Macquarie, pp. 53–64. NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service and NSWDepartment of Agriculture, Sydney.

Loyn, R.H. and French, K. (1991). Birds and environmental weeds in south-eastern Australia. Plant Protection Quarterly 6 (3), 137–149.

Mack, M.C. and D’Antonio, C.M. (1998). Impacts of biological invasions on disturbance regimes. TREE 13 (5), 195–198.Mann, R.M. and Bidwell, J.R. (1999). The toxicity of glyphosate and several glyphosate formulations to four species of southern

Australian frogs. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 36, 193–199.Mason, T., French, K. and Lonsdale, M. (2004). Effects of bitou bush (Chrysanthemoides monilifera (L.) Norl. ssp. rotundata (DC.)

Norl.) invasion and control activities on coastal dune communities in New South Wales, Australia. In: B.M. Sindel and S.B.Johnson (eds) The Proceedings of the 14th Australian Weeds Conference, Wagga Wagga, September 2004. p. 114, Weeds Societyof New South Wales, R.G. and F.J. Richardson, Melbourne.

Matarczyk, J.A. (1999). Impacts of Environmental Weeds on Pimelea spicata R.Br. (Thymelaceae). BSc. Honours Thesis, AustralianNational University, Canberra.

Matarczyk, J.A., Willis, A.J., Vranjic, J.A. and Ash, J.E. (2002). Herbicides, weeds and endangered species: management of bitou bush(Chrysanthemoides monilifera ssp. rotundata) with glyphosate and impacts on the endangered shrub, Pimelea spicata. BiologicalConservation 108 (2), 133–141.

McDonald, T. (ed.) (1999). Tweed Coast Littoral Rainforests (SEPP 26) Management Plan. Report prepared for Tweed Shire Council.Meek, P. (1998). Weed seeds and whoopsie daisies: Viability of bitou bush Chrysanthemoides monilifera seeds in fox (Vulpes vulpes)

scats. Plant Protection Quarterly 13 (1), 21–23.Mills, K. (1996). Littoral Rainforest in Southern New South Wales: Inventory, Characteristics and Management. Illawarra Vegetation

Studies (1). Coachwood Publishing, Jamberoo, NSW.NCWAC (North Coast Weeds Advisory Committee) (2005). Coastal Weeds Management Plan. NSW North Coast Weeds Advisory

Committee. NHT (Natural Heritage Trust) (2005). Natural Heritage Trust Programs. website: http://www.nht.gov.au/programs/index.html (Last

updated: 22/11/2004).NPWS (National Parks and Wildlife Service) (1998). Zieria prostrata Recovery Plan. NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service,

Hurstville.NPWS (National Parks and Wildlife Service) (1999a). NSW Biodiversity Strategy. NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service,

Hurstville.NPWS (National Parks and Wildlife Service) (1999b). Broadwater National Park, Bundjalung National Park and Iluka Nature

Reserve Plan of Management. NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service, Hurstville.NPWS (National Parks and Wildlife Service) (1999c). Threatened Species Information: Fontainea oraria. Fact Sheet, NSW National

Parks and Wildlife Service, Hurstville.NPWS (National Parks and Wildlife Service) (2001a). NSW Bitou Bush Strategy. NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service,

Hurstville.NPWS (National Parks and Wildlife Service) (2001b). Aerial Spraying of bitou bush: Bunjalung NP 2002–2006. Volume 2,

unpublished report, NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service, Grafton.NPWS (National Parks and Wildlife Service) (2002). The Birds of Pelican Island. Internal unpublished report, NSW National Parks

and Wildlife Service, Port Macquarie.NPWS (National Parks and Wildlife Service). (2002b). Northern rivers region pest management strategy 2001-2004. NSW National

Parks and Wildlife Service, Coffs Harbour.NPWS (National Parks and Wildlife Service) (2003a). Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub Endangered Ecological Community Draft

Recovery Plan. NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service, Hurstville.NPWS (National Parks and Wildlife Service) (2003b). Draft: Green and Golden Bell Frog Litoria aurea (Lesson 1829). Internal

unpublished report, NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service, Port Macquarie.NRA (National Registration Authority for agricultural and veterinary chemicals) (1996). NRA Special Review of Glyphosate. NRA

special review series 96.1, Canberra, 23 pages.


84

NRM (2005). About Natural Resource Management (NRM) Regions. Natural Resource Management, Canberra (Available athttp://www.nrm.gov.au/about-regions/index.html#intro – last updated 8/03/2005).

NSW Agriculture (1998). New South Wales Weeds Strategy. NSW Department of Agriculture, Orange.NSW Government (1997). NSW Coastal Policy 1997: A sustainable future for the New South Wales Coast. Department of Urban

Affairs and Planning, Sydney.NSW SC (Scientific Committee) (1997). Final Determination to list Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub as an Endangered Ecological

Community. NSW Scientific Committee, Hurstville.NSW SC (Scientific Committee) (1998a). Final Determination to list Chamaesyce psammogeton as an Endangered species. NSW

Scientific Committee, Hurstville.NSW SC (Scientific Committee) (1998b). Zieria smithii population, Diggers Head – endangered population listing: final

determination. NSW Scientific Committee, Hurstville.NSW SC (Scientific Committee) (1998c). Sutherland Shire Littoral Rainforest endangered ecological community listing final

determination. NSW Scientific Committee, Hurstville.NSW SC (Scientific Committee) (1999a). Invasion of native plant communities by bitou bush and boneseed – key threatening process

declaration. Final Determination, NSW Scientific Committee, Hurstville.NSW SC (Scientific Committee) (1999b). Final Determination to list the Kurnell Dune Forest in Sutherland Shire and City of

Rockdale as an Endangered Ecological Community. NSW Scientific Committee, Hurstville.NSW SC (Scientific Committee) (2001). Final Determination to list the population of Glycine clandestina (broad leaf form) (R. Pullen

13342) as an Endangered Population. NSW Scientific Committee, Hurstville.NSW SC (Scientific Committee) (2002). Amendment to the Final Determination to list Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub as an

Endangered Ecological Community. NSW Scientific Committee, Hurstville.NSW SC (Scientific Committee) (2004). Final Determination to list Littoral Rainforest in the NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin and

South East Corner bioregions as an Endangered Community. NSW Scientific Committee, HurstvilleNSW SC (Scientific Committee) (2006). Final determination to list Themeda grassland on sea cliffs and coastal headlands in the

NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner bioregions as an Endangered Ecological Community. NSW ScientificCommittee, Hurstville

Odom, D., Cacho, O., Sinden, J.A. and Griffith, G.R. (2002). Policies for the Management of Weeds in Natural Ecosystems: a dynamicprogramming approach. In: Proceedings of the 46th Annual Conference of the Australian Agricultural and Resource EconomicsSociety, Canberra, February 2002, no page numbers. Canberra.

Paynter, Q., Downey, P.O. and Sheppard, A.W. (2003). Age structure and growth of the woody legume weed Cytisus scoparius innative and exotic habitats: implications for control. Journal of Applied Ecology 40, 470–480.

Pemberton, R.W. (1998). The potential of biological control to manage Old World climbing fern (Lygodium microphyllum), aninvasive weed in Florida. American Fern Journal 88 (4), 176–182.

Port Stephens Coastal Weed Action Group (1997). Port Stephens Bitou Bush Management Plan. Port Stephens Shire Council.Regel, R., Lehmeyerl, T., Heath, D., Carr, S., Sanderson, K. and Lane, M. (1996). Small mammal survey in Belair National Park.

South Australian Naturalist 70, 25–30.Rejmánek, M. (1989). Invasibility of plant communities. In: Drake, J., di Castri, F., Groves, R.H., Kruger, F., Mooney, H.A.,

Rejmánek, M. and Williamson, M. (eds) Biological Invasions: A global perspective pp. 369–388. John Wiley, New York.Scanlon, T. (2001). NSW North Coast Bitou Bush Management Strategies. North Coast Weeds Advisory Committee.Sheringham, P. and Westaway, J. (1995). Significant Vascular Plants of Upper North East New South Wales. A report by New South

Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service for the Natural Resources Audit Council, NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service,Sydney.

Sindel, B.M. (2000). The History of Integrated Weed Management. In: Sindel, B.M. (ed.) Australian Weed Management Systems, pp253–266. R.G. and F.J. Richardson, Melbourne.

Sinden, J., Hester, S., Odom, D., Kalisch, C., James, R. and Cacho, R. (2004). The Economic Impact of Weeds in Australia. TechnicalSeries No. 8, CRC for Australian Weed Management, Adelaide.

Smith, J.M.B. (2000). Trends in invasion by alien woody plants of the New England region, New South Wales. Plant ProtectionQuarterly 15 (3), 102–108.

Stanley, R., Dodkin, M., Love, A. and Dyason, R. (1989). Bitou Bush Control Handbook. NSW Agriculture and Fisheries, SoilConservation Service NSW and NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service, Sydney.

Thomas, J. (2002). Bitou Bush 2001 Mapping Report. Unpublished internal report, NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service, Grafton.Thomas, J. and Leys, A. (2002). Strategic management of bitou bush (Chrysanthemoides monilifera ssp. rotundata (L.) T. Norl.). In:

Spafford Jacob, H., Dodd, J. and Moore, J.H. (eds) 13th Australian Weeds Conference: papers and proceedings, 8–13 September2002, Perth. pp. 586–590, Shannon Books, Melbourne.

Thomas, P.B., Possingham, H. and Roush, R. (2000). Effects of soil disturbance and weed removal on germination within woodlandsinfested by boneseed (Chrysanthemoides monilifera ssp. monilifera). Plant Protection Quarterly 15 (1), 6–13.

Thorp, J.R. and Lynch, R. (2000). The Determination of Weeds of National Significance. National Weeds Strategy ExecutiveCommittee, Launceston.

Toth, J. (2002). Reporting of Toxicity of Roundup® to Native and Some Introduced Plants: a compilation of results from 1989 to 2002for the spraying of 2 L of Roundup® in 30 L of water ha-1 from a helicopter during winter (1 June to 31 August). Unpublishedreport, Management of Environmental Weeds Pty Ltd.

Toth, J., Milham, P.J., Meszaros, I., Kaldor, C.J., Fullerton, R.N. and Burrows, F. (1996). Research on chemical control of bitou bushin New South Wales. Proceedings 11th Australian Weeds Conference, Melbourne, pp 468–475. Weed Science Society of Victoria,Frankston, Victoria.

Turner, P.J. and Virtue J.G. (in press). An eight-year removal experiment measuring the impact of bridal creeper (Asparagusasparagoides (L.) Druce) and the potential benefit from its control. Plant Protection Quarterly x, x-x.

Tweed Shire Council (2004). Tweed Vegetation Management Strategy. Tweed Shire Council / Ecograph.Vidler, S.J. (2004). Using your cute and furries: the role of threatened species in weed awareness. In: B.M. Sindel and S. Johnson

(eds.) The Proceedings of the 14th Australian Weeds Conference, Wagga Wagga, September 2004. pp. 652–658, Weeds Society ofNew South Wales, R.G. and F.J. Richardson, Melbourne.

Vranjic. J. (2000). Best Practice Management Guide 3: Bitou bush Chrysanthemoides monilifera subsp. rotundata. CooperativeResearch Centre for Weed Management Systems, Adelaide.

Vranjic, J. and Groves, R. (1999). ‘Best-practice’ management strategies for the South African weed, bitou bush (Chrysanthemoidesmonilifera subsp. rotundata). In: Bishop, A.C., Boersma, M. and Barnes C.D. (eds) Twelfth Australian Weeds Conference: papers


85

and proceedings, 12–16 September 1999, Hobart, Tas, pp. 288–293. Tasmanian Weeds Society Incorporated, DevonportTasmania.

Vranjic, J.A., Woods, M.J. and Barnard, J. (2000). Soil-mediated effects on germination and seedling growth of coastal wattle (Acaciasophorae) by the environmental weed, bitou bush (Chrysanthemoides monilifera ssp rotundata). Austral Ecology 25, 445–453.

Walsh, N.G. and Entwisle, T.J. (1999). Flora of Victoria Volume 4: Dicotyledons, Cornaceae to Asteraceae. Flora of Victoria Series,Reed Books, Melbourne.

Weeda, E.J. (1987). Invasions of vascular plants and mosses into the Netherlands. Proceedings of the Koninklijke NederlandseAkademie van Wetenschappen C 90, 19–29.

Weiss, P.W. (1983). Invasion of Coastal Acacia Communities by Chrysanthemoides. PhD Thesis, Australian National University,Canberra.

Weiss, P.W. and Noble, I.R. (1984a). Status of coastal dune communities invaded by Chrysanthemoides monilifera. Australian Journalof Ecology 9, 93–98.

Weiss, P.W. and Noble, I.R. (1984b). Interactions between seedlings of Chrysanthemoides monilifera and Acacia longifolia.Australian Journal of Ecology 9, 107–115.

Weiss, P.W., Adair, R.J. and Edwards, P.B. (1998). Chrysanthemoides monilifera (L.) T. Norl. In: Panetta, F.D., Groves, R.H. andShepherd, R.C.H. (eds) The Biology of Australian Weeds, Volume 2, pp. 49–61. R.G. and F.J Richardson, Melbourne.

Williams, P.A., Timmins, S.M., Smith, J.M.B. and Downey, P.O. (2001). The biology of Australian weeds 38. Lonicera japonicaThunb. Plant Protection Quarterly 16 (3), 90–100.

13 List of personal communications cited

Person Organisation

Bower, H. Byron Shire CouncilDodkin, M. DECFlower, P. DECGroves, R.H. CSIRO Plant IndustryHoefer, A. PhD student, ANUHoltkamp, R. NSW Department of AgricultureHunter, J. DECJack, W. Sydney Bush Regeneration CompanyJohnson, S. DIPNRJones, D.L. Centre for Plant Biodiversity Research, CSIROMcDougall, K. DECMelland, R. CRC for Weeds/University of SAMoss, J.T. Butterfly expertMurphy, M. DECPomery, D. Illawarra Noxious Weeds AuthorityRoss, J. DECShepherd, C. DECThomas, J. DECToth, J. Consultant for Management of Environmental Weeds Pty Ltd.Wellington, R. DECWeston, P. NSW Royal Botanic GardensWhite, E. BotanistWilkie, L. Australian Museum

Threat Abatement Plan – Invasion of native plant communities by Chrysanthemoides monilifera

© Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) 2006This work is protected by copyright. No part of this publication may be reproduced without the prior writtenpermission of the Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW DEC), except where permittedunder the Copyright Act 1968.

Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW)Parks and Wildlife DivisionPest Management Unit43 Bridge StreetPO Box 1967Hurstville NSW 2220Telephone: 1300 361 967Website: http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/index.htm

For further information regarding this plan contact:Bitou bush threat abatement plan coordinatorPest Management UnitParks and Wildlife DivisionDepartment of Environment and Conservation (NSW)PO Box 1967Hurstville NSW 2220

This plan should be cited as:DEC (Department of Environment and Conservation) (2006). NSW Threat Abatement Plan –Invasion of native plant communities by Chrysanthemoides monilifera (bitou bush and boneseed).Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW), Hurstville.

ISBN 1 74137 855 9; DEC 2006/115


86

Appendix 1 Chrysanthemoides monilifera listings under theNSW Noxious Weeds Act 1993

Table A1 The weed control class for each local control authority in which bitou bush or boneseed isdeclared noxious under the Noxious Weeds Act 1993, at 1 March 2006.

Council/control areaControl

class Council/control areaControl

class

Ashfield Municipality 4 Leichhardt Municipality 4Auburn 4 Liverpool City 3Bankstown City 3 Lord Howe Island 2Bega Valley Shire 3 Manly 4Bellingen Shire 4 Marrickville 3Blue Mountains City 4 Mosman Municipality 4Botany Bay City 4 Nambucca Shire 4Burwood 3 Newcastle City 4Canada Bay City 4 North Sydney 4Canterbury City 3 Parramatta City 3Clarence Valley a 4 Pittwater 4Coffs Harbour City 4 Port Macquarie–Hastings 4Eurobodalla Shire 4 Port Stephens 4Fairfield City 3 Randwick City 4Far North Coast County b 4 Rockdale City 3Gosford City 4 Ryde City 4Great Lakes 4 Shellharbour City 4Greater Taree City 4 Shoalhaven City 4Holroyd City 3 Strathfield Municipality 3Hornsby Shire 3 Sutherland Shire 4Hunters Hill Municipality 4 Sydney City c 4Hurstville City 3 Warringah 4Kempsey Shire 4 Waverley 4Kiama Municipality 4 Willoughby City 4Kogarah Municipality 3 Wollongong City 4Ku-ring-gai 3 Woollahra Municipality 4Lake Macquarie City 4 Wyong Shire 4Lane Cove Municipality 4

a This control area includes the Copmanhurst, Grafton, Maclean and Pristine Waters Local Government Areas (or LGAs).b This control area includes the Ballina, Byron, Kyogle, Lismore, Richmond Valley and Tweed LGAs.c This control area also includes South Sydney.

Declaration status under the NW Act (CC = Control Class):CC2 The plant must be eradicated from the land and the land must be kept free of the plant.CC3 The plant must be fully and continuously suppressed and destroyed.CC4 The growth and the spread of the plant must be controlled according to the measures

specified in a management plan published by a local control authority.

In addition, both bitou bush and boneseed plants may not be sold, traded or otherwise distributedthroughout New South Wales.


87

Appendix 2 Development of a model to rank plant species threatened by bitou bush invasion

Invasion by bitou bush and boneseed is an enormous problem in New South Wales and its managementrequires planned use of limited resources. Establishing priorities is an important part of the planningprocess. Priorities for the Bitou TAP (i.e. this plan) include the determination of plant species, populationsand ecological communities threatened by bitou bush and sites where the actions of the Bitou TAP can beachieved for each taxa (or biological entity).

Prior to the development of the draft (see DEC 2004), determination of the species, populations andecological communities most at risk from bitou bush and boneseed invasion was a difficult task (Downey2004). This was mostly because information that quantifies the impacts was absent across a broad range ofnative taxa (see Downey 2004; Downey submitted), especially with respect to fauna (see Chapter 5). Forexample, prior to the development of the draft only six native plants and two birds were deemed to be atrisk from bitou bush and boneseed. In order to determine the species at risk the Weed Impacts to NativeSpecies (WINS) assessment process was developed (see Downey in press). The WINS assessment processinvolves four systematic stages: 1) a review of the literature; 2) collation and assessment of knowledge fromland managers, botanists and scientists with specific involvement, either in managing bitou bush, or thenative species in bitou bush infested areas; 3) rigorous evaluation and examination of an interim list ofnative species identified as potentially at risk; and 4) ranking the revised list using a model. Informationfrom stages 1–3 is not presented here, with the exception of the final list of species at risk. The model usedfor stage 4 of the WINS process is presented below.

The draft plan identified 63 plant species at risk and a further 70 that were potentially at risk, which werenot modelled due to a lack of information. Following the public exhibition and further consultation (i.e.stage 3 of the WINS process) a further 25 species were added to the list of species at risk, bringing the totalto 158. This revised list of species at risk was then run through the model described below. The full list ofthe species modelled along with their score for each attribute and their final ranking is presented inAppendix 3, Table A3.1. In addition, there were several species that were not modelled due to insufficientinformation, which are presented in Appendix 3, Table A3.2.

It should be noted that all plant species considered to be at risk from bitou bush and boneseedinvasion in New South Wales were examined during the WINS selection process, not just thoseformally listed as threatened (i.e. under the TSC Act). Of the 158 species identified through the WINSassessment process as being at risk, 55 were listed as threatened under the TSC Act (see Table A3.3 inAppendix 3); 30 of which were also listed as threatened nationally (i.e. under the EPBC Act), highlightingthe role of the WINS assessment process in capturing the full diversity of plant species at risk.

The model used in the draft TAP was the first attempt to rank native species at risk from an individual weedinvasion in Australia. The model outlined below is a revision of the one presented in the draft TAP (seeDEC 2004). The main changes to the species model are:

< The Threatened status attribute (C) was removed, as it was not an independent attribute. Forexample, a species with a limited distribution is more likely to be listed as threatened than awidespread species, therefore species with limited distributions could be artificially elevated inthe ranking when their Distribution and Threatened status attributes were combined.

< The Shade tolerance attribute (D) (a measure of susceptibility) was revised to Susceptibility ofthe species to invasion, as this encompasses all of the species at risk equally, not just those atrisk through shade tolerance.

< Weightings were applied to several of the attributes to ensure that no one factor was overridingthe model predictions (see below for further details).


88

The model presented here is not definitive. Specific information was not available for some species (e.g.seed banks and dispersal rates). The model can be re-run when more comprehensive data becomesavailable, or if additional species are considered to be at risk.

The ranking of priority species in the revised model uses four attributes: (A) susceptibility of the habitat tobitou bush invasion; (B) native species distribution; (C) susceptibility of the native species to bitou bushinvasion; and (D) native species persistence (sub-divided into (D1) seed bank and (D2) dispersal). Eachattribute is scored with the highest score implying the highest priority.

The model for ranking plant species threatened by bitou bush invasion is:

priority rank = (habitat susceptibility [A] x 1.25) x distribution [B] x((species susceptibility [C] + (persistence [D1 + D2]/2))/3)

Attribute A in the model was weighted (by 1.25) to account for its importance in determining the overallrisk from invasion. If the habitat is not susceptible to invasion the susceptibility of the species that occur inthat habitat is of little importance. The attributes that describe the individual native species’ susceptibility[C] and ability of these species to persist [D] on the other hand, were scaled down due to their combinedvalues overriding the model. The weighting therefore standardised the combined values for C and D withthe individual values of A and B. Lastly, the persistence sub-attributes (D1 and D2) were averaged in orderto maintain a consistent set of values for each attribute, again limiting these values from overriding themodel.

A Susceptibility of the habitat to bitou bush invasion

Some habitats are more prone to invasion by bitou bush than others. For example, a particular habitat mayprovide limited competition to bitou bush, such as tussock grasslands with inter-tussock spaces. Also, aparticular disturbance regime may favour invasion (e.g. fire and soil disturbance). The density of bitou bushpresent is not necessarily a reflection (or measure) of the invasibility of that habitat, as many invasive plantsexhibit a distinct lag period between initial occurrence and dominance (even at a site level). Therefore, asite with a light infestation of bitou bush may either present a barrier to invasion, or the invasion process isin the early stages and heavier infestations may occur in the future if untreated.

Score Habitat invasibility0 Extremely low habitat invasibility – non-coastal habitats or those habitats close to the coast in

which boneseed (or rarely, bitou bush) occurs but are generally not susceptible to invasion1 Low habitat invasibility – habitats with closed canopies (e.g. closed forests or heaths), or

water logged habitats (e.g. margins of swamps)2 Medium habitat invasibility – habitats with open canopies (e.g. open woodlands or

shrublands), or forest margins3 High habitat invasibility – habitats with no or low vegetation (e.g. sand dunes or spinifex

grasslands), or habitats with a limited shrub layer, or sites where the native vegetation isdisturbed such that there is no or patchy vegetation


89

B Distribution of native species relative to bitou bush

This attribute describes the potential for bitou bush to have a major impact on an individual native speciesbased on the degree of overlap between the distribution of bitou bush and the native species. For example, aspecies that occurs both within and outside the distribution of bitou bush is less likely to experiencepopulation level impacts than a species which is confined to areas occupied by bitou bush.

Score Distribution of native species0 Not known from coastal habitats1 Distributed across a range of habitats (some of which are coastal <50%)2 Known predominantly from coastal habitats (>50% but <100%)3 Known only from coastal habitats4 Known only from coastal habitats in which all locations are within the distribution of bitou

bush (and/or boneseed)

C Susceptibility of individual species to bitou bush invasion

A number of specific attributes can be used to describe the susceptibility of plants to weed invasion,however, many of them could not be used because insufficient data was available for many of the speciesexamined here (i.e. on the effects of competition). Shade sensitivity or tolerance was used in the draft TAP,but this attribute did not apply equally to all native species examined (i.e. some species were not affected byshade, but were susceptible to invasion as a result of other processes). Thus, a broader measure was usedhere to encompass and assess the general level of susceptibility of individual plant species to bitou bushinvasion.

Score Species susceptibility1 Species persists or grows in invaded areas2 Information about susceptibility to invasion is unknown3 Slightly sensitive to invasion (i.e. occurs in part shade)4 Sensitive to invasion (i.e. shade sensitive species – occurs only in full sun/does not occur in

shade and thus absent in bitou bush invaded areas)

D Persistence (seed bank and dispersal)

This attribute describes the ability of the native plant species to persist at a site, as measured by their abilityto survive, reproduce and disperse (immigrate and emigrate). In order to capture this information, theattribute was divided into two sub-attributes: a reflection of a species’ seed bank or seed storage capability(D1) and its ability to disperse (D2). By obtaining the average value of the two scores (i.e. for each sub-attribute), the combined value of D1 and D2 was not unduly elevated as a single attribute in the model.

The size of the seed bank present, or seed storage capabilities (i.e. seeds stored in cones), and the seeddispersal ability of each species is extremely important for the longer term survival of that species, as wellas for the ability of a species to respond once bitou bush has been removed. Species with no or poor seedbanks may not be able to re-establish, or will have minimal recruitment following the removal of bitoubush, while those species with large seed banks are more likely to persist.


90

Persistence sub-attribute D1 – seed bank:Score Seed banks

1 Long-lived seed bank and/or effective seed storage ability present2 Information about seed dormancy/storage is unknown3 The species has a short-lived seed bank or seed storage capability, or is primarily a-sexual or

reproduction is vegetative4 The species has a limited seed bank, seed storage capability or ability to regenerate

vegetatively

Seed dispersal is another attribute that describes a species’ ability to persist. Species that can disperse theirpropagules to sites free of bitou bush, or to areas where bitou bush control has occurred are more likely topersist than those that have poor dispersal mechanisms.

Persistence sub-attribute D2 – dispersal:Score Dispersal

1 Seed dispersal ability is high (e.g. bird dispersed fruits)2 Information about dispersal is unknown3 Seed dispersal capability is limited (i.e. seeds are dispersed locally through dehiscence)4 No or poor seed dispersal capability

Species for which there is limited information are given a lower score than those that are known to havelimited seed storage or dispersal capability, because they may actually possess seed storage or seeddispersal mechanisms. For many of the species examined this information is poorly known.


91

Appendix 3 Species considered in the TAP

Table A3.1 Species considered and their rank in the model.

attribute in the model a modelA B C D1 D2

0–3 0–4 1–4 1–4 1–4(A*1.25)*B*

((C+((D1+D2)/2))/3)

species name family namehabitat

invasibility distributionspecies

susceptibility seed bank dispersalmax score

(40)speciesrank b

high priority speciesPlectranthus cremnus Lamiaceae 3 4 4 3 2 32.5 1Zieria prostrata Rutaceae 3 4 2 3 4 27.5 2Chamaesyce psammogeton Euphorbiaceae 3 3 4 3 3 26.3 3Senecio spathulatus Asteraceae 3 3 3 3 3 22.5 4Acianthus exiguus Orchidaceae 3 3 4 2 2 22.5 4Calystegia soldanella Convolvulaceae 3 3 4 2 2 22.5 4Chamaecrista maritima Caesalpiniaceae 3 3 4 2 2 22.5 4Sophora tomentosa Fabaceae 3 3 3 3 3 22.5 4Lepturus repens Poaceae 3 3 4 2 2 22.5 4Pultenaea maritima Fabaceae 3 3 4 2 2 22.5 4Stackhousia spathulata Stackhousiaceae 3 3 3 3 3 22.5 4Ischaemum triticeum Poaceae 3 3 4 2 2 22.5 4Vigna marina Fabaceae 3 3 4 2 2 22.5 4Gleichenia mendellii Gleicheniaceae 3 3 3 2 3 20.6 14Actites megalocarpa Asteraceae 3 3 4 2 1 20.6 14Poa poiformis Poaceae 3 3 4 2 1 20.6 14Fontainea oraria Euphorbiaceae 2 4 2 4 4 20 17Diuris praecox Orchidaceae 2 4 3 3 3 20 17Westringia fruticosa Lamiaceae 3 3 3 2 2 18.8 19

medium priority speciesAsplenium difforme Aspleniaceae 3 3 3 2 1 16.9 20Pandanus tectorius var. australianus Pandanaceae 3 3 3 2 1 16.9 20Acronychia littoralis Rutaceae 2 4 3 3 1 16.7 22Pterostylis no 15. (botany bay orchid) Orchidaceae 2 4 3 2 2 16.7 22Viminaria juncea (prostrate form) Fabaceae 2 4 3 2 2 16.7 22Pterostylis woollsii Orchidaceae 2 4 3 2 2 16.7 22Acalypha nemorum (prostrate form) Euphorbiaceae 3 3 2 2 2 15 26Pimelea spicata Thymelaeaceae 3 2 3 3 3 15 26Macarthuria neocambrica Aizoaceae 3 3 2 2 2 15 26Acacia terminalis subsp. terminalis Mimosaceae 2 3 3 1 4 13.8 29Caladenia porphyrea Orchidaceae 2 4 2 2 2 13.3 30Diuris superba Orchidaceae 2 4 2 2 2 13.3 30Diuris curta Orchidaceae 2 4 2 2 2 13.3 30Abildgaardia ovata Cyperaceae 3 3 2 2 1 13.1 33Bossiaea stephensonii Fabaceae 3 3 2 1 2 13.1 33Dianella crinoides Phormiaceae 3 3 2 2 1 13.1 33Dianella congesta Phormiaceae 3 3 2 2 1 13.1 33Cryptocarya foetida Lauraceae 2 3 2 3 3 12.5 37Syzygium paniculatum Myrtaceae 2 3 3 3 1 12.5 37Geodorum densiflorum Orchidaceae 2 3 3 2 2 12.5 37Tricoryne simplex Anthericaceae 2 3 3 2 2 12.5 37Wilsonia rotundifolia Convolvulaceae 3 2 3 2 2 12.5 37Casuarina equisetifolia Casuarinaceae 2 3 3 2 2 12.5 37Persoonia katerae Proteaceae 2 4 2 2 1 11.7 43Thesium australe Santalaceae 3 2 2 3 2 11.3 44Acronychia imperforata Rutaceae 2 3 3 2 1 11.3 44Senna acclinis Caesalpiniaceae 2 2 4 1 4 10.8 46Zieria granulata Rutaceae 2 2 3 3 4 10.8 46Rulingia hermaniifolia Sterculiaceae 2 2 4 3 2 10.8 46Eucalyptus camfieldii Myrtaceae 2 2 3 3 3 10 49Tetratheca juncea Tremandraceae 2 2 3 3 3 10 49Vitex trifolia var. trifolia Verbenaceae 2 3 2 2 2 10 49Diuris arenaria Orchidaceae 2 3 2 2 2 10 49Hibiscus tiliaceus Malvaceae 2 3 2 2 2 10 49Liparis habenarina Orchidaceae 2 3 2 2 2 10 49Pterostylis nigricans Orchidaceae 2 3 2 2 2 10 49Spyridium cinereum Rhamnaceae 2 3 2 2 2 10 49Tylophora benthamii Asclepiadaceae 2 3 2 2 2 10 49Xylosma terra-reginae Flacourtiaceae 2 3 2 2 2 10 49Elyonurus citreus Poaceae 3 2 2 2 2 10 49Grevillea humilis subsp. maritima Proteaceae 3 2 2 2 2 10 49

low priority speciesCynanchum carnosum Asclepiadaceae 2 3 2 2 1 8.8 61Cyperus scaber Cyperaceae 2 3 2 2 1 8.8 61Myoporum bateae Myoporaceae 2 3 2 2 1 8.8 61Persoonia conjuncta Proteaceae 2 3 2 2 1 8.8 61Wilsonia backhousei Convolvulaceae 2 2 3 2 2 8.3 65Cynanchum elegans Asclepiadaceae 2 2 2 3 3 8.3 65Cordyline congesta Asteliaceae 2 2 3 3 1 8.3 65Desmodium heterocarpon var.

heterocarponFabaceae 2 2 3 2 2 8.3 65

Typhonium eliosurum Araceae 2 2 3 2 2 8.3 65Acacia georgensis Mimosaceae 2 2 2 1 4 7.5 70Phaius tancarvillae Orchidaceae 1 3 3 3 3 7.5 70Sarcostemma brunonianum Asclepiadaceae 3 1 4 2 2 7.5 70Thozetia racemosa Asclepiadaceae 2 3 1 2 2 7.5 70Wahlenbergia littoricola Campanulaceae 2 2 3 2 1 7.5 70Diuris byronensis Orchidaceae 1 4 2 2 2 6.7 75Correa baeuerlenii Rutaceae 2 2 2 2 2 6.7 75

[ continued on next page ]


92

attribute in the model a modelA B C D1 D2

0–3 0–4 1–4 1–4 1–4(A*1.25)*B*

((C+((D1+D2)/2))/3)

species name family namehabitat

invasibility distributionspecies

susceptibility seed bank dispersalmax score

(40)speciesrank b

low priority speciesGeniostoma huttonii Loganiaceae 2 2 2 2 2 6.7 75Haemodorum austroqueenslandicum Haemodoraceae 2 2 2 2 2 6.7 75Scaevola aemula Goodeniaceae 2 2 2 2 2 6.7 75Zieria tuberculata Rutaceae 2 2 2 2 2 6.7 75Phaius australis Orchidaceae 1 3 3 2 2 6.3 81Gonocarpus salsoloides Haloragaceae 1 3 3 2 2 6.3 81Polyalthia nitidissima Annonaceae 2 3 1 2 1 6.3 81Comesperma sphaerocarpum Polygalaceae 2 2 2 2 1 5.8 84Cyperus subulatus Cyperaceae 2 2 2 2 1 5.8 84Galactia tenuiflora var. villlosa Fabaceae 2 2 2 1 2 5.8 84Logania pusilla Loganiaceae 2 2 2 2 1 5.8 84Olax angulata Olacaceae 1 3 2 3 2 5.6 88Caladenia tessellata Orchidaceae 2 1 3 3 3 5 89Eucalyptus paniculata subsp. matutina Myrtaceae 1 3 2 2 2 5 89Macrozamia flexuosa Zamiaceae 2 2 1 2 2 5 89Calystegia affinis Convolvulaceae 1 3 2 2 2 5 89Carmichaelia exsul Fabaceae 1 3 2 2 2 5 89Cupaniopsis anarcardiodes Sapindaceae 1 3 2 2 2 5 89Glochidion sumatranum Euphorbiaceae 1 3 2 2 2 5 89Haemodorum corymbosum Haemodoraceae 3 1 2 2 2 5 89Prostanthera densa Lamiaceae 1 2 2 3 4 4.6 97Acrostichum speciosum Pteridaceae 1 3 2 2 1 4.4 98Celtis paniculata Ulmaceae 1 3 2 2 1 4.4 98Cyperus stradbrokensis Cyperaceae 1 3 2 2 1 4.4 98Fimbristylis polytrichoides Cyperaceae 1 3 2 2 1 4.4 98Hypserpa decumbens Menispermaceae 1 3 2 2 1 4.4 98Pelargonium australe Geraniaceae 3 1 2 2 1 4.4 98Pisonia umbellifera Nyctaginaceae 1 3 2 2 1 4.4 98Planchonella laurifolia Sapotaceae 1 3 2 2 1 4.4 98Planchonella myrsiniodes Sapotaceae 1 3 2 2 1 4.4 98Melaleuca groveana Myrtaceae 2 1 2 3 3 4.2 107Acianthus amplexicaulis Orchidaceae 1 2 3 2 2 4.2 107Pterostylis ophioglossa Orchidaceae 2 1 3 2 2 4.2 107Thysanotus juncifolius Anthericaceae 1 2 3 2 2 4.2 107Viola betonicifolia Violaceae 2 1 3 2 2 4.2 107Arthraxon hispidis Poaceae 2 1 3 2 2 4.2 107Acmena hemilampra Myrtaceae 1 3 1 3 1 3.8 113Bridelia exaltata Euphorbiaceae 1 3 1 3 1 3.8 113Caesalpinia bonduc Caesalpiniaceae 1 2 2 2 3 3.8 113Grevillea hilliana Proteaceae 1 2 2 2 2 3.3 116Ailanthus triphysa Simaroubaceae 1 2 2 2 2 3.3 116Marsdenia liisae Asclepiadaceae 1 2 2 2 2 3.3 116Callistemon acuminatus Myrtaceae 1 2 2 2 2 3.3 116Coprosma inopinata Rubiaceae 1 2 2 2 2 3.3 116Cryptandra propinqua Rhamnaceae 2 1 2 2 2 3.3 116Cryptandra scortechinii Rhamnaceae 2 1 2 2 2 3.3 116Cryptocarya triplinervis var. triplinervis Lauraceae 1 2 2 2 2 3.3 116Cryptocarya triplinervis var. pubens Lauraceae 1 2 2 2 2 3.3 116Darwinia leptantha Myrtaceae 1 2 2 2 2 3.3 116Gleichenia rupestris Gleicheniaceae 2 1 2 2 2 3.3 116Melicope vitiflora Rutaceae 1 2 2 2 2 3.3 116Endiandra globosa Lauraceae 1 2 1 3 2 2.9 128Abildgaardia vaginata Cyperaceae 1 2 2 2 1 2.9 128Coelospermum paniculatum Rubiaceae 1 2 2 2 1 2.9 128Euphrasia collina subsp. paludosa Scrophulariaceae 2 1 2 2 1 2.9 128Haloragis exalata subsp. exalata Haloragaceae 1 2 2 2 1 2.9 128Leucopogon esquamatus Epacridaceae 1 2 2 2 1 2.9 128Lindsaea fraseri Lindsaeaceae 1 2 2 2 1 2.9 128Lygodium microphyllum Schizaeaceae 1 2 2 2 1 2.9 128Niemeyera chartacea Sapotaceae 1 2 2 2 1 2.9 128Pelargonium inodorum Geraniaceae 2 1 2 2 1 2.9 128Persoonia linearis Proteaceae 2 1 2 2 1 2.9 128Streptothamnus moorei Flacourtiaceae 1 2 2 2 1 2.9 128Cryptostylis hunteriana Orchidaceae 1 1 3 3 3 2.5 140Linum marginale Linaceae 1.5 1 2 2 2 2.5 140Pultenaea villifera Fabaceae 2 1 1 2 2 2.5 140Allocasuarina defungens Casuarinaceae 1 2 1 1 2 2.1 143Allocasuarina simulans Casuarinaceae 1 2 1 1 2 2.1 143Syzygium moorei Myrtaceae 1 2 1 2 1 2.1 143Corybas undulatus Orchidaceae 1 1 2 2 2 1.7 146Aldrovanda vesiculosa Droseraceae 1 1 2 2 2 1.7 146Caesia parviflora var. minor Liliaceae 1 1 2 2 2 1.7 146Caladenia quadrifaria Orchidaceae 1 1 2 2 2 1.7 146Oldenlandia galioides Rubiaceae 1 1 2 2 2 1.7 146Isopogon anemonifolius Proteaceae 1 2 1 1 1 1.7 146Syzygium hodgkinsoniae Myrtaceae 1 1 2 2 2 1.7 146Acacia bakeri Mimosaceae 1 1 2 1 2 1.5 153Acacia kydrensis Mimosaceae 1 1 2 1 2 1.5 153Archidendron hendersonii Mimosaceae 1 1 2 1 2 1.5 153Carex brownii Cyperaceae 1 1 2 2 1 1.5 153Hoya australis subsp. australis Asclepiadaceae 1 1 2 2 1 1.5 153Lipocarpha microcephala Cyperaceae 1 1 2 2 1 1.5 153

a Attributes are described in Appendix 2 along with their scores, the range for each is presented here for information (e.g. the range for A is 0–3).b Species with the same score were given an equal rank value (e.g. 10 species scored 22.5 and were ranked equal 4th), therefore species with the

next lowest score (e.g. 20.6) were given the next actual rank (e.g. 14th instead of 5th).


93

Table A3.2 Native plant species thought to be at risk from bitou bush invasion for which there wasinsufficient information available to model the threat posed to them (i.e. using the speciesmodel, see Appendix 2).

species family name threatened status a justification

Acacia longifolia subsp. sophorae Mimosoideae not listed species identified at risk too late to modelBanksia serrata Proteaceae not listed species identified at risk too late to modelCarpobrotus glaucescens Aizoaceae not listed species identified at risk too late to modelCynodon dactylon Poaceae not listed species identified at risk too late to modelDianella caerulea Phormiaceae not listed species identified at risk too late to modelEucalyptus parramattensis subsp.

decadens Myrtaceae Vulnerable (TSC Act and EPBC Act), ROTAP (2V) species identified at risk too late to model

Gonocarpus teucrioides Haloragaceae not listed species identified at risk too late to modelHakea teretifola subsp. teretifolia Proteaceae not listed insufficient information available to modelHibbertia obtusifolia Dillenaceae not listed species identified at risk too late to modelLeionema carruthersii Rutaceae ROTAP (3RC)b insufficient information available to modelLeucopogon parviflorus Ericaceae not listed species identified at risk too late to modelLivistona australis Arecaceae not listed species identified at risk too late to modelLomandra longifolia Lomandraceae not listed species identified at risk too late to modelMacadamia tetraphylla Proteaceae Vulnerable (TSC Act and EPBC Act), ROTAP (2VC-) species identified at risk too late to modelMonotoca elliptica Ericaceae not listed species identified at risk too late to modelOxalis rubens Oxalidaceae not listed species identified at risk too late to modelPersoonia pulchella Proteaceae not listed insufficient information available to modelPicris angustifolia subsp. carolorum-

hericorum Asteraceae not listed insufficient information available to model

Pratia purpurascens Lobeliaceae not listed species identified at risk too late to modelRhagodia candolleana Chenopodiaceae not listed species identified at risk too late to modelRicinocarpos pinifolius Euphorbiaceae not listed species identified at risk too late to modelScaevola calendulacea Goodeniaceae not listed species identified at risk too late to modelSenecio lautus subsp. maritimus Asteraceae not listed species identified at risk too late to modelSolanum prinophyllum Solanaceae not listed species identified at risk too late to modelSpinifex sericeus Poaceae not listed species identified at risk too late to modelTinospora tinosporoides Menispermaceae Vulnerable (TSC Act and EPBC Act), ROTAP (3RC-) species identified at risk too late to modelViola hederacea forma G Violaceae not listed species identified at risk too late to modelXylosma parvifolium Flacourtiaceae Endangered (TSC Act) insufficient information available to model

a As listed and defined under the TSC Act (NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995), the EPBC ACT (Commonwealth EnvironmentProtection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999) or ROTAP (Rare Or Threatened Australian Plants, see Briggs and Leigh 1996).

b As cited on PlantNet website (http://plantnet.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au/)

Table A3.3 Threatened status of species considered in the species model.

Threatened status a

species name TSC Act a,b EPBC Act a,b ROTAP cEndangered Ecological Communities in which thespecies also occurs d

high priority speciesPlectranthus cremnus 3K Themeda grasslandsZieria prostrata E E 2E Themeda grasslandsChamaesyce psammogeton ESenecio spathulatus EAcianthus exiguus 3RC-Calystegia soldanellaChamaecrista maritima Themeda grasslandsSophora tomentosa E Littoral rainforestLepturus repensPultenaea maritima VStackhousia spathulata Themeda grasslandsIschaemum triticeumVigna marinaGleichenia mendelliiActites megalocarpaPoa poiformis Themeda grasslandsFontainea oraria E E 2EDiuris praecox V V 2VC-Westringia fruticosa Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub, Themeda grasslands

medium priority speciesAsplenium difformePandanus tectorius var. australianusAcronychia littoralis E E 3ECiPterostylis no 15. (botany bay orchid) E E 2ECitViminaria juncea (prostrate form)Pterostylis woollsii 3RC-Acalypha nemorum (prostrate form)Pimelea spicata E E 3ECiMacarthuria neocambrica Acacia terminalis subsp. terminalis E E Eastern Suburbs Banksia ScrubCaladenia porphyrea EDiuris superbaDiuris curtaAbildgaardia ovataBossiaea stephensoniiDianella crinoides Bangalay Sand Forest



94

Threatened status a


medium priority species (continued)Dianella congestaCryptocarya foetida V V 3VCiSyzygium paniculatum V V 3VCi Littoral RainforestGeodorum densiflorum ETricoryne simplexWilsonia rotundifolia Coastal saltmarshCasuarina equisetifoliaPersoonia kateraeThesium australe V V 3VCi+Acronychia imperforata Littoral RainforestSenna acclinis E 3RC-Zieria granulata E 2VCiRulingia hermaniifolia 3RCaEucalyptus camfieldii V V 2VCiTetratheca juncea V V 3VCaVitex trifolia var. trifoliaDiuris arenaria EHibiscus tiliaceusLiparis habenarinaPterostylis nigricans V 3VSpyridium cinereum 3RCaTylophora benthamiiXylosma terra-reginae EElyonurus citreus EGrevillea humilis subsp. maritima

low priority speciesCynanchum carnosumCyperus scaberMyoporum bateae 3RC-Persoonia conjunctaWilsonia backhousei V Coastal SaltmarshCynanchum elegans E E 3ECi Dry rainforest, Littoral rainforestCordyline congesta 2RC- Littoral RainforestDesmodium heterocarpon var. heterocarponTyphonium eliosurum 3RC-Acacia georgensis V V 2VCiPhaius tancarvillae E E 3VC-+Sarcostemma brunonianumThozetia racemosaWahlenbergia littoricolaDiuris byronensis E Themeda grasslandsCorrea baeuerlenii V V 3VCiGeniostoma huttonii EHaemodorum austroqueenslandicumScaevola aemulaZieria tuberculata V V 2VCiPhaius australis E E 3VCaGonocarpus salsoloides 3RCaPolyalthia nitidissimaComesperma sphaerocarpumCyperus subulatusGalactia tenuiflora var. villlosaLogania pusillaOlax angulata V V 2VCiCaladenia tessellata E V 3VEucalyptus paniculata subsp. matutina 2K Pittwater spotted gum forestMacrozamia flexuosa 2KCalystegia affinis E CECarmichaelia exsul ECupaniopsis anarcardiodes Littoral Rainforest, Kurnell Dune Forest, Swamp Oak floodplainGlochidion sumatranum Swamp Oak floodplainHaemodorum corymbosumProstanthera densa V V 3VC-Acrostichum speciosumCeltis paniculata Littoral RainforestCyperus stradbrokensisFimbristylis polytrichoidesHypserpa decumbensPelargonium australePisonia umbellifera Littoral RainforestPlanchonella laurifoliaPlanchonella myrsiniodesMelaleuca groveana V 3RC-Acianthus amplexicaulis 3RC-Pterostylis ophioglossaThysanotus juncifoliusViola betonicifoliaArthraxon hispidis V V 3VC-+Acmena hemilampra Littoral RainforestBridelia exaltata Littoral RainforestCaesalpinia bonduc EGrevillea hilliana EAilanthus triphysaMarsdenia liisae 3RC-Callistemon acuminatus 3RC-Coprosma inopinata ECryptandra propinquaCryptandra scortechiniiCryptocarya triplinervis var. triplinervis Littoral RainforestCryptocarya triplinervis var. pubens Littoral RainforestDarwinia leptantha Eastern Suburbs Banksia ScrubGleichenia rupestris



95

Threatened status a


low priority species (continued)Melicope vitiflora EEndiandra globosa 2RC-Abildgaardia vaginataCoelospermum paniculatumEuphrasia collina subsp. paludosaHaloragis exalata subsp. exalata V V 3VCaLeucopogon esquamatusLindsaea fraseri ELygodium microphyllumNiemeyera chartacea EPelargonium inodorumPersoonia linearis Dry RainforestStreptothamnus moorei Cryptostylis hunteriana V V 3VC-Linum marginalePultenaea villifera EP V 3RC-Allocasuarina defungens E E 2EAllocasuarina simulans V V 2VCaSyzygium moorei V V 2VCiCorybas undulatus 3KC-Aldrovanda vesiculosaCaesia parviflora var. minor ECaladenia quadrifariaOldenlandia galioidesIsopogon anemonifoliusSyzygium hodgkinsoniae V V 3VC-Acacia bakeri VAcacia kydrensis 2RCaArchidendron hendersonii VCarex browniiHoya australis subsp. australisLipocarpha microcephala

Total 55 30 49 27

a As listed and defined under the TSC Act (NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995), the EPBC ACT (Commonwealth EnvironmentProtection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999) or ROTAP (Rare Or Threatened Australian Plants, see Briggs and Leigh 1996).

b E = Endangered species; V= Vulnerable species; EP = Endangered Populationc For information on ROTAP codes see Briggs and Leigh (1996). It should be noted that ROTAP has not been updated since 1996 which may

influence the status of some species. Irrespective it is the only measure of the threatened status for some species.d The Endangered Ecological Communities as listed under the TSC Act, within which the species is known to occur.


96

Appendix 4 Development of a model to rank plantpopulations and ecological communitiesthreatened by bitou bush invasion

In Appendix 2 a model was developed to assess the native plant species at risk from bitou bush invasion.While this model can be used to assess individual species, it was not designed to assess plant populations orecological plant communities at risk. This is in part because of the difficulties of condensing information formultiple species (i.e. for ecological communities) into a single value for each attribute (e.g. for thePersistence attribute, see Appendix 2), or assuming that the attributes of a species are the same for allpopulations (i.e. many of the threatened populations listed are unique forms such as the broad leaf form ofGlycine clandestina, and thus may possess different characteristics). An abridged version of the speciesmodel was therefore developed to rank plant populations and ecological plant communities at risk. This wasnot done in the draft TAP (see DEC 2004). By using this abridged model greater transparency for selectingpriorities can be achieved.

The ranking of priority plant populations and ecological plant communities in the model uses threeattributes: (S) susceptibility of the habitat to bitou bush invasion; (D) distribution of the population orecological community relative to that of bitou bush; and (I) the susceptibility of the native species of eachpopulation or ecological community to bitou bush invasion. Each attribute is scored with the highest scoreimplying the highest priority.

The model for ranking plant populations and ecological plant communities is:

priority rank = (habitat susceptibility [S] x 1.25) x distribution [D] xsusceptibility to invasion [I]

Attribute S in the model was weighted [by 1.25] to account for its importance in determining the overallrisk from invasion. If the habitat is not susceptible to invasion the susceptibility of the species of each plantpopulation or ecological plant community is of little importance. The populations and ecologicalcommunities that were modelled are listed and ranked in Appendix 5 (Tables A5.1 and A 5.2). Ecologicalcommunities that were considered to be potentially at risk from bitou invasion, but were unable to bemodelled are listed in Table A5.3.

The model presented here is not definitive. It should be noted that if for any reason the value of an attributechanges then the rankings within the models could be adjusted accordingly. For example, if a fire alters thesusceptibility of a habitat to invasion its ranking can be adjusted to ensure that the biodiversity at risk isprotected.

S Susceptibility of the habitat to bitou bush invasion

As outlined in Appendix 2 some habitats are more prone to invasion by bitou bush than others. The habitatin which each plant population and ecological plant community occurred was assessed for its invasibility.The density of bitou bush present is not necessarily a reflection (or measure) of the invasibility of thathabitat, as many invasive plants exhibit a distinct lag period between initial occurrence and dominance.Therefore, a site with a light infestation of bitou bush may either present a barrier to invasion, or theinvasion process is in the early stages and heavier infestations may occur in the future if untreated.


97

Score Habitat invasibility0 Extremely low habitat invasibility – non-coastal habitats or those habitats close to the coast in

which boneseed (or rarely, bitou bush) occurs but are generally not susceptible to invasion1 Low habitat invasibility – habitats with dense intact vegetation (e.g. closed forests), or water

logged habitats (e.g. margins of swamps)2 Medium habitat invasibility – habitats with open canopies (e.g. open woodlands or

shrublands), or forest margins, or damaged canopies, or where the margin is large relative theinterior (i.e. littoral rainforest)

3 High habitat invasibility – habitats with no or low vegetation (e.g. sand dunes), or habitatswith a limited shrub layer, or sites where the native vegetation is disturbed such that there isno or patchy vegetation

D Distribution relative to bitou bush

This attribute describes the potential for bitou bush to have a major impact on the entire population or anecological community based on its distribution relative to that of the threatened population or ecologicalcommunity. For ecological communities the distribution refers to the entire distribution of all patches, notthat of an individual patch (e.g. littoral rainforests are distributed throughout coastal New South Wales).

Score Distribution of the population or ecological community0 Not known from coastal habitats1 Distributed across a range of habitats (some of which are coastal <50%) [populations

excluded as they are typically only known from one location]2 Known predominantly from coastal habitats (>50% but <100%)3 Known only from coastal habitats4 Known only from coastal habitats in which all locations are within the distribution of bitou

bush (and/or boneseed)

I Susceptibility of populations and ecological communities tobitou bush invasion

As described in Appendix 2, the same broad measure was also used here to encompass the generalsusceptibility of plant populations and ecological plant communities to bitou bush invasion.

Score Susceptibility of biodiversity to invasion1 Population or ecological community persists or grows in invaded areas with limited or no

sign of susceptibility to invasion2 Information about susceptibility to invasion is unknown3 Slightly sensitive to invasion (i.e. bitou bush occurs in part but not all of the population or

ecological community e.g. forest margins only)4 Sensitive to invasion (i.e. bitou bush readily invades populations or ecological communities).


98

Appendix 5 Plant populations and ecological communities considered in the TAP

Table A5.1 Threatened plant populations considered and their rank in the model.

attribute a

S D I model0–3 0–4 1–4 (S*1.25)*D*I

populations b family threatened status bhabitat

invasibility distributionsusceptibility to

invasionmax score

(60)speciesrank c

high priority populationsGlycine clandestina (broad leaf form) Fabaceae Endangered (TSC Act) 3 4 4 60 1Zieria smithii (low growing form) Rutaceae Endangered (TSC Act) 3 4 4 60 1

low priority populationsChorizema parviflorum (Wollongong /

Shellharbour)Fabaceae Endangered (TSC Act) 2 3 2 15 3

a Attributes are described in Appendix 4 along with their scores, the range for each is presented here for information (e.g. the range for S is 0–3).b As defined under the TSC Act (NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995).c Populations with the same score were given an equal rank value (e.g. two species scored 60 and were ranked equal 1st), therefore the

population(s) with the next lowest score (e.g. 15) was given the next actual rank (e.g. 3rd).

Table A5.2 Ecological Communities considered and their rank in the model.

attribute a

S D I model0–3 0–4 1–4 (S*1.25)*D*I

ecological communities bthreatenedstatus c, d habitat

invasibility distributionsusceptibility to

invasionmax score

(60)speciesrank e

high priority communitiesEastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub EEC f 3 4 4 60 1Littoral Rainforest g EEC, SEPP 26 3 4 4 60 1Kurnell Dune Forest EEC 3 4 4 60 1Coastal Banksia Woodlands (Banksia integrifolia) 3 4 3 45 4Themeda (Themeda triandra) grassland on sea cliffs and coastal

headlands in the NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin and South EastCorner bioregions

EEC 3 3 4 45 4

Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub equivalent communities (i.e. CoastalSand Wallum Heath)

3 4 3 45 4

Frontal Dune Vegetation Complex 3 3 4 45 4Coastal Sand Dune complex (Acacia longifolia var. sophorae) 3 3 4 45 4

medium priority communitiesByron Bay Dwarf Gramminoid Clay Heath EEC 2 4 3 30 9Bangalay sand forest EEC 2 4 3 30 9Low Woodland with Heathland (Norah Head) EEC 2 4 3 30 9Coastal Scrub (Leptospermum laevigatum / Acacia longifolia var.

sophorae)2 3 3 22.5 12

Coastal Scrub (Drypetes australiscia / Elaedendron australe) 2 3 3 22.5 12Headland Heath 2 3 3 22.5 12Headland Woodland 2 3 3 22.5 12Dune Grasslands (Spinifex hirsutus) 3 3 2 22.5 12

low priority communitiesCoastal Wetlands SEPP 14 1 4 3 15 17Sydney Coastal Estuary Swamp Forest Complex 1 4 3 15 17Sydney Freshwater Wetlands EEC 1 4 3 15 17Pittwater Spotted Gum and equivalent communities (i.e. Wagstaff

Spotted Gum forest)EEC 2 2 3 15 17

Swamp oak floodplain EEC 2 3 2 15 17Coastal Saltmarsh EEC 1 3 2 7.5 22Fresh water wetlands EEC 1 2 3 7.5 22Swamp Sclerophyll forest on coastal floodplains EEC 1 3 2 7.5 22River Flat Eucalypt Forest EEC 1 2 2 5 25Dry Rainforest EEC 1 2 2 5 25

a Attributes are described in Appendix 4 along with their scores, the range for each is presented here for information (e.g. the range for S is 0–3).b The species named are the dominant species which depict the ecological community.c As defined under the TSC Act (NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995) or SEPP (State Environmental Planning Policy)d EEC = Endangered Ecological Community as defined under the TSC Act or EPBC Act (Commonwealth Environment Protection and

Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999).e Ecological communities with the same score were given an equal rank value (e.g. five species scored 45 and were ranked equal 4th), therefore

ecological communities with the next lowest score (e.g. 30) were given the next actual rank (e.g. 9th instead of 5th).f Also listed under the EPBC Act.g Includes those littoral rainforests encompassed under SEPP26 and the TSC Act (which includes the formerly listed Sutherland Shire Littoral

Rainforest).


99

Table A5.3 Threatened populations and ecological communities thought to be at risk from bitou bushinvasion for which there was insufficient information available to model the threat posedto them (i.e. using the model outlined in Appendix 4).

ecological communities threatened status a justification

Coastal low forest potentially at risk b insufficient information available to modelCoastal sand dune vegetation communities potentially at risk b insufficient information available to modelDune dry heath (Acacia longifolia var. sophorae / Leucopogan parviflorus / Scaevola

calendulacea) potentially at risk b insufficient information available to model

Gramminoid Clay Heath (Hibbertia vestita / Pimelea linifolia / Pultenaea villosa plusThemeda triandra) potentially at risk b insufficient information available to model

Kurri Sand Swamp Woodland in the Sydney Basin Bioregion EEC (TSC Act) EEC identified at risk too late to modelSclerophyll forest (Banksia integrifolia / Allocasuarina littoralis) potentially at risk b insufficient information available to modelSclerophyll forest (Eucalyptus pilularis / E. gummifera / E. intermedia / Angophora costata) potentially at risk b insufficient information available to modelSclerophyll mallee (Eucalyptus planchoriana or E. intermedia) potentially at risk b insufficient information available to modelUmina Coastal Sandplain Woodland in the Sydney Basin Bioregion EEC (TSC Act) EEC identified at risk too late to model

a As listed and defined under the TSC Act (NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995). EEC = Endangered Ecological Community.b As identified in Dodkin and Gilmore (1984).


100

Appendix 6 Selecting priority sites for bitou bush control

Determining the species, populations and ecological communities at risk from bitou bush invasion is onlythe first stage in the process of abating the impact of bitou bush on biodiversity. The second stage requiresan assessment of the locations at which the entities at risk occur (hereafter referred to as ‘entity locations’).Entity location assessment involves determining the feasibility of control, the actual impact of bitou bush,the condition of the entity present and the other threats present.

While the entity location assessment process has not changed since the publication of the draft (see DEC2004), the processes for determining and selecting priority sites for implementing the TAP have beenchanged. Also, an additional 95 species, one population and 17 ecological communities have beenincorporated into the TAP, and thus additional site information for these entities is included here. Many ofthe sites marked as ‘A’ (requiring further assessment) in the draft have now also been modelled. Finally,sites presented in the draft TAP were not grouped when multiple species occurred at either the same site orwithin close proximity. This has been resolved here.

A6.1 Stage one – assessment of entity locations

In order to establish priority sites for bitou bush control, the locations of all species, populations andecological communities considered to be at risk from bitou bush invasion (i.e. as identified in Appendices 3and 5) were examined here (hereafter referred to as entity locations). The assessment of entity locations inthe model uses three attributes: (E) the ability to achieve effective bitou bush control at the location; (AI)the actual impact of bitou bush at each location; and (C) the condition of the entity present at eachlocation.

It should be noted that in this initial assessment stage, entity locations were modelled. The secondassessment stage outlined below in Section A6.2 accounts for sites that encompass multiple entities withinclose proximity to each other (hereafter referred to as multi-species sites).

The model for assessing the entity locations is:

Entity location priority = effective control [E] + actual impact [AI] + condition [C]

Each attribute is scored with the highest score implying the highest priority. The score for each attribute isbased on a subjective assessment for each entity at each site, being either Low, Low–Medium, Medium,Medium–High or High for each of the three attributes. These subjective scores were then converted into anumerical value shown in Table A6.1.

Table A6.1 Numerical value of each of the subjective assessment scores given to each of the threelocation attributes (i.e. E, AI and C - see text for more details).

subjective assessment values given to each ofthe three location attribute (i.e. E, AI and C) numerical value

Low 1Low – Medium 2Medium 3Medium – High 4High 5


101

The scores for each attribute were added to give a total score (maximum of 15) that was converted to apriority rank (i.e. High, Medium or Low priority) based on the following division:

< Low priority (L) if an entity location scored ≤5< Medium priority (M) if an entity location scored >5 and ≤10< High priority (H) if an entity location scored >10

Entity locations were listed as requiring further assessment (A) where there was insufficient information.

E Effective

The ability to achieve effective bitou bush control at an entity location was based on the density of bitoubush present, and the feasibility of undertaking bitou bush control, particularly with respect to protectingthe entities at risk. Locations with high densities of bitou bush where the feasibility of control is relativelyhigh were given a high value. In contrast, locations with low densities of bitou bush where the feasibility ofcontrol is low (i.e. logistically difficult and/or expensive) were assessed as low. These are the extremescenarios, with a range of combinations in between.

AI Actual impact

The actual impact of bitou bush at each entity location was determined by considering the degree of impactposed by bitou bush (and associated weeds - as outlined/specified in Section 7.2). The level of infestation ofbitou bush and its proximity to the threatened entity were also considered here. Locations at which bitoubush and associated weed species were well established and in close proximity to the threatened entity wereassessed as high.

C Condition

This attribute was separated into two components: the condition of the entity and the physical condition ofthe location.

Entity condition – The condition of the entity present (i.e. plant population health) at each entity location,and the importance of the entity location to the entity’s overall status. Factors considered in rating entitylocations included the size of the population (i.e. few or many individuals) in relation to the its naturaloccurrence (e.g. some species only occur in small populations, which are common), the area occupied ordistribution of the population at the location, whether it occurred on the edge of the entity’s range, and theoverall health of the population present (i.e. individuals in poor health or where there are limited seedlingspresent, or all are old and sick plants, etc.).

Location condition – The condition of the location where the entity is present (i.e. based on the presence ofthreats other than bitou bush which may reduce the success of the control program). While the control ofother weed species, particularly those that will replace bitou bush following control, must occur within theconfines of this TAP (as specified in Section 7.2), reduction of all other threats is outside its scope. Thus,locations where there were major threats other than bitou bush and associated weed species were assessedas low.

Locations where the entity condition was high and the physical condition was high (i.e. limited other threatswere present), were assessed as high.


102

The assessment of condition was determined in consultation with relevant threatened species recoveryteams, species experts (including botanists) and people managing these sites in the field.

A6.2 Stage two – categorising sites for control

The first stage outlined above (assessment of entity locations), prioritises each entity location, however, themajority of locations could be grouped into larger sites based on their geographic locations or their relativeproximity. Thus a second assessment stage is needed to amalgamate the entity location information into asingle value for multi-species sites. This second stage uses five steps:

i) each entity location is assigned a cell in a matrix based on the combination of the entitylocation priority (H, M or L as determined in stage one, Section A6.1 above) and theentity priority (H, M or L as determined in Appendices 3 and 5)

ii) the entity locations were amalgamated into multi-species sites, and assigned a cell in thematrix

iii) sites were divided into five control categoriesiv) each entity location in each site was assigned an entity matrix value according to the cell

within the matrix that was assigned in step i). The entity matrix values were summedfor all entities occurring at a site, giving a site matrix score

v) the site matrix score was used to rank the sites within each control category.

i assigning cells in the matrix to entity locations

The results of the species, population and ecological community models (see Appendices 3 and 5), and thesite model can be presented as a matrix, in which every combination is expressed from a high priorityspecies at a high priority location to a low priority species at a low priority location (Figure A6.1). Forexample, the Wooli River site is a high priority location for the high priority species Sophora tomentosa,and would therefore be assigned the cell marked with an x in the matrix in Figure A6.1 (i.e. HH).

entity locationpriority

H M L H X

Mentitypriority

L

Figure A6.1 Matrix of entity location priority by entity priority (High (H), Medium (M) and Low (L)priority).

Sites marked with an ‘A’ could not be given a cell in the matrix due to insufficient information and are thusnot accounted for.

ii assigning cells in the matrix to multi-species sites

As outlined above, every entity priority – entity location combination can be assigned one of nine cells inthe matrix. When entity locations were grouped into multi-species sites, the highest value matrix cell for allentity locations was assigned as the overall matrix cell for the site. For example, the Broken Head NatureReserve site encompasses 17 entity locations, representing six cells in the matrix: 2 x HH, 3 x HM, 2 x MH,


103

3 x MM, 3 x LH, 4 x LM. Thus, Broken Head Nature Reserve site is assigned a matrix cell of HH, being thehighest value. Single-species sites keep their initial matrix cell.

iii five control categories

Accounting for multi-species sites in the matrix reduces the number of sites to 349 across coastal NewSouth Wales. This process enables priorities for control to be determined for all sites from the matrix byassigning the sites encompassed by each cell a control category using the system presented in Figure A6.2.For example, the Broken Head Nature Reserve site was assigned to control category 1 (C1), as it wasassigned a matrix cell of HH in step iii) – see above. Every site was assigned to a control category.

entity location priorityH M L

H HH HM HL C1 C2 C3M MH MM ML C2 C3 C4entity

priorityL LH LM LL

translatesto

C3 C4 C5

Figure A6.2 The five control categories given to each cell in the matrix.

iv assigning entity matrix values

To assign priority to sites within each control category, each entity location was assigned an entity matrixvalue ranging from 5 to 1 according to the matrix cell assigned to the entity location in step i). For example,Sophora tomentosa at Wooli River was assigned to matrix cell HH, which gives an entity matrix value of5. This process is illustrated below in Figure A6.3.

entity location priority entity location priorityH M L H M L

H HH HM HL H 5 4 3M MH MM ML M 4 3 2entity

priorityL LH LM LL

translatesto

entitypriority

L 3 2 1

Figure A6.3 The entity matrix value (from 5 to 1) given to each entity location according to the matrixcell assigned in step i).

For multi-species sites, the entity matrix values for each entity location were added to give a total sitematrix score. For example, the Broken Head Nature Reserve site encompassed 17 entity locations, whichwere assigned the following cells in the matrix from step ii):

2 x HH, 3 x HM, 2 x MH, 3 x MM, 3 x LH, 4 x LM.Therefore the total site matrix score would be:

(2 x 5) + (3 x 4) + (2 x 4) + (3 x 3) + (3 x 3) + (4 x 2) = 56.For single species sites, the total site matrix score is simply the entity matrix value.


104

v ranking sites within each control category

Given that each of the five control categories contain numerous sites, a process is needed to prioritise sitesfor implementation. In order to establish priorities for bitou bush control, the sites within each categorywere ranked using the total site matrix score (step iv).

Sites with a greater site matrix score were ranked highest, giving sites with high priority entities thatcontain the largest number of other entities at risk the greatest priority for control. A full list of the siteswithin each of the five categories ranked according to the process described above is presented inAppendix 7.


105

Appendix 7 Sites for bitou bush control considered in theTAP

Table A7.1 Category 1 sites for implementing control (n = 169 sites).

site attributes e

siteno. a site name b

priority entities occurringat site c

entitypriority d E AI C

model(E+AI+C)max score

(15) f

sitematrixscore g

siterank h

NR133 Arakoon SCA / Hat Head NP Chamaecrista maritima High M H M 11 (H) 66 1Actites megalocarpa High H L H 11 (H)Asplenium difforme Medium H L H 11 (H)Pandanus tectorius var. australianus Medium H L H 11 (H)Viminaria juncea (prostrate form) Medium H L H 11 (H)Acalypha nemorum (prostrate form) Medium H L H 11 (H)Abildgaardia ovata Medium H L H 11 (H)Dianella crinoides Medium H L H 11 (H)Cynanchum carnosum Low H L H 11 (H)Sarcostemma brunonianum Low H L H 11 (H)Haemodorum austroqueenslandicum Low H L H 11 (H)Scaevola aemula Low H L H 11 (H)Comesperma sphaerocarpum Low H L H 11 (H)Galactia tenuiflora var. villlosa Low H L H 11 (H)Logania pusilla Low H L H 11 (H)Cryptandra propinqua Low H L H 11 (H)Pelargonium inodorum Low H L M 9 (M)Isopogon anemonifolius Low H L H 11 (H)Linum marginale Low H L H 11 (H)

NR29 Plectranthus cremnus High M M-H M 10 (M) 57 2Cape Byron SCA (including SEPP26 no.27, 27A, 27B) Plectranthus cremnus High M-H M M 10 (M)

Pandanus tectorius var. australianus Medium M-H M-H M 11 (H)Acronychia littoralis Medium H L-M M 10 (M)Acronychia littoralis Medium H M-H M 12 (H)Acronychia littoralis Medium H M H 13 (H)Cryptocarya foetida Medium M M-H M-H 11 (H)Xylosma terra-reginae Medium M M M 9 (M)Cordyline congesta Low M M M 9 (M)Correa baeuerlenii Low M M-H M-H 11 (H)Acianthus amplexicaulis Low H M-H M 12 (H)Acmena hemilampra Low M M-H M-H 11 (H)Ailanthus triphysa Low M M-H M-H 11 (H)Syzygium moorei Low M M-H M-H 11 (H)Littoral Rainforest High M H H 13 (H)Grassy Headlands (Themeda triandra) High M M-H M-H 11 (H)

NR36 Pandanus tectorius var. australianus Medium M H M-H 12 (H) 56 3Broken Head NR (including SEPP26 no.32, 33B, 34A) Acronychia littoralis Medium M-H H M-H 13 (H)

Acronychia littoralis Medium M M M 9 (M)Cryptocarya foetida Medium M M M 9 (M)Xylosma terra-reginae Medium M-H L-M M 9 (M)Cordyline congesta Low M M M 9 (M)Diuris byronensis Low H M M-H 12 (H)Acmena hemilampra Low M M M 9 (M)Acmena hemilampra Low H M M 11 (H)Ailanthus triphysa Low H M M 11 (H)Syzygium moorei Low M M M 9 (M)Archidendron hendersonii Low M M M 9 (M)Littoral Rainforest High H H M 13 (H)Littoral Rainforest High H L-M M-H 11 (H)Littoral Rainforest High H L-M L-M 9 (M)Littoral Rainforest High M M M 9 (M)Grassy Headlands (Themeda triandra) High M-H L-M M 9 (M)

NR90 Chamaesyce psammogeton High H H H 15 (H) 53 4Sandon backtrack, Sandon bluffs andSandon south (Yuraygir NP) Acianthus exiguus High M M M 9 (M)

Acianthus exiguus High H H M 13 (H)Sophora tomentosa High H H M 13 (H)Sophora tomentosa High H M L 9 (M)Stackhousia spathulata High M H H 13 (H)Stackhousia spathulata High H H M 13 (H)Stackhousia spathulata High H H H 15 (H)Vigna marina High H H M 13 (H)Gleichenia mendellii High M H H 13 (H)Acrostichum speciosum Low H H M 13 (H)Marsdenia liisae Low M M M 9 (M)

NR157 Crowdy Bay NP (north) Actites megalocarpa High H L H 11 (H) 50 5Viminaria juncea (prostrate form) Medium H L H 11 (H)Bossiaea stephensonii Medium H L H 11 (H)Tricoryne simplex Medium H L H 11 (H)Persoonia conjuncta Low H L H 11 (H)Comesperma sphaerocarpum Low H L H 11 (H)Logania pusilla Low H L H 11 (H)Haemodorum corymbosum Low H L H 11 (H)Thysanotus juncifolius Low H L H 11 (H)Cryptandra scortechinii Low H L H 11 (H)Darwinia leptantha Low H L H 11 (H)Gleichenia rupestris Low H L H 11 (H)Euphrasia collina subsp. paludosa Low H L H 11 (H)Leucopogon esquamatus Low H L H 11 (H)Isopogon anemonifolius Low H L H 11 (H)



106

site attributes e





(15) f

sitematrixscore g

siterank h

SM40 Towra Point NR Westringia fruticosa High H H L 11 (H) 50 5Viminaria juncea (prostrate form) Medium H M M 11 (H)Bossiaea stephensonii Medium H L H 11 (H)Syzygium paniculatum Medium M M ? 6 (M)Cupaniopsis anarcardiodes Low H H M 13 (H)Glycine clandestina (blf)j High H M L 9 (M)Littoral Rainforest High L M L 5 (L)Littoral Rainforest High L M M 7 (M)Littoral Rainforest High M H H 13 (H)Littoral Rainforest High 0 (A)Littoral Rainforest High L M L 5 (L)Kurnell Dune Forest High H H L 11 (H)Swamp Oak Floodplain Low H M M 11 (H)Sydney Freshwater Wetlands Low L M L 5 (L)Coastal Saltmarsh Low H L H 11 (H)

SR16 Warrain Beach / Currarong Beach Chamaesyce psammogeton High H M H 13 (H) 49 7Westringia fruticosa High H L H 11 (H)Wilsonia backhousei Low H L H 11 (H)Littoral Rainforest High H L H 11 (H)Coastal Banksia Woodlands (Banksia

integrifolia)High H L H 11 (H)

Coastal Sand Dune complex (Acacia longifoliavar. sophorae)

High H L H 11 (H)

Frontal Dune Vegetation Complex High H L H 11 (H)Bangalay Sand Forest Medium H L H 11 (H)Sydney Freshwater Wetlands Low H L H 11 (H)Coastal Wetlands (SEPP14) Low H L H 11 (H)Swamp Oak Floodplain Low H L H 11 (H)Sydney Coastal Estuary Swamp Forest Complex Low H L H 11 (H)

HCR108 Wamberal Lagoon NR Chamaesyce psammogeton High M H L 9 (M) 49 7Senecio spathulatus High M H L 9 (M)Stackhousia spathulata High M H L 9 (M)Westringia fruticosa High M-H M-H M 11 (H)Macarthuria neocambrica Medium H H M 13 (H)Syzygium paniculatum Medium H H M 13 (H)Littoral Rainforest High H M M-H 12 (H)Frontal Dune Vegetation Complex High M-H M-H M 11 (H)Headland Heath Medium M-H M-H M 11 (H)Headland Woodland Medium M-H M-H M 11 (H)Dune Grasslands (Spinifex hirsutus) Medium M-H M M 10 (M)Swamp Oak Floodplain Low M M H 11 (H)

HCR96 Munmorah SCA Pultenaea maritima High H M M 11 (H) 49 7Diuris praecox High H M M 11 (H)Westringia fruticosa High M M H 11 (H)Macarthuria neocambrica Medium H H M 13 (H)Syzygium paniculatum Medium M M L 7 (M)Rulingia hermanniifolia Medium H L H 11 (H)Eucalyptus camfieldii Medium H L H 11 (H)Tetratheca juncea Medium H L M 9 (M)Macrozamia flexuosa Low H L M 9 (M)Caladenia tessellata Low H L L 7 (M)Caladenia tessellata Low H L L 7 (M)Littoral Rainforest High M H M 11 (H)Coastal Sand Dune Complex (Acacia longifolia

var. sophorae)High ? ? ? 0 (A)

Grassy Headlands (Themeda triandra) High M M-H M-H 11 (H)Frontal Dune Vegetation Complex High ? ? ? 0 (A)Freshwater Wetlands Low ? ? ? 0 (A)Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal

FloodplainsLow ? ? ? 0 (A)

NR148 Sea Acres NR / Tacking Point Sophora tomentosa High H H M 13 (H) 48 10Vigna marina High H M H 13 (H)Ischaemum triticeum High H H H 15 (H)Pandanus tectorius var. australianus Medium M H H 13 (H)Pandanus tectorius var. australianus Medium H H H 15 (H)Acronychia littoralis Medium H L H 11 (H)Casuarina equisetifolia Medium M H H 13 (H)Hibiscus tiliaceus Medium H H H 15 (H)Cynanchum elegans Low H H H 15 (H)Zieria smithii (lgf)i High H M H 13 (H)Littoral Rainforest High H H H 15 (H)

NR25 Pandanus tectorius var. australianus Medium H M M-H 12 (H) 45 11Brunswick Heads NR (including SEPP26no. 18) Acronychia littoralis Medium H H M 13 (H)

Cryptocarya foetida Medium M H M 11 (H)Xylosma terra-reginae Medium H L-M M 10 (M)Acianthus amplexicaulis Low H H M 13 (H)Acmena hemilampra Low H H M 13 (H)Melicope vitiflora Low M-H M M 10 (M)Grevillea hilliana Low H H M 13 (H)Ailanthus triphysa Low M-H M M 10 (M)Endiandra globosa Low M-H M M 10 (M)Niemeyera chartacea Low M-H M M 10 (M)Syzygium moorei Low H H M 13 (H)Littoral Rainforest High H H M 13 (H)Coastal Wetlands (SEPP14) Low H H M 13 (H)Coastal Wetlands (SEPP14) Low M M M 9 (M)

NR3 Pandanus tectorius var. australianus Medium H M M 11 (H) 41 12Tweed Coastal Reserve (including SEPP26no. 2A – Fingal Head) Cryptocarya foetida Medium H M M 11 (H)

Hibiscus tiliaceus Medium H M M 11 (H)Cordyline congesta Low H M M 11 (H)Polyalthia nitidissima Low H M M 11 (H)



107

site attributes e





(15) f

sitematrixscore g

siterank h

NR3 Glochidion sumatranum Low H M M 11 (H)Celtis paniculata Low H M M 11 (H)

Tweed Coastal Reserve (including SEPP26no. 2A – Fingal Head) – continued

Cryptocarya triplinervis var. triplinervis Low H M M 11 (H)Coelospermum paniculatum Low H M M 11 (H)Syzygium moorei Low H M M 11 (H)Archidendron hendersonii Low H M M 11 (H)Littoral Rainforest High H M M 11 (H)

SR13 Chamaesyce psammogeton High L L M 5 (L) 40 13Seven Mile Beach NP (including SEPP 26no. 175, 175A) Stackhousia spathulata High L L M 5 (L)

Littoral Rainforest High H M H 13 (H)Littoral Rainforest High H M H 13 (H)Littoral Rainforest High M H M 11 (H)Frontal Dune Vegetation Complex High M H M 11 (H)Coastal Sand Dune complex (Acacia longifolia

var. sophorae)High M H M 11 (H)

Coastal Banksia Woodlands (Banksiaintegrifolia)

High M H M 11 (H)

Bangalay Sand Forest Medium M H M 11 (H)HCR76 Diuris praecox High M M H 11 (H) 40 13Glenrock SCA (various locations

throughout park) Diuris praecox High M M H 11 (H)Tetratheca juncea Medium H M H 13 (H)Tetratheca juncea Medium M M H 11 (H)Macrozamia flexuosa Low M-H M M-H 11 (H)Macrozamia flexuosa Low H M H 13 (H)Macrozamia flexuosa Low M M M 9 (M)Grassy Headlands (Themeda triandra) High M H M 11 (H)Coastal Sand Dune complex (Acacia longifolia


Headland Heath Medium M H M 11 (H)HCR43 Mungo Brush, Myall Lakes NP Chamaesyce psammogeton High M M M 9 (M) 40 13

Chamaesyce psammogeton High H H M 13 (H)Stackhousia spathulata High H H M 13 (H)Stackhousia spathulata High H H L 11 (H)Senecio spathulatus High H H M 13 (H)Senecio spathulatus High H H M 13 (H)Syzygium paniculatum Medium M H M 11 (H)Senna acclinis Medium L L L 3 (L)Cynanchum elegans Low M L L 5 (L)Littoral Rainforest High L L H 7 (M)

NR154 Kattang NR Ischaemum triticeum High H L M 9 (M) 39 16Poa poiformis High H L M 9 (M)Abildgaardia ovata Medium H L M 9 (M)Dianella crinoides Medium H L H 11 (H)Casuarina equisetifolia Medium H L H 11 (H)Thesium australe Medium H H H 15 (H)Fimbristylis polytrichoides Low H L M 9 (M)Gleichenia rupestris Low H L M 9 (M)Isopogon anemonifolius Low H L M 9 (M)Zieria smithii (lgf)i High H L H 11 (H)Littoral Rainforest High H L H 11 (H)

NR142 Crescent Head Pultenaea maritima High H H H 15 (H) 39 16Stackhousia spathulata High H H H 15 (H)Pandanus tectorius var. australianus Medium H H H 15 (H)Viminaria juncea (prostrate form) Medium H H H 15 (H)Acalypha nemorum (prostrate form) Medium H H H 15 (H)Casuarina equisetifolia Medium H H H 15 (H)Thesium australe Medium H M H 13 (H)Sarcostemma brunonianum Low H H H 15 (H)Pelargonium australe Low H H H 15 (H)Thysanotus juncifolius Low H H H 15 (H)

NR145 Limeburners Creek NR Vigna marina High H M H 13 (H) 38 18Pandanus tectorius var. australianus Medium H M H 13 (H)Acronychia littoralis Medium H L H 11 (H)Abildgaardia ovata Medium H M H 13 (H)Dianella crinoides Medium H M H 13 (H)Casuarina equisetifolia Medium H M H 13 (H)Cynanchum carnosum Low H M H 13 (H)Allocasuarina defungens Low 0 (A)Zieria smithii (lgf)i High H L H 11 (H)Littoral Rainforest High H M H 13 (H)

SR20 Bherwerre Peninsula Booderee NP Stackhousia spathulata High L M M 7 (M) 35 19Westringia fruticosa High M M M 9 (M)Rulingia hermanniifolia Medium M L H 9 (M)Littoral Rainforest High M L-M M 8 (M)Frontal Dune Vegetation Complex High M H M 11 (H)Coastal Banksia Woodlands (Banksia

integrifolia)High L-M H M 10 (M)

Bangalay Sand Forest Medium L H M 9 (M)Headland Heath Medium M H M 11 (H)Coastal Wetlands (SEPP14) Low M-H M M 10 (M)Swamp Oak Floodplain Low L H M 9 (M)

HCR105 Acianthus exiguus High M M H 11 (H) 35 19Wyrrabalong NP and Council Rd ReserveSyzygium paniculatum Medium H M-H M 12 (H)Eucalyptus camfieldii Medium M M M 9 (M)Acianthus amplexicaulis Low M M H 11 (H)Littoral Rainforest High L H M 9 (M)Frontal Dune Vegetation Complex High H M-H M-H 13 (H)Coastal Sand Dune complex (Acacia longifolia

var. sophorae)High H M-H M-H 13 (H)

Coastal Wetlands (SEPP14) Low H H H 15 (H)Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal

FloodplainsLow H L H 11 (H)



108

site attributes e





(15) f

sitematrixscore g

siterank h

HCR95 Wallarah NP Pultenaea maritima High H M H 13 (H) 34 21Diuris praecox High H H M 13 (H)Westringia fruticosa High M M H 11 (H)Tetratheca juncea Medium M-H M-H L-M 10 (M)Coastal Sand Dune Complex (Acacia longifolia

var. sophorae)High M M L-M 8 (M)

Frontal Dune Vegetation Complex High M M L-M 8 (M)Grassy Headlands (Themeda triandra) High M M H 11 (H)Coastal Scrub (Leptospermum laevigatum /

Acacia longifolia var. sophorae)Medium M M M-H 10 (M)

NR110 Plectranthus cremnus High H M H 13 (H) 29 22Look at me now headland, Moonee BeachNR Zieria prostrata High H M H 13 (H)

Zieria prostrata High 0 (A)Chamaesyce psammogeton High H M M 11 (H)Lepturus repens High H M M 11 (H)Thesium australe Medium H M H 13 (H)Grassy Headlands (Themeda triandra) High H M H 13 (H)

NR70 Acianthus exiguus High M L L 5 (L) 29 22Woody Head (including SEPP 26 no. 52,52A) Vigna marina High H H M 13 (H)

Sophora tomentosa High H M M 11 (H)Phaius tankervilliae Low 0 (A)Acianthus amplexicaulis Low M L L 5 (L)Acmena hemilampra Low M H H 13 (H)Ailanthus triphysa Low H M H 13 (H)Littoral Rainforest High M L M 7 (M)Littoral Rainforest High H M M 11 (H)

SM37 Kurnell, Botany Bay Senecio spathulatus High 0 (A) 29 22Poa poiformis High M H M 11 (H)Westringia fruticosa High H H M 13 (H)Viminaria juncea (prostrate form) Medium H M H 13 (H)Bossiaea stephensonii Medium H H H 15 (H)Isopogon anemonifolius Low H H M 13 (H)Glycine clandestina (blf)j High H M H 13 (H)Sydney Coastal Estuary Swamp Forest Complex Low H M M 11 (H)

SR14 Stackhousia spathulata High M-H H M 12 (H) 28 25Comerong Island NP, and Crown land tothe north Littoral Rainforest High M-H M M 10 (M)


High M-H M M 10 (M)

Coastal Sand Dune Complex (Acacia longifoliavar. sophorae)

High M-H M M 10 (M)

Frontal Dune Vegetation Complex High M-H M M 10 (M)Bangalay Sand Forest Medium M-H M M 10 (M)Sydney Coastal Estuary Swamp Forest Complex Low M-H M M 10 (M)Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal

FloodplainsLow M-H M M 10 (M)

HCR107 Diuris praecox High H H M 13 (H) 28 25Wyrrabalong NP South (Bateau Bay toWamberal North) Westringia fruticosa High M M H 11 (H)

Eucalyptus camfieldii Medium H L M 9 (M)Grassy Headlands (Themeda triandra) High H M M 11 (H)Coastal Sand Dune Complex (Acacia longifolia

var. sophorae)High H H M-H 14 (H)

Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub equivalentcommunities (Coastal Sand Wallum Heath)

High H L H 11 (H)

HCR48 Yacaaba Peninsula Stackhousia spathulata High M-H H L-M 11 (H) 28 25Senecio spathulatus High M-H H L-M 11 (H)Frontal Dune Vegetation Complex High M-H H L-M 11 (H)Coastal Sand Dune Complex (Acacia longifolia

var. sophorae)High M-H H L-M 11 (H)

Coastal Scrub (Leptospermum laevigatum /Acacia longifolia var. sophorae)

Medium M-H H L-M 11 (H)

Dune Grasslands (Spinifex hirsutus) Medium M-H H L-M 11 (H)HCR109 Bouddi NP Westringia fruticosa High M M H 11 (H) 27 28

Rulingia hermanniifolia Medium H L H 11 (H)Littoral Rainforest High H L M 9 (M)Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub equivalent

communities (Coastal Sand Wallum Heath)High H L H 11 (H)

Grassy Headlands (Themeda triandra) High M M M-H 10 (M)Pittwater Spotted Gum and equivalent

communities (i.e. Wagstaff Spotted GumForest)

Low M-H M M-H 11 (H)

Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on CoastalFloodplains

Low L H L 7 (M)

SR26 Stackhousia spathulata High H L M-H 10 (M) 26 29Haven, Alamin, and Farnham Headland(Conjola NP) Wilsonia backhousei Low H L M-H 10 (M)

Cryptostylis hunteriana Low H L M 9 (M)Corybas undulatus Low H L M-H 10 (M)Coastal Banksia Woodlands (Banksia

integrifolia)High H L H 11 (H)

Frontal Dune Vegetation Complex High H L M-H 10 (M)Coastal Sand Dune Complex (Acacia longifolia

var. sophorae)High H L M-H 10 (M)

Headland Heath Medium H L M-H 10 (M)HCR20 One Mile Beach, Forster Syzygium paniculatum Medium H L H 11 (H) 26 29

Senna acclinis Medium H L H 11 (H)Cynanchum elegans Low H L H 11 (H)Littoral Rainforest High H L H 11 (H)Coastal Sand Dune Complex (Acacia longifolia

var. sophorae)High H M H 13 (H)


High H M H 13 (H)



109

site attributes e





(15) f

sitematrixscore g

siterank h

NR32 Arakwal NP Chamaesyce psammogeton High H M ? 8 (M) 25 31Geodorum densiflorum Medium H M M 11 (H)Correa baeuerlenii Low H L-M ? 7 (M)Diuris byronensis Low H L-M M 10 (M)Allocasuarina defungens Low H L-M ? 7 (M)Littoral Rainforest High H M M 11 (H)Byron Bay Dwarf Gramminoid Clay Heath

CommunityMedium M H H 13 (H)

Coastal Wetlands (SEPP14) Low M H L 9 (M)NR66 Snapper Rock, Bundjalung NP Pultenaea maritima High H H M 13 (H) 25 31

Stackhousia spathulata High H H M 13 (H)Ischaemum triticeum High M H M 11 (H)Gleichenia mendellii High M H M 11 (H)Senna acclinis Medium 0 (A)Grassy Headlands (Themeda triandra) High H M H 13 (H)

NR9 Cudgen NR - SEPP26 no. 4 Pandanus tectorius var. australianus Medium H M H 13 (H) 24 33Cryptocarya foetida Medium H L M-H 10 (M)Elyonurus citreus Medium M M M 9 (M)Ailanthus triphysa Low H L M 9 (M)Littoral Rainforest High H M H 13 (H)Littoral Rainforest High M H M 11 (H)Coastal Wetlands (SEPP14) Low L M M 7 (M)

SR15 Culburra beach, Crookhaven Heads Chamaesyce psammogeton High M-H M-H M 11 (H) 24 33Coastal Sand Dune Complex (Acacia longifolia

var. sophorae)High M-H M-H M 11 (H)

Frontal Dune Vegetation Complex High M-H M-H M 11 (H)Coastal Banksia Woodlands (Banksia

integrifolia)High M-H M-H M 11 (H)

Bangalay Sand Forest Medium M-H M-H M 11 (H)HCR44 Banksia Green, Myall Lakes NP Chamaesyce psammogeton High H H H 15 (H) 24 33

Stackhousia spathulata High H H H 15 (H)Senecio spathulatus High H M H 13 (H)Coastal Sand Dune Complex (Acacia longifolia


Headland Heath Medium M H M 11 (H)HCR42 Chamaesyce psammogeton High M H M 11 (H) 24 33Coastline from Big Gibber to Banksia

Green, Myall Lakes NP Senecio spathulatus High M H M 11 (H)Stackhousia spathulata High M H M 11 (H)Coastal Sand Dune Complex (Acacia longifolia


Headland Heath Medium M H M 11 (H)HCR1 Crowdy Bay NP (south) Ischaemum triticeum High H L H 11 (H) 24 33

Stackhousia spathulata High H H H 15 (H)Thesium australe Medium H L H 11 (H)Allocasuarina defungens Low H L M 9 (M)Allocasuarina simulans Low H L H 11 (H)Littoral Rainforest High H L H 11 (H)

NR94 Plectranthus cremnus High L M H 9 (M) 24 33Bare Point–Wilsons Headland Yuraygir NPChamaecrista maritima High H H M 13 (H)Ischaemum triticeum High M L H 9 (M)Pultenaea maritima High M M H 11 (H)Thesium australe Medium L L L 3 (L)Grassy Headlands (Themeda triandra) High L M H 9 (M)

HCR59 Boat Harbour Pultenaea maritima High H M H 13 (H) 23 39Westringia fruticosa High H L H 11 (H)Grassy Headlands (Themeda triandra) High H M M 11 (H)Coastal Banksia Woodlands (Banksia

integrifolia)High H M L 9 (M)


Medium H M H 13 (H)

NR61 Broadwater NP Gleichenia mendellii High M-H M-H ? 8 (M) 23 39Pandanus tectorius var. australianus Medium H M H 13 (H)Phaius australis Low H M M 11 (H)Phaius australis Low H M M 11 (H)Acianthus amplexicaulis Low M-H M-H ? 8 (M)Littoral Rainforest High H M M 11 (H)Coastal Wetlands (SEPP14) Low M H L 9 (M)

SR17 Callala Bay and Beach (Miola Peninsula) Westringia fruticosa High H L H 11 (H) 22 41Cryptostylis hunteriana Low H L H 11 (H)Coastal Sand Dune Complex (Acacia longifolia

var. sophorae)High H L H 11 (H)


High H L H 11 (H)

Bangalay Sand Forest Medium H L H 11 (H)SR18 Beecroft Peninsula Jervis Bay Syzygium paniculatum Medium H L H 11 (H) 22 41

Prostanthera densa Low H L H 11 (H)Cryptostylis hunteriana Low H L H 11 (H)Littoral Rainforest High H L H 11 (H)Bangalay Sand Forest Medium H L H 11 (H)Coastal Saltmarsh Low H L H 11 (H)

HCR46 Bennetts Beach Chamaesyce psammogeton High M-H M-H L 9 (M) 22 41Coastal Banksia Woodlands (Banksia

integrifolia)High M-H M-H M 11 (H)

Frontal Dune Vegetation Complex High M-H M-H L 9 (M)Coastal Sand Dune complex (Acacia longifolia

var. sophorae)High M-H M-H M 11 (H)


Medium M-H M-H M 11 (H)

NR150 Lord Howe Island Chamaesyce psammogeton High H L H 11 (H) 22 41Geniostoma huttonii Low L L H 7 (M)Calystegia affinis Low H L M 9 (M)



110

site attributes e





(15) f

sitematrixscore g

siterank h

NR150 Lord Howe Island – continued Calystegia affinis Low M L H 9 (M)Carmichaelia exsul Low M M M 9 (M)Calystegia affinis Low L L H 7 (M)Caesalpinia bonduc Low H L H 11 (H)Caesalpinia bonduc Low H L L 7 (M)Coprosma inopinata Low L L H 7 (M)

NR64 Bundjalung NP (north) Stackhousia spathulata High M H H 13 (H) 22 41Gleichenia mendellii High M L H 9 (M)Phaius australis Low H H H 15 (H)Acianthus amplexicaulis Low M M M 9 (M)Coastal Banksia Woodlands (Banksia

integrifolia)High H H M 13 (H)

Coastal Wetlands (SEPP14) Low H M H 13 (H)NR47 Plectranthus cremnus High H H M-H 14 (H) 22 41Boulder Beach, Ballina (including SEPP26

no. 38 – Boulder Beach south) Arthraxon hipsidis Low H M H 13 (H)Syzygium hodgkinsoniae Low H M M 11 (H)Littoral Rainforest High H H M 13 (H)Freshwater Wetlands Low H H L 11 (H)Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal

FloodplainsLow H H M 13 (H)

SR19 Beecroft Head, Jervis Bay Westringia fruticosa High H L H 11 (H) 21 47Syzygium paniculatum Medium H L M 9 (M)Prostanthera densa Low H L H 11 (H)Littoral Rainforest High H L M 9 (M)Bangalay Sand Forest Medium H L H 11 (H)Coastal Wetlands (SEPP14) Low H L M-H 10 (M)

HCR37 South of Bald Head Cynanchum elegans Low M-H M-H M 11 (H) 21 47Littoral Rainforest High M-H M-H M 11 (H)Grassy Headlands (Themeda triandra) High M-H M-H M 11 (H)Coastal Scrub (Leptospermum laevigatum /

Acacia longifolia var. sophorae)Medium M-H M-H M 11 (H)

Dune Grasslands (Spinifex hirsutus) Medium M-H M-H M 11 (H)NR18 Pandanus tectorius var. australianus Medium H M H 13 (H) 20 49Wooyung NR (including SEPP26 no. 11 –

Wooyung NR South) Cryptocarya foetida Medium M H ? 8 (M)Polyalthia nitidissima Low M M M 9 (M)Littoral Rainforest High ? H H 10 (M)Littoral Rainforest High M H M 11 (H)Coastal Wetlands (SEPP14) Low L M M 7 (M)

NR56 Fontainea oraria High H M H 13 (H) 20 49South of Lennox Head (including SEPP 26no. 37) Fontainea oraria High H M H 13 (H)

Xylosma terra-reginae Medium H M H 13 (H)Littoral Rainforest High H M H 13 (H)

HCR28 Littoral Rainforest High M H M-H 12 (H) 19 51Tiona (including SEPP26 no. 155B – SevenMile Beach Tiona) Coastal Banksia Woodlands (Banksia

integrifolia)High M H M-H 12 (H)

Frontal Dune Vegetation Complex High M H M-H 12 (H)Coastal Scrub (Leptospermum laevigatum /

Acacia longifolia var. sophorae)Medium M H M-H 12 (H)

HCR17 Forster Breakwall / Pilot Hill Coastal Banksia Woodlands (Banksiaintegrifolia)

High H M M 11 (H) 19 51

Frontal Dune Vegetation Complex High H M M 11 (H)Coastal Sand Dune complex (Acacia longifolia

var. sophorae)High H M M 11 (H)

Dune Grasslands (Spinifex hirsutus) Medium H M M 11 (H)NR52 Angels Beach, Ballina Acronychia littoralis Medium H L-M H 12 (H) 19 51

Cryptocarya foetida Medium H H L 11 (H)Archidendron hendersonii Low H H L 11 (H)Littoral Rainforest High H H L 11 (H)Freshwater Wetlands Low H H L 11 (H)Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal

FloodplainsLow 0 (A)

SM26 Rulingia hermanniifolia Medium L L M 5 (L) 18 54La Perouse (Jennifer St sites 1 and 2 andBotany Bay NP) Gonocarpus salsoloides Low L L L 3 (L)

Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub High M H H 13 (H)Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub High H H M 13 (H)Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub High H M H 13 (H)

HCR12 Stackhousia spathulata High L L ? 2 (L) 18 54Senna acclinis Medium L L ? 2 (L)

Diamond Head, Red Head, Black Head,Hallidays Point (including SEPP 26 no.150, 152C) Cynanchum elegans Low L L ? 2 (L)

Littoral Rainforest High H M M-H 12 (H)Littoral Rainforest High ? L L 2 (L)Littoral Rainforest High ? H H 10 (M)

NR138 Hat Head NP Ischaemum triticeum High H H M 13 (H) 18 54Vigna marina High H H M 13 (H)Pandanus tectorius var. australianus Medium H H M 13 (H)Casuarina equisetifolia Medium H H M 13 (H)

NR107 Dammerels Head, Moonee Beach NR Plectranthus cremnus High H M H 13 (H) 18 54Zieria prostrata High H M H 13 (H)Thesium australe Medium M M M 9 (M)Grassy Headlands (Themeda triandra) High H M H 13 (H)

SR10 Killalea State Park Pimelea spicata Medium H H H 15 (H) 17 58Pimelea spicata Medium H H H 15 (H)Zieria granulata Medium H L H 11 (H)Littoral Rainforest High M H H 13 (H)

HCR57 Fingal Beach / Barry Park Westringia fruticosa High M M M 9 (M) 17 58Coastal Banksia Woodlands (Banksia

integrifolia)High M H H 13 (H)


Medium M H H 13 (H)

Headland Heath Medium M H H 13 (H)[ continued on next page ]


111

site attributes e





(15) f

sitematrixscore g

siterank h

NR121 Chamaesyce psammogeton High M H L 9 (M) 17 58Bongil Bongil NP (including SEPP26 no.75, 76, 77, 78) Acronychia littoralis Medium L H M 9 (M)

Zieria smithii (lgf)i High M H M 11 (H)Littoral Rainforest High M H M 11 (H)

NR82 Angourie Point, Yuraygir NP Chamaesyce psammogeton High H M M 11 (H) 17 58Pultenaea maritima High L L M 5 (L)Ischaemum triticeum High L L H 7 (M)Allocasuarina defungens Low L L L 3 (L)Grassy Headlands (Themeda triandra) High L L H 7 (M)

NR73 Iluka NR Acianthus amplexicaulis Low M M H 11 (H) 17 58Bridelia exaltata Low H H H 15 (H)Acmena hemilampra Low H H H 15 (H)Ailanthus triphysa Low H H H 15 (H)Littoral Rainforest High H H H 15 (H)

NR22 Fern Beach – South Golden Beach Acronychia littoralis Medium H L M 9 (M) 16 63Cryptocarya foetida Medium H L M 9 (M)Littoral Rainforest High H M M 11 (H)Littoral Rainforest High H M M 11 (H)

SR9 Pimelea spicata Medium H H M 13 (H) 16 63Bass Point (including SEPP26 no. 173A)Zieria granulata Medium M M H 11 (H)Typhonium eliosurum Low ? ? ? 0 (A)Cynanchum elegans Low H H M 13 (H)Littoral Rainforest High H H H 15 (H)

HCR97 Budgewoi Chamaesyce psammogeton High M M-H ? 7 (M) 16 63Diuris praecox High H M M 11 (H)Syzygium paniculatum Medium M M ? 6 (M)Littoral Rainforest High M M M-H 10 (M)

HCR26 Booti Booti NP Stackhousia spathulata High H H H 15 (H) 16 63Syzygium paniculatum Medium L L M 5 (L)Senna acclinis Medium L L M 5 (L)Senna acclinis Medium L L L 3 (L)Cynanchum elegans Low M M L 7 (M)Littoral Rainforest High L L L 3 (L)

NR85 Redcliff, Yuraygir NP Sophora tomentosa High M M M 9 (M) 16 63Pultenaea maritima High M H H 13 (H)Thesium australe Medium L L L 3 (L)Grassy Headlands (Themeda triandra) High M M H 11 (H)

NR51 Sharps Beach, Ballina Cryptocarya foetida Medium H H M 13 (H) 15 68Littoral Rainforest High H H M 13 (H)Freshwater Wetlands Low H H M 13 (H)Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal

FloodplainsLow H M H 13 (H)

NR88 Chamaesyce psammogeton High H H H 15 (H) 15 68Sandon north & Sandon North beach,Yuraygir NP Acianthus exiguus High H L L 7 (M)

Stackhousia spathulata High H H M 13 (H)Acianthus amplexicaulis Low L L L 3 (L)

NR71 Middle Bluff Bundjalung NP Chamaesyce psammogeton High H H H 15 (H) 15 68Calystegia soldanella High M H H 13 (H)Grassy Headlands (Themeda triandra) High H H L 11 (H)

NR63 Ischaemum triticeum High H H H 15 (H) 15 68Bundjalung NP – Ten Mile Beach andBombing Range Vigna marina High H H H 15 (H)

Littoral Rainforest High H H H 15 (H)HCR41 Yagon Gibber, Myall Lakes NP Chamaesyce psammogeton High H M M 11 (H) 14 72

Stackhousia spathulata High M M M 9 (M)Grassy Headlands (Themeda triandra) High M H M 11 (H)

HCR39 Seal Rocks, Myall Lakes NP Syzygium paniculatum Medium H H L 11 (H) 14 72Senna acclinis Medium L L L 3 (L)Littoral Rainforest High L H H 11 (H)Headland Heath Medium L M-H M 8 (M)

HCR14 Nine Mile Beach, North Tuncurry Frontal Dune Vegetation Complex High H L H 11 (H) 14 72Coastal Sand Dune Complex (Acacia longifolia

var. sophorae)High H L H 11 (H)


Medium H L H 11 (H)

NR114 Diggers Head Plectranthus cremnus High H M M 11 (H) 14 72Thesium australe Medium H M M 11 (H)Zieria smithii (lgf)i High H H H 15 (H)

NR106 Bare Bluff, Moonee Beach NR Plectranthus cremnus High H M H 13 (H) 14 72Zieria prostrata High H H M 13 (H)Thesium australe Medium H H M 13 (H)

NR91 Rocky Pt, Yuraygir NP Pultenaea maritima High M H M 11 (H) 14 72Vigna marina High M H L 9 (M)Gleichenia mendellii High M H M 11 (H)

NR65 Bundjalung NP (Iluka Bluff) Sophora tomentosa High H M M 11 (H) 14 72Littoral Rainforest High H H H 15 (H)Grassy Headlands (Themeda triandra) High L M H 9 (M)

NR62 Dirrawong Reserve Pultenaea maritima High H M M 11 (H) 14 72Stackhousia spathulata High H M M 11 (H)Gleichenia mendellii High M L H 9 (M)

NR46 Fontainea oraria High H M M 11 (H) 14 72Acronychia littoralis Medium M H H 13 (H)

Lennox Head, inland from Boulder Beach(including SEPP26 no. 37, 37A, 37B,37C) Littoral Rainforest High H H M 13 (H)

NR21 Pandanus tectorius var. australianus Medium H M-H M 12 (H) 13 81Endiandra globosa Low M M M 9 (M)

Billinudgel NR (including SEPP26 no.13A, 13B, 13C – Billinudgel NR –Crabbes Creek Beach north) Littoral Rainforest High M H H 13 (H)

Coastal Wetlands (SEPP14) Low M M M 9 (M)SM22 Malabar Headland Pterostylis no 15. (Botany Bay orchid) Medium M L H 9 (M) 13 81

Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub High M M H 11 (H)Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub High M M H 11 (H)



112

site attributes e





(15) f

sitematrixscore g

siterank h

HCR50 Yacaaba Head, Myall Lakes NP Syzygium paniculatum Medium H H L 11 (H) 13 81Cynanchum elegans Low L L M 5 (L)Littoral Rainforest High L H H 11 (H)Headland Heath Medium L H M 9 (M)

NR132 Arakoon SCA Ischaemum triticeum High H L L 7 (M) 13 81Vigna marina High H L L 7 (M)Littoral Rainforest High H L H 11 (H)

HCR35 Littoral Rainforest High M M H 11 (H) 13 81Blueys Beach (including SEPP 26 no. 157,158) Frontal Dune Vegetation Complex High L-M H M 10 (M)


High L-M H M 10 (M)

NR34 Clarkes Beach Caravan Park Acmena hemilampra Low M-H M-H M-H 12 (H) 12 86Littoral Rainforest High H M M 11 (H)Byron Bay Dwarf Gramminoid Clay Heath

CommunityMedium M-H M-H M-H 12 (H)

SR24 Cudmirrah Beach Stackhousia spathulata High H M M-H 12 (H) 12 86Bangalay Sand Forest Medium H M M-H 12 (H)Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal

FloodplainsLow H M M-H 12 (H)

SR25 Berrara Beach, Monument Beach Stackhousia spathulata High H L H 11 (H) 12 86Bangalay Sand Forest Medium H L H 11 (H)Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal


NR156 Crowdy Bay NP – Diamond Head Thesium australe Medium H L H 11 (H) 12 86Gonocarpus salsoloides Low H L H 11 (H)Zieria smithii (lgf)i High H L H 11 (H)

NR105 Sophora tomentosa High L L M 5 (L) 12 86Woolgoolga Beach and headland, CoffsCoast Regional Park Sophora tomentosa High ? ? ? 0 (A)

Sophora tomentosa High H H M 13 (H)Thesium australe Medium H M M 11 (H)

NR97 Yuraygir NP Pandanus tectorius var. australianus Medium ? ? ? 0 (A) 12 86Pandanus tectorius var. australianus Medium ? ? ? 0 (A)Casuarina equisetifolia Medium ? ? ? 0 (A)Elyonurus citreus Medium ? ? ? 0 (A)Hibiscus tiliaceus Medium ? ? ? 0 (A)Allocasuarina defungens Low L L L 3 (L)Littoral Rainforest High M M M 9 (M)Coastal Banksia Woodlands (Banksia

integrifolia)High H H M 13 (H)


High ? ? ? 0 (A)

Frontal Dune Vegetation Complex High ? ? ? 0 (A)NR54 Shaws Bay Ballina Acronychia littoralis Medium ? H M 8 (M) 12 86

Cryptocarya foetida Medium H H L 11 (H)Littoral Rainforest High H H L 11 (H)

NR39 Cryptocarya foetida Medium M-H L-M M 9 (M) 10 93Seven Mile Beach North – 1km south ofJews Point (SEPP26 no. 34) Cordyline congesta Low M-H L-M M 9 (M)

Littoral Rainforest High H L-M M-H 11 (H)SR29 Inyadda Beach Stackhousia spathulata High H L H 11 (H) 10 93

Cryptostylis hunteriana Low H L M-H 10 (M)Bangalay Sand Forest Medium H L M-H 10 (M)

SM35 Kurnell Dune Forest High M H H 13 (H) 10 93Charlotte Breen Reserve (and south-east ofreserve) Kurnell Dune Forest High M H H 13 (H)

SM3 Long reef Grassy Headlands (Themeda triandra) High M M H 11 (H) 10 93Coastal Banksia Woodlands (Banksia

integrifolia)High M M H 11 (H)

HCR11 Westringia fruticosa High H L H 11 (H) 10 93Saltwater and Khappinghat NP – Wallabi PtHeadland (SEPP26 no. 147, 148, 148A,149)

Littoral Rainforest High H L-M H 12 (H)

NR147 Sophora tomentosa High H H H 15 (H) 10 93Port Macquarie, Flynn's Beach and ShellyBeach Sophora tomentosa High H M-H H 14 (H)

NR83 Shelley Headland Yuragir NP Pultenaea maritima High M M H 11 (H) 10 93Grassy Headlands (Themeda triandra) High H H H 15 (H)

NR50 Sharps Beach Ballina (White's Head) Plectranthus cremnus High H H M 13 (H) 10 93Grassy Headlands (Themeda triandra) High H H M 13 (H)

HCR32 Boomerang Beach Frontal Dune Vegetation Complex High H H M 13 (H) 10 93Coastal Sand Dune Complex (Acacia longifolia

var. sophorae)High H H M 13 (H)

SR27 Coastal Banksia Woodlands (Banksiaintegrifolia)

High M-H M H 12 (H) 9 102Narrawallee Creek NR and Conjola Beach

Bangalay Sand Forest Medium M-H M H 12 (H)SM38 Coastal Sand Dune Complex (Acacia longifolia

var. sophorae)High H H H 15 (H) 9 102Yena, Muru, Cape Sol, Tabbigai, Kurnell

Botany Bay NPCoastal Scrub (Leptospermum laevigatum /

Acacia longifolia var. sophorae)Medium H H H 15 (H)

SM39 Kurnell Dune Forest High H M M 11 (H) 9 102Kurnell, Boat Harbour area, Botany BayNP Sydney Freshwater Wetlands Low H H M 13 (H)

Sydney Freshwater Wetlands Low L M L 5 (L)SM20 Acacia terminalis subsp. terminalis Medium M H H 13 (H) 9 102Bunnerong Rd, Chifley (including Wassell

St) Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub High H H M 13 (H)HCR85 Lake Macquarie SCA Eucalyptus camfieldii Medium H L H 11 (H) 9 102

Littoral Rainforest High H M M 11 (H)HCR72 Tomaree NP, Fishermans Bay Westringia fruticosa High M M H 11 (H) 9 102

Headland Heath Medium M M H 11 (H)NR134 Hat Head NP – Big Smoky section Acronychia littoralis Medium H L H 11 (H) 9 102

Littoral Rainforest High H M-H H 14 (H)NR135 Hat Head NP – Connors-Hat Head Plectranthus cremnus High H H M 13 (H) 9 102

Thesium australe Medium H H H 15 (H)NR136 Plectranthus cremnus High H M H 13 (H) 9 102Hat Head NP – east of town and headland

near camping ground Thesium australe Medium H M M 11 (H)[ continued on next page ]


113

site attributes e





(15) f

sitematrixscore g

siterank h

NR137 Hat Head NP, O'Connors Beach Diuris superba Medium H H H 15 (H) 9 102Zieria smithii (lgf)i High H H H 15 (H)

NR115 Macauleys Headland Plectranthus cremnus High M H M 11 (H) 9 102Thesium australe Medium M H M 11 (H)

NR109 Moonee Beach NR Pultenaea maritima High L L H 7 (M) 9 102Littoral Rainforest High M H M 11 (H)

NR99 Station Creek Beach Yuraygir NP Actites megalocarpa High M M H 11 (H) 9 102Geodorum densiflorum Medium M M H 11 (H)

HCR69 Fingal Spit Senecio spathulatus High H H L 11 (H) 8 115Headland Heath Medium L M M 7 (M)

NR131 Smoky Cape (Macleay River) Chamaesyce psammogeton High H M M 11 (H) 8 115Corybas undulatus Low H M H 13 (H)

NR67 Bundjalung NP – many locations Pandanus tectorius var. australianus Medium ? ? ? 0 (A) 8 115Pandanus tectorius var. australianus Medium ? ? ? 0 (A)Acronychia littoralis Medium L L L 3 (L)Casuarina equisetifolia Medium ? ? ? 0 (A)Hibiscus tiliaceus Medium ? ? ? 0 (A)Pterostylis ophioglossa Low M L L 5 (L)Littoral Rainforest High H M M 11 (H)Coastal Sand Dune Complex (Acacia longifolia

var. sophorae)High ? ? ? 0 (A)

Frontal Dune Vegetation Complex High ? ? ? 0 (A)NR53 Shelley Beach Ballina Littoral Rainforest High H H L 11 (H) 8 115

Freshwater Wetlands Low H H L 11 (H)NR2 Littoral Rainforest High M H M-H 12 (H) 7 119Ukerabagh NR including Tweed Heads

Historic Site Coastal Wetlands (SEPP14) Low ? M M 6 (M)NR5 Acronychia littoralis Medium ? L L 2 (L) 7 119Fingal Southwest – Shallow Bay (SEPP26

no. 2C) Littoral Rainforest High H M M 11 (H)HCR53 Pisonia umbellifera Low L L H 7 (M) 7 119John Goulds NR / Cabbage Tree Island

Littoral Rainforest High H L H 11 (H)NR155 Dooragan NP Plectranthus cremnus High H L H 11 (H) 7 119

Melaleuca groveana Low H L L 7 (M)HCR36 between Blueys head and Bald Head

(SEPP26 no. 159, 160 – 2 large patches)Littoral Rainforest High M M H 11 (H) 5 123

HCR54 Shoal Bay Beach Chamaesyce psammogeton High H M H 13 (H) 5 123NR4 Fingal West – Golf Course (SEPP26 no.

2B)Littoral Rainforest High H M M 11 (H) 5 123

NR16 Wooyung NR North (SEPP26 no. 10) Littoral Rainforest High M-H M-H H 13 (H) 5 123NR19 Wooyung Rd junction, near Caravan park

Wooyung beach (SEPP26 no. 12)Littoral Rainforest High H M M 11 (H) 5 123

SR30 Manyanah Beach Chamaesyce psammogeton High ? ? ? 0 (A) 5 123Stackhousia spathulata High H L H 11 (H)

SR31 Cunjurong Beach / Point Stackhousia spathulata High H L H 11 (H) 5 123Littoral Rainforest High ? ? ? (A)

SR32 Bannister Headland Mollymook (SEPP26no. 184A)

Littoral Rainforest High H M-H H 14 (H) 5 123

SR39 Tomakin Littoral Rainforest High M H H 13 (H) 5 123SR55 Fuller's Beach Wagonga Frontal Dune Vegetation Complex High H M-H M 12 (H) 5 123SM27 NSW Golf Club / Botany Bay NP (Cape

Banks area)Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub High M M H 11 (H) 5 123

SM29 Potter Point, Kurnell, Botany Bay NP Frontal Dune Vegetation Complex High H H L 11 (H) 5 123SM30 Pott Pt, Cooks Knoll, Kurnell Coastal Banksia Woodlands (Banksia

integrifolia)High H H L 11 (H) 5 123

SM25 St Michaels Golf Course, Little Bay Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub High M H H 13 (H) 5 123HN1 Lion Island (north east face) Grassy Headlands (Themeda triandra) High H M-H M 12 (H) 5 123HN2 Barrenjoey (northern and eastern slopes of

headland)Grassy Headlands (Themeda triandra) High M-H H M 12 (H) 5 123

HN8 Mona Vale cliff Grassy Headlands (Themeda triandra) High H L-M M-H 11 (H) 5 123HN9 Turrimetta headland Grassy Headlands (Themeda triandra) High H L-M M-H 11 (H) 5 123SM1 Narrabeen Headland Grassy Headlands (Themeda triandra) High H L-M M-H 11 (H) 5 123SM2 Warriewood beach / cliff Grassy Headlands (Themeda triandra) High H L-M M-H 11 (H) 5 123HCR60 Anna Bay; Jessie Rd to Rd 1074 Diuris praecox High H H M 13 (H) 5 123HCR29 Booti Booti (west of Flat Rock) in Booti

Booti NP (SEPP26 no. 155)Littoral Rainforest High H H H 15 (H) 5 123

HCR2 The Gap – southern end of Crowdy Bay NP(SEPP26 no. 125 126)


HCR3 Harrington – Crowdy Head Rd – partCrowdy Bay NP (SEPP26 no. 131)


HCR5 North Harrington (SEPP26 no. 132) Littoral Rainforest High H M-H H 14 (H) 5 123HCR6 Manning Pt, Manning River (SEPP26 no.

134A, 135)Littoral Rainforest High H M-H H 14 (H) 5 123

HCR8 Farquhar park (SEPP26 no. 142) Littoral Rainforest High H M M 11 (H) 5 123HCR9 Old Bar North (SEPP26 no. 144) Littoral Rainforest High H M M 11 (H) 5 123HCR10 Old Bar South (SEPP26 no. 145) Littoral Rainforest High H M M 11 (H) 5 123NR149 Miner's Beach, South of Sea Acres NR –

near Tacking Pt (SEPP26 no. 113)Littoral Rainforest High H L H 11 (H) 5 123

NR144 Delicate Nobby Headland – 1.5km N ofLimeburner's Creek NR (SEPP26 no.105B)


NR140 Hat Head NP (Crescent head) Littoral Rainforest High H M H 13 (H) 5 123NR141 South Hat Head Zieria smithii (lgf)i High H H H 15 (H) 5 123NR130 Clybucca Historic Site – northern section

(SEPP26 no. 101B)Littoral Rainforest High H M-H H 14 (H) 5 123

NR127 Scotts Head Vigna marina High 0 (A) 5 123Acronychia littoralis Medium 0 (A)Melaleuca groveana Low 0 (A)Glycine clandestina (blf)j High H M H 13 (H)

NR128 1km North of Grassy Head (SEPP26 no.96)

Littoral Rainforest High H M H 13 (H) 5 123



114

site attributes e





(15) f

sitematrixscore g

siterank h

NR113 Sophora tomentosa High 0 (A) 5 123Sapphire Gardens, Coffs Harbour(including SEPP26 no. 69) Littoral Rainforest High M H M 11 (H)

NR111 East of Crystal Waters (SEPP26 no. 68B) Littoral Rainforest High M H M 11 (H) 5 123NR98 Dirrangan Lookout track Yuraygir NP Grassy Headlands (Themeda triandra) High M M H 11 (H) 5 123NR96 Wooli River Sophora tomentosa High H M M 11 (H) 5 123NR80 Angourie Reserve Gleichenia mendellii High M H M 11 (H) 5 123NR81 Angourie Back Beach, Yuraygir NP Gleichenia mendellii High M H M 11 (H) 5 123NR84 Plumbago Headland, Yuraygir NP Grassy Headlands (Themeda triandra) High H M M 11 (H) 5 123NR87 Pebbly-Freshwater Yuraygir NP Ischaemum triticeum High H H M 13 (H) 5 123NR89 Sandon River, Yuraygir NP Sophora tomentosa High H H H 15 (H) 5 123NR55 Lighthouse Beach Ballina Littoral Rainforest High H H M 13 (H) 5 123NR45 Lennox Head (Headland) Plectranthus cremnus High H H M-H 14 (H) 5 123

a A unique numbering system for each site. The letters are an abbreviation of the five coastal NRM regions, being NR = Northern Rivers, HCR =Hunter Central Rivers, HN = Hawkesbury Nepean, SM = Sydney Metro, and SR = Southern Rivers Catchment Management Authorities, while thenumbers reflect a general north to south order within each NRM region, where possible.

b Abbreviations – SCA = State Conservation Area, NP = National Park, NR = Nature Reserve, SEPP = State Environmental Planning Policy.c Priority entities as determined in Appendices 3 and 5. Most sites encompass multiple entities at risk, so each entity location is modelled. Species

are presented first in rank order, followed by populations and ecological communities also in rank order. At sites where multiple patches of anindividual entity occurred (e.g. Littoral Rainforest is listed 4 times in Broken Head NR), each location was assessed and presented.

d The species, population and ecological community priority as identified in Appendices 3 and 5.e Site attributes – E = Effective, AI = Actual Impact, C = Condition (see Appendix 6 for further details).f The numerical entity location score (see Appendix 6 for further details). The entity location priority is presented next to the score in brackets – H =

High, M = Medium and L = Low. ‘A’ indicates that there was insufficient information available to model the site.g Site matrix score: the sum of the matrix value for each entity location (see Appendix 6 for further details).h Sites with the same score were given an equal rank value (e.g. two sites scored 50 and were ranked equal 5th), therefore sites with the next lowest

score (e.g. 49) were given the next actual rank (e.g. 7th instead of 6th).i Low growing formj Broad leaf form


site attributes e model (E+AI+C)


priority biodiversity occurringat site c priority d E AI C

max score(15) f

matrixvalue g

siterank h

NR152 Grants Head Pandanus tectorius var. australianus Medium H M M 11 (H) 31 170Casuarina equisetifolia Medium H M M 11 (H)Thesium australe Medium H M M 11 (H)Viminaria juncea (prostrate form) Low H M M 11 (H)Comesperma sphaerocarpum Low H M M 11 (H)Leucopogon esquamatus Low H M M 11 (H)Persoonia linearis Low H M L 9 (M)Isopogon anemonifolius Low H M M 11 (H)Zieria smithii (lgf)i High H L M 9 (M)

NR23 Pandanus tectorius var. australianus Medium H L-M M-H 11 (H) 19 171Marshalls Creek NR (including SEPP26no. 15, 16 and Ocean Shores estate) Syzygium moorei Low M M M 9 (M)

Archidendron hendersonii Low M M M 9 (M)Archidendron hendersonii Low M M M 9 (M)Littoral Rainforest High M M M 9 (M)Littoral Rainforest High M M M 9 (M)Coastal Wetlands (SEPP14) Low L M L 5 (L)

HCR13 Darawank NR (9 mile beach) Chamaesyce psammogeton High M L M 7 (M) 19 171Littoral Rainforest High M L H 9 (M)Frontal Dune Vegetation Complex High M L M 7 (M)Coastal Sand Dune Complex (Acacia longifolia

var. sophorae)High M L M 7 (M)


Medium M L M 7 (M)

NR43 Acronychia littoralis Medium M L M-H 8 (M)North Creek, Lennox Head (includingSEPP26 no. 39, 38A, 36) Cryptocarya foetida Medium M L M 7 (M)

Littoral Rainforest High M L H 9 (M) 18 173Littoral Rainforest High M H L 9 (M)Littoral Rainforest High H L M 9 (M)

NR26 Tyagarah NR Cryptocarya foetida Medium M-H L-M M 9 (M) 17 174Cordyline congesta Low M-H L-M M 9 (M)Acmena hemilampra Low M-H L-M M 9 (M)Syzygium moorei Low M-H L-M M 9 (M)Archidendron hendersonii Low H L-M M 10 (M)Littoral Rainforest High M-H L-M M 9 (M)Coastal Wetlands (SEPP14) Low L H L 7 (M)

HCR24 North Wallis Lake estuarine islands Coastal Banksia Woodlands (Banksiaintegrifolia)

High M M M 9 (M) 15 175


High M M M 9 (M)

Dune Grasslands (Spinifex hirsutus) Medium M M M 9 (M)Coastal Wetlands (SEPP14) Low M M M 9 (M)Coastal Saltmarsh Low M M M 9 (M)

HCR99 Budgewoi to Hargreaves Beach Littoral Rainforest High M M M 9 (M) 15 175Frontal Dune Vegetation Complex High M M M 9 (M)Coastal Sand Dune Complex (Acacia longifolia

var. sophorae)High M M M 9 (M)


Medium M M M 9 (M)



115




max score(15) f

matrixvalue g

siterank h

HCR100 Littoral Rainforest High L H L-M 8 (M) 15 175Curtis Parade (The Entrance) to KaragiPoint Frontal Dune Vegetation Complex High L H L-M 8 (M)


High L H L-M 8 (M)


Medium L H L-M 8 (M)

HCR101 Littoral Rainforest High L H L-M 8 (M) 15 175Toowomb Bay to Shelley Beach NPWSboundary Frontal Dune Vegetation Complex High L H L-M 8 (M)


High L H L-M 8 (M)


Medium L H L-M 8 (M)

NR10 Bogangar South (SEPP26 no. 5A) Acronychia littoralis Medium H L M 9 (M) 14 179Hibiscus tiliaceus Medium H L M 9 (M)Cordyline congesta Low H L M 9 (M)Coelospermum paniculatum Low H L M 9 (M)Littoral Rainforest High M M M 9 (M)

HCR47 Winda Woppa Coastal Sand Wallum Heath High M-H M M 10 (M) 14 179Coastal Scrub (Leptospermum laevigatum /

Acacia longifolia var. sophorae)Medium M-H M M 10 (M)

Dune Grasslands (Spinifex hirsutus) Medium M-H M M 10 (M)Coastal Wetlands (SEPP14) Low M-H M M 10 (M)Coastal Saltmarsh Low M-H M M 10 (M)

HCR51 Pindimar environs Littoral Rainforest High M M M 9 (M) 14 179Coastal Banksia Woodlands (Banksia

integrifolia)High M M M 9 (M)

Coastal Wetlands (SEPP14) Low M M M 9 (M)Swamp Oak Floodplain Low M M M 9 (M)Coastal Saltmarsh Low M M M 9 (M)

HCR92 Crangan Bay to Galgala Pt, Swansea Diuris praecox High H L-M M 10 (M) 13 182Tetratheca juncea Medium H L-M M 10 (M)Macrozamia flexuosa Low H L-M M 10 (M)Swamp Oak Floodplain Low H L-M M 10 (M)Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal

FloodplainsLow H L-M M 10 (M)

NR117 Coffs Harbour Pultenaea maritima High L L H 7 (M) 12 183Vitex trifolia var. trifolia Medium M M M 9 (M)Marsdenia liisae Low H L H 11 (H)Pterostylis ophioglossa Low M M M 9 (M)

HCR40 Treachery Head, Myall Lakes NP Littoral Rainforest High L M-H M 8 (M) 11 184Grassy Headlands (Themeda triandra) High L M-H M 8 (M)Headland Heath Medium L M-H M 8 (M)

HCR75 Glenrock SCA Syzygium paniculatum Medium M M H 11 (H) 11 184Cynanchum elegans Low M H H 13 (H)Littoral Rainforest High L H M 9 (M)

HCR77 Awabakal NR Eucalyptus camfieldii Medium L L M 5 (L) 11 184Tetratheca juncea Medium L L H 7 (M)Headland Heath Medium M M H 11 (H)Sydney Freshwater Wetlands Low H L M 9 (M)

HCR88 Cardiff Point Syzygium paniculatum Medium M-H M L-M 9 (M) 10 187Tetratheca juncea Medium M-H M M 10 (M)Littoral Rainforest High M-H M M 10 (M)

HCR104 Norah Head Syzygium paniculatum Medium L-M M M 8 (M) 10 187Caladenia porphyrea Medium M M M 9 (M)Low Woodland with Heathland (Norah Head) Medium H H H 15 (H)

NR27 Belongil Beach Cryptocarya foetida Medium L-M M-H L-M 8 (M) 9 189Cordyline congesta Low L-M M-H L-M 8 (M)Littoral Rainforest High L-M M-H L-M 8 (M)

HCR71 Sth Morna Point, Tomaree NP Westringia fruticosa High L M H 9 (M) 9 189Rulingia hermanniifolia Medium L M L 5 (L)Headland Heath Medium L M H 9 (M)

NR146 Chamaesyce psammogeton High M-H M ? 7 (M) 8 191Pelican Point (including SEPP 26 no. 107)Littoral Rainforest High M M M 9 (M)

SM28 Headland Heath Medium H H M 13 (H) 8 191Inscription Point, Kurnell, Botany Bay NPHeadland Woodland Medium H H H 15 (H)

SR12 Minnamurra Headland Pimelea spicata Medium H M M 11 (H) 8 191Zieria granulata Medium H L H 11 (H)

SR28 Swan Lake Poa poiformis High M-H L M-H 9 (M) 8 191Coastal Saltmarsh Low M-H L M-H 9 (M)Swamp Oak Floodplain Low M-H L M-H 9 (M)

NR41 Seven Mile Beach, Lennox Head Acronychia littoralis Medium H M H 13 (H) 7 195Littoral Rainforest High L M L 5 (L)

NR143 Marsdenia liisae Low H M H 13 (H) 7 195Racecourse Headland (including SEPP26no. 104A, 105, 105A, 106) Littoral Rainforest High M M M 9 (M)

HCR18 Second Head / Pebbly Beach, Forster Coastal Banksia Woodlands (Banksiaintegrifolia)

High M H L 9 (M) 7 195

Headland Heath Medium M H L 9 (M)HCR25 Littoral Rainforest High M-H L M-H 9 (M) 7 195Burgess Beach (including SEPP 26 152A)

Headland Heath Medium M-H L M-H 9 (M)HCR33 Boomerang Point Grassy Headlands (Themeda triandra) High L-M H M 10 (M) 7 195

Headland Heath Medium L-M H M 10 (M)HCR52 Broughton Island Grassy Headlands (Themeda triandra) High L M H 9 (M) 7 195

Headland Heath Medium L M H 9 (M)HCR64 Shelley Beach Anna Bay Coastal Banksia Woodlands (Banksia

integrifolia)High L H L 7 (M) 7 195


Medium L H L 7 (M)

HCR66 Melaleuca groveana Low H M H 13 (H) 7 195Tomaree NP, Stephens Peak, South GanGan Headland Heath Medium H M H 13 (H)



116




max score(15) f

matrixvalue g

siterank h

HCR73 Anna Bay Headland, Tomaree NP Grassy Headlands (Themeda triandra) High M H L 9 (M) 7 195Headland Heath Medium M H L 9 (M)

HCR103 Cantong Beach Syzygium paniculatum Medium M-H M-H H 13 (H) 7 195Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal

FloodplainsLow M-H M-H H 13 (H)

SR35 Littoral Rainforest High M M M 9 (M) 7 195Square Head, Cullendulla Creek NR andLong Beach Swamp Oak Floodplain Low H M H 13 (H)

NR92 Gleichenia mendellii High M L M 7 (M) 6 206Minnie Water Back beach and ForeshoreReserve Olax angulata Low L L H 7 (M)

NR58 Richmond River NR Pandanus tectorius var. australianus Medium M H M-H 12 (H) 5 207Coastal Wetlands (SEPP14) Low L M L 5 (L)

NR15 West of Wooyung NR (SEPP26 no. 9) Littoral Rainforest High H L-M M 10 (M) 4 208NR28 Crown lands – Byron Shire Council Byron Bay Dwarf Gramminoid Clay Heath

CommunityMedium H L-M M-H 11 (H) 4 208

NR31 Upslope of Arakwal NP adjoining watertower (Crown lands)

Byron Bay Dwarf Gramminoid Clay HeathCommunity

Medium H L-M M-H 11 (H) 4 208

NR40 Seven Mile Beach – north of NewrybarSwamp (SEPP26 no. 34B)

Littoral Rainforest High H L-M L-M 9 (M) 4 208

NR69 Bundjalung NP (Shark Bay) Sophora tomentosa High M M L 7 (M) 4 208NR101 Coffs Coast Regional Park (400m NW of

Arrawarra) (SEPP26 no. 62)Littoral Rainforest High M M M 9 (M) 4 208

NR104 Cabins Beach, Mullaway. Coffs HarbourRegional Park

Sophora tomentosa High M M M 9 (M) 4 208

NR108 Diggers Point, Moonee Beach NR Zieria prostrata High M M M 9 (M) 4 208NR139 Hat Head NP – Third Beach, Hungry Hill Diuris curta Medium H H H 15 (H) 4 208NR151 South of Lake Cathie (SEPP26 no. 116) Littoral Rainforest High M M M 9 (M) 4 208NR153 Googleys Lagoon – Camden Head – West

of Kattang NR (SEPP26 no. 122)Littoral Rainforest High H M L 9 (M) 4 208

HCR4 Crowdy Head Grassy Headlands (Themeda triandra) High M M M 9 (M) 4 208HCR7 Beach Rd, Mitchell's Island (SEPP26 no.

138)Littoral Rainforest High M M L 7 (M) 4 208

HCR19 Bennetts Head, Forster Grassy Headlands (Themeda triandra) High L M M 7 (M) 4 208HCR21 Reservoir Hill, Forster Littoral Rainforest High M L M 7 (M) 4 208HCR22 Royal Palm / Zamia Place Reserve, Forster Littoral Rainforest High H L M 9 (M) 4 208HCR34 Reserve behind Boomerang Beach shops Littoral Rainforest High H L M 9 (M) 4 208HCR55 Anzac Park Diuris arenaria Medium H L H 11 (H) 4 208HCR61 Bobs Farm–Salt Ash; Rd 1074 to Boyces

Trail / Janet PdeDiuris arenaria Medium H M M 11 (H) 4 208

HCR63 One Mile Beach Coastal Scrub (Leptospermum laevigatum /Acacia longifolia var. sophorae)

Medium H M H 13 (H) 4 208

HCR65 Nelson Bay Anna Bay / Shoal BayBoreline, Nbay Rd

Diuris arenaria Medium H L H 11 (H) 4 208

HN3 Barrenjoey High School Coastal Sand Dune Complex (Acacia longifoliavar. sophorae)

High M-H M M 10 (M) 4 208

HN4 Governor Phillip Park dunes Coastal Sand Dune Complex (Acacia longifoliavar. sophorae)

High L-M H L 8 (M) 4 208

HN5 Careel Head Grassy Headlands (Themeda triandra) High H L-M M 10 (M) 4 208HN6 Bangallay headland Grassy Headlands (Themeda triandra) High H L-M M 10 (M) 4 208HN7 Bilgola headland Grassy Headlands (Themeda triandra) High H L-M L-M 9 (M) 4 208SM10 Nielsen Park, and Gap Bluff, Sydney

Harbour NPAcacia terminalis subsp. terminalis Medium H L H 11 (H) 4 208

SM11 HMAS Watson – Watsons Bay Acacia terminalis subsp. terminalis Medium H L H 11 (H) 4 208SM21 Bunnerong Sub-station, Matraville Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub High ? H M 8 (M) 4 208SM36 Towra Pt Syzygium paniculatum Medium H M M 11 (H) 4 208SR6 Windang Island Shellharbour Pimelea spicata Medium H H L 11 (H) 4 208SR37 Tollgate Islands NR Westringia fruticosa High M M M 9 (M) 4 208SR59 Potato Point Thesium australe Medium M H H 13 (H) 4 208

a-h see Table A7.1 for details.





max score(15) f

matrixvalue g

siterank h

NR126 Littoral Rainforest High L L M 5 (L) 15 241Warrells Creek area (SEPP26 no. 90, 91,92, 93, 94) Littoral Rainforest High L L M 5 (L)

Littoral Rainforest High L L M 5 (L)Littoral Rainforest High L L M 5 (L)Littoral Rainforest High L L M 2 (L)

HCR81 Awaba Bay, Lake Macquarie SCA Syzygium paniculatum Medium H L M-H 10 (M) 14 242Tetratheca juncea Medium H L M 9 (M)Macrozamia flexuosa Low H L M 9 (M)Sydney Freshwater Wetlands Low H L L-M 8 (M)Swamp Oak Floodplain Low H L M-H 10 (M)Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal

FloodplainsLow H L M-H 10 (M)

HCR86 Pulbah Island NR, Lake Macquarie Syzygium paniculatum Medium M M M 9 (M) 12 243Macrozamia flexuosa Low H H H 15 (H)Swamp Oak Floodplain Low H H H 15 (H)Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal

FloodplainsLow H H H 15 (H)



117




max score(15) f

matrixvalue g

siterank h

NR13 Hastings Point (SEPP26 no. 6) Pandanus tectorius var. australianus Medium L M L 5 (L) 9 244Glochidion sumatranum Low L M L 5 (L)Celtis paniculata Low L M L 5 (L)Cyperus stradbrokensis Low L M L 5 (L)Cryptocarya triplinervis var. triplinervis Low L M L 5 (L)Littoral Rainforest High L M L 5 (L)

SR49 Old man bed swamp Swamp Oak Floodplain Low M H H 13 (H) 9 244Freshwater Wetlands Low M H H 13 (H)River Flat Eucalypt Forest Low M H H 13 (H)

SR21 Cryptostylis hunteriana Low H L M 9 (M) 9 244Moona Moona Creek, Vincentia at the"coathanger" Bangalay Sand Forest Medium H L M 9 (M)

Swamp Oak Floodplain Low H L M 9 (M)Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal

FloodplainsLow H L M 9 (M)

HCR110 Swamp Oak Floodplain Low H M M 11 (H) 9 244Riley's Island NR (north of St Hubert'sIsland) Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal

FloodplainsLow H M M 11 (H)

Coastal Saltmarsh Low H L H 11 (H)NR38 Broken Head Resort Acronychia littoralis Medium M M M 9 (M) 8 248

Cryptocarya foetida Medium M M M 9 (M)Archidendron hendersonii Low M M M 9 (M)

SR40 Broulee Island NR Aldrovanda vesiculosa Low L M M 7 (M) 8 248Swamp Oak Floodplain Low H M H 13 (H)Swamp Oak Floodplain Low H H H 15 (H)

NR1 Ukerabagh Island NR Cryptocarya foetida Medium L H L 7 (M) 6 250Cordyline congesta Low M H M 11 (H)

SR57 Blackfellows Point Correa baeuerlenii Low M H M 11 (H) 6 250Swamp Oak Floodplain Low M H H 13 (H)

SR44 Williga swamp Swamp Oak Floodplain Low M H H 13 (H) 6 250Freshwater Wetlands Low M H H 13 (H)

SR45 Thesium australe Medium M M ? 6 (M) 6 250Moruya Heads including Toragy Headland,Eurobodalla NP Swamp Oak Floodplain Low M H H 13 (H)

SR42 Waldrons Swamp Swamp Oak Floodplain Low H H H 15 (H) 6 250Freshwater Wetlands Low M H H 13 (H)

HCR102 Syzygium paniculatum Medium L H L-M 8 (M) 6 250Jenny Dickson Beach and Werribee Street,Noraville Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal


HCR84 Swamp Oak Floodplain Low M H M 11 (H) 6 250Pt Wollstonecraft, Lake Macquarie SCASwamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal

FloodplainsLow M H M 11 (H)

HCR56 Fingal Cycleway / Firetrail Coastal Banksia Woodlands (Banksiaintegrifolia)

High L L M 5 (L) 6 250


Medium M M M 9 (M)

NR37 Broken Head Ailanthus triphysa Low M M M 9 (M) 5 258Acianthus amplexicaulis Low M H M 11 (H)

SR53 Bingi / Meringo Swamp Oak Floodplain Low M H H 13 (H) 5 258River Flat Eucalypt Forest Low M M M 9 (M)

SR38 Tomaga River Estuary Swamp Oak Floodplain Low H M H 13 (H) 5 258River Flat Eucalypt Forest Low M M M 9 (M)

SM17 Acacia terminalis subsp. terminalis Medium L L M 5 (L) 5 258Bundock Rd Army Base / RandwickEnvironmental Park, Kingsford Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub High L L M 5 (L)

SM5 North Head, Sydney Harbour NP Acacia terminalis subsp. terminalis Medium M-H L H 6 (M) 5 258Eucalyptus camfieldii Medium M-H L L 2 (L)

HCR106 Syzygium paniculatum Medium M L M 7 (M) 5 258Wyrrabalong NP, Terilbah and PelicanIsland & Nth Entrance Road Reserve Coastal Saltmarsh Low M L-M M 8 (M)

HCR87 Jewells Swamp Tetratheca juncea Medium H L M 9 (M) 5 258Sydney Freshwater Wetlands Low L M L 5 (L)Sydney Freshwater Wetlands Low L L M 5 (L)

HCR62 Gan-Gan Hill, Pillinda Crescent Prostanthera densa Low H M M 11 (H) 5 258Cryptostylis hunteriana Low H M L 9 (M)

NR79 Angourie Pterostylis woollsii Medium M M L 7 (M) 4 266Grevillea humilis subsp. maritima Medium 0 (A)Phaius australis Low L L M 5 (L)

NR9a Wollumbin Scout Camp, Cudgen NR Acronychia littoralis Medium M M ? 6 (M) 3 267NR20 Wooyung Field Studies Centre Acronychia littoralis Medium M L H 9 (M) 3 267SR66 Cape Howe Senecio spathulatus High L L ? 2 (L) 3 267SR60 Coila Lake Swamp Oak Floodplain Low M H H 13 (H) 3 267SR58 South Tuross Swamp Oak Floodplain Low M H H 13 (H) 3 267SR54 Kellys Beach Swamp Oak Floodplain Low M H H 13 (H) 3 267SR50 Meringo Creek Swamp Oak Floodplain Low M H H 13 (H) 3 267SR51 Ryans Creek Swamp Oak Floodplain Low M H H 13 (H) 3 267SR52 Malabar Lagoon Swamp Oak Floodplain Low M H H 13 (H) 3 267SR46 Quandolo Island Swamp Oak Floodplain Low M H H 13 (H) 3 267SR47 Pedros Swamp Freshwater Wetlands Low M H H 13 (H) 3 267SR48 Congo Creek Swamp Oak Floodplain Low M H H 13 (H) 3 267SR41 Illawong NR Freshwater Wetlands Low H M M 11 (H) 3 267SR36 Quiriga Beach / Reef Point–Three Islet

Point (Murramarang NP)Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal

FloodplainsLow H L H 11 (H) 3 267

SR22 Sanctuary Point (edge of St Georges basin,south of Wright beach in Booderee NP)

Syzygium paniculatum Medium H L L-M 8 (M) 3 267

SR23 St Georges Basin, Jervis Bay Syzygium paniculatum Medium H L L-M 8 (M) 3 267SR7 Mt Warrigul Pimelea spicata Medium H L M 9 (M) 3 267SR3 Coomaditchie Lagoon Sydney Freshwater Wetlands Low H M M 11 (H) 3 267SR4 Korrungalla Swamp Sydney Coastal Estuary Swamp Forest Complex Low H H M 13 (H) 3 267SM41 Bass and Flinders Point, near Cronulla Prostanthera densa Low H L H 11 (H) 3 267SR1 Belambi Dunes Sydney Coastal Estuary Swamp Forest Complex Low H M H 13 (H) 3 267SR2 Puckeys Estate Sydney Coastal Estuary Swamp Forest Complex Low M H M 11 (H) 3 267SM23 Botany Bay NP Pterostylis no 15. (Botany Bay orchid) Medium H L L 7 (M) 3 267



118




max score(15) f

matrixvalue g

siterank h

SM24 Prince Henry Hospital, Little Bay North Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub High L L M 5 (L) 3 267SM18 Eastlakes & The Lakes Golf Course,

EastlakesEastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub High L L M 5 (L) 3 267

SM19 Banksmeadow Primary School Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub High M L L 5 (L) 3 267SM15 Centennial Park Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub High L L M 5 (L) 3 267SM16 Australian Golf Course, Kensington Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub High L L L 3 (L) 3 267SM9 Gap Park, Watsons Bay Acacia terminalis subsp. terminalis Medium H L M 9 (M) 3 267HCR58 Taylors Beach Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal

FloodplainsLow H M H 13 (H) 3 267

NR116 Park Beach, Coffs Harbour Sophora tomentosa High L L M 5 (L) 3 267Acianthus amplexicaulis Low 0 (A)

NR76 Carrs road boat ramp, Maclean Calystegia soldanella High L L L 3 (L) 3 267NR77 Aboriginal land south of Yamba Phaius australis / Phaius tankervillae Low M M H 11 (H) 3 267NR78 Joss Island, Oyster Channel – Wooloweyah

LagoonCalystegia soldanella High L L L 3 (L) 3 267

NR75 Yamba Beach Ischaemum triticeum High L L M 5 (L) 3 267NR72 Bundjalung NP (Iluka Bluff) Vigna marina High L L L 3 (L) 3 267NR59 South of Pimlico (SEPP26 no. 44) Littoral Rainforest High L L ? 2 (L) 3 267NR60 Little Pimlico Island NR (SEPP26 no. 45) Littoral Rainforest High L L ? 2 (L) 3 267NR44 Lennox Head Freshwater Wetlands Low H H L-M 12 (H) 3 267NR86 Plover Island, Yuraygir NP Viminaria juncea (prostrate form) Medium L L H 7 (M) 3 267NR57 Stokers Park, East Ballina Acronychia littoralis Medium H L-M L 8 (M) 3 267






max score(15) f

matrixvalue g

siterank h

HCR30 Coastal Wetlands (SEPP14) Low M-H M M 10 (M) 8 308Foreshore Reserve, Coomba ParkSwamp Oak Floodplain Low M-H M M 10 (M)Coastal Saltmarsh Low M-H M M 10 (M)Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on CoastalFloodplains

Low M-H M M 10 (M)

HCR45 Coastal Wetlands (SEPP14) Low L M M-H 8 (M) 8 308Myall River / Swan Bay / Witts IslandSwamp Oak Floodplain Low L M M-H 8 (M)Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on CoastalFloodplains

Low L M M-H 8 (M)

Coastal Saltmarsh Low L M M-H 8 (M)NR8 Sophora tomentosa High M M L 7 (M) 6 310Casuarina Beach, north of Cudgen NR

Geodorum densiflorum Medium L L M 5 (L)HCR15 Swamp Oak Floodplain Low M L M 7 (M) 6 310Darawakh Creek / Frogalla Swamp

Wetland Freshwater Wetland Low M L M 7 (M)Coastal Wetlands (SEPP14) Low M L M 7 (M)

HCR31 Swamp Oak Floodplain Low M-H M L 8 (M) 6 310Foreshore Reserve, Green PointCoastal Saltmarsh Low M-H M L 8 (M)Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on CoastalFloodplains

Low M-H M L 8 (M)

NR33 Cumbebin Swamp NR Phaius tankervilliae Low L-M L M 6 (M) 4 313Coastal Wetlands (SEPP14) Low L H L 7 (M)

HCR16 Swamp Oak Floodplain Low H L M 7 (M) 4 313Charlotte Ohma Reserve, TuncurryCoastal Wetlands (SEPP14) Low H L M 7 (M)

HCR27 Green Point, Booti Booti NP Allocasuarina simulans Low M L H 9 (M) 4 313Allocasuarina defungens Low L L H 7 (M)

HCR38 Foreshore Reserve, Smiths Lake Swamp Oak Floodplain Low M-H M L 8 (M) 4 313Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on CoastalFloodplains

Low M-H M L 8 (M)

HCR49 Limekilns Road Wetland, Tea Gardens Coastal Wetlands (SEPP14) Low H L M 9 (M) 4 313Coastal Saltmarsh Low H L M 9 (M)

HCR82 Wanji, Lake Macquarie SCA Swamp Oak Floodplain Low M M M 9 (M) 4 313Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on CoastalFloodplains

Low M M M 9 (M)

HCR94 Morrisset Swamp Oak Floodplain Low M M M-H 10 (M) 4 313Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on CoastalFloodplains

Low M M M-H 10 (M)

SR11 Minnamurra Spit and Beach Cynanchum elegans Low M L H 9 (M) 4 313Typhonium eliosurum Low H M ? 8 (M)

NR6 Tweed Estuary NR Coastal Wetlands (SEPP14) Low ? M M 6 (M) 2 321NR24 New Brighton Archidendron hendersonii Low L H L 7 (M) 2 321NR42 Ballina NR Coastal Wetlands (SEPP14) Low M L L-M 6 (M) 2 321NR95 Wooli, Yuraygir NP Olax angulata Low L L H 7 (M) 2 321HCR23 Golden Ponds Reserve, Forster Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal

FloodplainsLow M L M 7 (M) 2 321

HCR68 Tomaree NP, Sth Gan Gan Fire Trail Euphrasia collina subsp. paludosa Low L L H 7 (M) 2 321HCR74 Adamstown Heights, Defence Reserve Tetratheca juncea Medium L L ? 2 (L) 2 321HCR90 Pelican Flat, Council Reserve Tetratheca juncea Medium ? M-H ? 4 (L) 2 321HCR91 Blacknet's Bay, Swansea Coastal Saltmarsh Low L-M M-H M 9 (M) 2 321HCR98 Budgewoi, Mackenzie Reserve Syzygium paniculatum Medium M L L 5 (L) 2 321SM6 Middle Head Acacia terminalis subsp. terminalis Medium L-M L L-M 3 (L) 2 321SM7 Ashton Park, Bradleys Head (Mosman)

Sydney Harbour NPAcacia terminalis subsp. terminalis Medium L-M L M 4 (L) 2 321



119




max score(15) f

matrixvalue g

siterank h

SM8 Chowder Head Acacia terminalis subsp. terminalis Medium L-M L L-M 3 (L) 2 321SM12 Onslow St, Rose Bay Acacia terminalis subsp. terminalis Medium ? L M 4 (L) 2 321SM13 Dover Rd, Rose Bay Acacia terminalis subsp. terminalis Medium ? L L 2 (L) 2 321SM14 Loombah Rd, Dover Heights Acacia terminalis subsp. terminalis Medium ? L L 2 (L) 2 321SR8 Blackbutt Reserve Pimelea spicata Medium L L M 5 (L) 2 321SR33 Burrill Lake Cryptostylis hunteriana Low H M ? 8 (M) 2 321SR34 Clear Point Swamp Oak Floodplain Low H L M 9 (M) 2 321SR43 Nth Moruya Aldrovanda vesiculosa Low M M M 9 (M) 2 321SR61 Kianga Swamp Oak Floodplain Low M L H 9 (M) 2 321SR62 Tilba Lake Coastal Saltmarsh Low M M M 9 (M) 2 321SR63 Tathra Reserve Acacia georgensis Low H L M 9 (M) 2 321SR65 Pambula Beach, Ben Boyd NP Cryptostylis hunteriana Low H L M 9 (M) 2 321






max score(15) f

matrixvalue g

siterank h

NR35 Suffolk Park Acmena hemilampra Low L-M M ? 5 (L) 1 345NR93 Diggers Camp Olax angulata Low L L M 5 (L) 1 345HCR83 Myana, Lake Macquarie SCA Swamp Oak Floodplain Low L L M 5 (L) 1 345SM32 Botany Bay NP (Cape Baily area) Sydney Freshwater Wetlands Low L M L 5 (L) 1 345SR64 Kianinny Bay, Bournda NP Acacia georgensis Low L L M 5 (L) 1 345


Table A7.6 Sites which could not be modelled due to insufficient information (n = 25).

site no. a site name b priority biodiversity occurring at site c priority d site rank h

NR7 Fingal, south of Wommin Lake Acronychia littoralis Medium ANR11 Bogangar Beach Chamaesyce psammogeton High ANR12 Norries Head Plectranthus cremnus High A

Grassy Headlands (Themeda triandra) High APandanus tectorius var. australianus Medium A

NR14 Hastings Point Grassy Headlands (Themeda triandra) High ANR17 Wooyung far north (SEPP26 no. 10A) Littoral Rainforest High ANR74 Clarence Estuary NR (SEPP26 no. 54A) Littoral Rainforest High ANR100 Acronychia littoralis Medium ARed Rock, Woolgoolga (including SEPP 26 no. 60A)

Acianthus amplexicaulis Low ALittoral Rainforest High A

NR102 Arrawarra Headland Plectranthus cremnus High ANR103 Halfway btwn Woolgoolga and Sandy Beach (SEPP26 no.

64B)Littoral Rainforest High A

NR112 1.3 km NE of Korora (SEPP26 no. 68C) Littoral Rainforest High ANR118 North of Sawtell (SEPP26 no. 70, 70A) Littoral Rainforest High A

Littoral Rainforest High ANR119 Sawtell Headland Plectranthus cremnus High A

Zieria prostrata High APterostylis ophioglossa Low A

NR120 South-East of Sawtell (SEPP26 no. 71A, 71B) Littoral Rainforest High ANR122 Urunga Lagoon Syzygium paniculatum Medium A

Coastal Wetlands (SEPP14) Low ANR123 South-East of Urunga, Hungry Head (SEPP26 no. 81, 82) Littoral Rainforest High ANR124 Valla Headland and Beach (including SEPP26 no. 86) Zieria smithii (lgf)i High A

Littoral Rainforest High ANR125 Nambucca Heads (including Shelley Beach) Chamaesyce psammogeton High A

Casuarina equisetifolia Medium ANR129 North-East of Clybucca Historic Site (Near Sth West Rocks)

(SEPP26 no. 100, 101 – 4 patches)Littoral Rainforest High A

HCR89 9 mile beach, Belmont Chamaesyce psammogeton High AHCR93 1km SW of Valentine near Lake Macquarie (SEPP26 no.

170)Littoral Rainforest High A

SM31 North of Continental Carbon Kurnell Dune Forest High ASM33 Kurnell Rulingia hermanniifolia Medium ASM34 Connell Hill, Kurnell Senecio spathulatus High ASR5 Windang, Port Kembla Calystegia soldanella High A

Dianella crinoides Medium ASR56 Tuross Head (SEPP26 no. 188D, 188E, 188G, 188H, 188I) Littoral Rainforest High A



120

Table A7.7 Biodiversity identified as being at risk for which no sites were identified.

biodiversity for which no sites were identified a priority b rank c

speciesDianella congesta Medium 33Liparis habenarina Medium 49Persoonia katerae Medium 43Pterostylis nigricans Medium 49Spyridium cinereum Medium 49Tylophora benthamii Medium 49Wilsonia rotundifolia Medium 37Abildgaardia vaginata Low 128Acacia bakeri Low 153Acacia kydrensis Low 153Caesia parviflora var. minor Low 146Caladenia quadrifaria Low 146Callistemon acuminatus Low 116Carex brownii Low 153Cryptocarya triplinervis var. pubens Low 116Cyperus scaber Low 61Cyperus subulatus Low 84Desmodium heterocarpon var. heterocarpon Low 65Haloragis exalata subsp. exalata Low 128Hoya australis subsp. australis Low 153Hypserpa decumbens Low 98Lindsaea fraseri Low 128Lipocarpha microcephala Low 153Lygodium microphyllum Low 128Myoporum bateae Low 61Oldenlandia galioides Low 146Planchonella laurifolia Low 98Planchonella myrsiniodes Low 98Pultenaea villifera Low 140Streptothamnus moorei Low 128Thozetia racemosa Low 70Viola betonicifolia Low 107Wahlenbergia littoricola Low 70Zieria tuberculata Low 75

ecological communitiesCoastal Scrub (Drypetes australiscia / Elaedendron australe) Medium EC 12Dry Rainforest Low EC 25

a Biodiversity as determined in Appendices 3 and 5. Species are presented first in rank order, followed by ecological communities also in rankorder.

b Priorities as per Appendices 3 and 5.c Rank order as per Appendices 3 and 5.


121

Appendix 8 Category 1 sites for each of the high priorityspecies, populations and ecologicalcommunities

Table A8.1 Category 1 sites for each of the high priority species. Some of these sites contain morethan one high priority entity and thus are listed under each.

species b rank bsiteno. c Category 1 – site name a, d

no. ofentities

present e tenure fsite

rankg

Plectranthus cremnus 1 NR29 Cape Byron SCA (including SEPP26 no. 27, 27A, 27B) 13 DEC 2NR110 Look at me now headland, Moonee Beach NR 6 DEC 22NR94 Bare Point–Wilsons Headland Yuraygir NP 6 DEC 33NR47 Boulder Beach, Ballina (including SEPP26 no. 38 – south end) 6 BaSC 41NR107 Dammerels Head, Moonee Beach NR 4 DEC 54NR114 Diggers Head 3 DEC 72NR106 Bare Bluff, Moonee Beach NR 3 DEC 72NR50 Sharps Beach Ballina (White's Head) 2 BaSC 93NR135 Hat Head NP – Connors-Hat Head 2 DEC 102NR136 Hat Head NP – east of town and headland near camping ground 2 DEC 102NR115 Macauleys Headland 2 DEC 102NR155 Dooragan NP 2 DEC 119NR45 Lennox Head (Headland) 1 BaSC 123

Zieria prostrata 2 NR110 Look at me now headland, Moonee Beach NR 6 DEC 22NR107 Dammerels Head, Moonee Beach NR 4 DEC 54NR106 Bare Bluff, Moonee Beach NR 3 DEC 72

3 NR90 Sandon backtrack, Sandon bluffs and Sandon south (Yuraygir NP) 8 DEC 4Chamaesycepsammogeton SR16 Warrain Beach / Currarong Beach 12 ShoalCC, DEC, FH 7

HCR108 Wamberal Lagoon NR 12 DEC 7SR13 Seven Mile Beach NP (including SEPP26 no. 175, 175A) 7 DEC 13HCR43 Mungo Brush, Myall Lakes NP 7 DEC 13NR110 Look at me now headland, Moonee Beach NR 6 DEC 22NR32 Arakwal NP 8 DEC 31SR15 Culburra beach, Crookhaven Heads 5 DoL, AL 33HCR44 Banksia Green, Myall Lakes NP 5 DEC 33HCR42 Coastline from Big Gibber to Banksia Green, Myall Lakes NP 5 DEC 33HCR46 Bennetts Beach 5 GLC 41NR150 Lord Howe Island 6 LHIB 41NR121 Bongil Bongil NP (including SEPP26 no. 75, 76, 77, 78) 4 DEC 58NR82 Angourie Point, Yuraygir NP 5 DEC 58HCR97 Budgewoi 4 DEC, DoL, WySC 63NR88 Sandon north and Sandon North beach, Yuraygir NP 4 DEC 68NR71 Middle Bluff Bundjalung NP 3 DEC 68HCR41 Yagon Gibber, Myall Lakes NP 3 DEC 72NR131 Smoky Cape (Macleay River) 2 DoL 115HCR54 Shoal Bay Beach 1 PSC 123SR30 Manyanah Beach 2 ShoalCC 123

Senecio spathulatus 4 HCR108 Wamberal Lagoon NR 12 DEC 7HCR43 Mungo Brush, Myall Lakes NP 7 DEC 13SM37 Kurnell, Botany Bay 8 DEC 22HCR48 Yacaaba Peninsula 6 DoL 25HCR44 Banksia Green, Myall Lakes NP 5 DEC 33HCR42 Coastline from Big Gibber to Banksia Green, Myall Lakes NP 5 DEC 33HCR69 Fingal Spit 2 DEC 115

Acianthus exiguus 4 NR90 Sandon backtrack, Sandon bluffs and Sandon south (Yuraygir NP) 8 DEC 4HCR105 Wyrrabalong NP and Council Rd Reserve 9 DEC, WySC 19NR70 Woody Head (including SEPP 26 no. 52, 52A) 8 DEC 22NR88 Sandon north and Sandon North beach, Yuraygir NP 4 DEC 68

Calystegia soldanella 4 NR71 Middle Bluff Bundjalung NP 3 DEC 68Chamaecrista maritima 4 NR133 Arakoon SCA / Hat Head NP 19 DEC 1

NR94 Bare Point–Wilsons Headland Yuraygir NP 6 DEC 33Sophora tomentosa 4 NR90 Sandon backtrack, Sandon bluffs and Sandon south (Yuraygir NP) 8 DEC 4

NR148 Sea Acres NR / Tacking Point 10 DEC 10NR70 Woody Head (including SEPP 26 no. 52, 52A) 8 DEC 22NR85 Redcliff, Yuraygir NP 4 DEC 63NR65 Bundjalung NP (Iluka Bluff) 3 DEC 72NR105 Woolgoolga Beach and headland, Coffs Coast Regional Park 2 DEC, CHC 86NR147 Port Macquarie, Flynn's Beach and Shelly Beach 1 HC 93NR113 Sapphire Gardens, Coffs Harbour (including SEPP26 no. 69) 2 DEC 123NR96 Wooli River 1 DoL, CVC 123NR89 Sandon River, Yuraygir NP 1 DEC 123

Lepturus repens 4 NR110 Look at me now Headland, Moonee Beach NR 6 DEC 22Pultenaea maritima 4 HCR96 Munmorah SCA 16 DEC 7

NR142 Crescent Head 10 ? 16HCR95 Wallarah NP 8 DEC 21NR66 Snapper Rock, Bundjalung NP 6 DEC 31NR94 Bare Point–Wilsons Headland Yuraygir NP 6 DEC 33HCR59 Boat Harbour 5 PSC 39NR82 Angourie Point, Yuraygir NP 5 DEC 58NR85 Redcliff, Yuraygir NP 4 DEC 63NR91 Rocky Pt, Yuraygir NP 3 DEC 72NR62 Dirrawong Reserve 3 DoL, Community trust 72NR83 Shelley Headland Yuragir NP 2 DEC 93NR109 Moonee Beach NR 2 DEC 102

Stackhousia spathulata 4 NR90 Sandon backtrack, Sandon bluffs and Sandon south (Yuraygir NP) 8 DEC 4HCR108 Wamberal Lagoon NR 12 DEC 7SR13 Seven Mile Beach NP (including SEPP26 no. 175, 175A) 7 DEC 13HCR43 Mungo Brush, Myall Lakes NP 7 DEC 13

[ continued over page ]


122


no. ofentities


rankg

4 NR142 Crescent Head 10 ? 16Stackhousia spathulata –continued SR20 Bherwerre Peninsula Booderee NP 10 DEH 19

SR14 Comerong Island NP and Crown land to the north 8 DEC 25HCR48 Yacaaba Peninsula 6 DoL 25SR26 Haven, Alamin and Farnham Headland (Conjola NP) 8 DEC, DoL 29NR66 Snapper Rock, Bundjalung NP 6 DEC 31HCR44 Banksia Green, Myall Lakes NP 5 DEC 33HCR42 Coastline from Big Gibber to Banksia Green, Myall Lakes NP 5 DEC 33HCR1 Crowdy Bay NP (south) 6 DEC 33NR64 Bundjalung NP (north) 6 DEC 41

HCR12 Diamond Head, Red Head, Black Head, Hallidays Point (includingSEPP26 no. 150, 152C) 4 DoL, GTCC 54

HCR26 Booti Booti NP 5 DEC 63NR88 Sandon north and Sandon North beach, Yuraygir NP 4 DEC 68HCR41 Yagon Gibber, Myall Lakes NP 3 DEC 72NR62 Dirrawong Reserve 3 DoL, Community trust 72SR24 Cudmirrah Beach 3 ShoalCC, DEC 86SR25 Berrara Beach, Monument Beach 3 ShoalCC, DEC 86SR29 Inyadda Beach 3 ShoalCC 93SR30 Manyanah Beach 2 ShoalCC 123SR31 Cunjurong Beach / Point 2 ShoalCC, DoL 123

Ischaemum triticeum 4 NR148 Sea Acres NR / Tacking Point 10 DEC 10NR154 Kattang NR 11 DEC 16NR66 Snapper Rock, Bundjalung NP 6 DEC 31HCR1 Crowdy Bay NP (south) 6 DEC 33NR94 Bare Point–Wilsons Headland Yuraygir NP 6 DEC 33NR138 Hat Head NP 4 DEC 54NR82 Angourie Point, Yuraygir NP 5 DEC 58NR63 Bundjalung NP – Ten Mile Beach and Bombing Range 3 DEC 68NR132 Arakoon SCA 3 DEC 81NR87 Pebbly-Freshwater Yuraygir NP 1 DEC 123

Vigna marina 4 NR90 Sandon backtrack, Sandon bluffs and Sandon south (Yuraygir NP) 8 DEC 4NR148 Sea Acres NR / Tacking Point 10 DEC 10NR145 Limeburners Creek NR 10 DEC 18NR138 Hat Head NP 4 DEC 54NR63 Bundjalung NP – Ten Mile Beach and Bombing Range 3 DEC 68NR91 Rocky Pt, Yuraygir NP 3 DEC 72NR132 Arakoon SCA 3 DEC 81NR127 Scotts Head 4 DoL, NaSC 123

Gleichenia mendellii 14 NR90 Sandon backtrack, Sandon bluffs and Sandon south (Yuraygir NP) 8 DEC 4NR66 Snapper Rock, Bundjalung NP 6 DEC 31NR61 Broadwater NP 6 DEC 39NR64 Bundjalung NP (north) 6 DEC 41NR91 Rocky Pt, Yuraygir NP 3 DEC 72NR62 Dirrawong Reserve 3 DoL, Community trust 72NR80 Angourie Reserve 1 CVC 123NR81 Angourie Back Beach, Yuraygir NP 1 DEC 123

Actites megalocarpa 14 NR133 Arakoon SCA / Hat Head NP 19 DEC 1NR157 Crowdy Bay NP (north) 15 DEC 5NR99 Station Creek Beach Yuraygir NP 2 DEC 102

Poa poiformis 14 NR154 Kattang NR 11 DEC 16SM37 Kurnell, Botany Bay 8 DEC 22

Fontainea oraria 17 NR56 South of Lennox Head 3 P 49

NR46 Lennox Head, inland from Boulder Beach (including SEPP26 no. 37,37A, 37B, 37C – 4 patches) 3 P, BaSC 72

Diuris praecox 17 HCR96 Munmorah SCA 16 DEC 7HCR76 Glenrock SCA (various locations throughout park) 6 DEC 13HCR95 Wallarah NP 8 DEC 21HCR107 Wyrrabalong NP South (Bateau Bay to Wamberal North) 6 DEC 25HCR97 Budgewoi 4 DEC, DoL, WySC 63HCR60 Anna Bay; Jessie Rd to Rd 1074 1 EA, DoL 123

Westringia fruticosa 19 SM40 Towra Point NR 11 DEC 5SR16 Warrain Beach / Currarong Beach 12 ShoalCC, DEC, FH 7HCR108 Wamberal Lagoon NR 12 DEC 7HCR96 Munmorah SCA 16 DEC 7SR20 Bherwerre Peninsula Booderee NP 10 DEH 19HCR95 Wallarah NP 8 DEC 21SM37 Kurnell, Botany Bay 8 DEC 22HCR107 Wyrrabalong NP South (Bateau Bay to Wamberal North) 6 DEC 25HCR109 Bouddi NP 7 DEC 28HCR59 Boat Harbour 5 PSC 39SR17 Callala Bay and Beach (Miola Peninsula) 5 ShoalCC, DoL 41SR19 Beecroft Head, Jervis Bay 3 DoD, P 47HCR57 Fingal Beach / Barry Park 4 PSC 58

HCR11 Saltwater and Khappinghat NP – Wallabi Pt Headland (SEPP26 no.147, 148, 148A, 149) 2 DEC 93

HCR72 Tomaree NP, Fishermans Bay 2 DEC 102

a Control categories as determined in Appendix 6.b Priority species and their rank as determined in Appendix 3.c A unique numbering system for each site. The letters are an abbreviation of the five coastal NRM regions, being NR = Northern Rivers, HC = Hunter Central Rivers,

HN = Hawkesbury–Nepean, SM = Sydney Metro, and SR = Southern Rivers Catchment Management Authorities, while the numbers reflect a general north to southorder within each NRM region, where possible.

d Abbreviations – SCA = State Conservation Area, NP = National Park, NR = Nature Reserve, HS = Historic Site, SEPP = State Environmental Planning Policy.e Entities (i.e. species, populations and ecological communities) as identified in Appendices 3 and 5.f The tenure of the sites – abbreviations used: AL = Aboriginal land; ALC = Aboriginal Land Council; BaSC = Ballina Shire Council; BySC = Byron Shire Council;

CHC = Coffs Harbour Council; CVC = Clarence Valley Council; DEC = Department of Environment and Conservation; DEH = Department of Environment andHeritage; DoD = Department of Defence; DoFA = Department of Finance and Admin; DoL = Department of Lands; DoP = Department of Planning; EA = EnergyAustralia; EuSC = Eurobodalla Shire Council; FH = Freehold land; GLC = Great Lakes Council; GTCC = Greater Taree City Council; HC = Hastings Council; KT =Killalea Trust; LHIB = Lord Howe Island Board; NaSC = Nambucca Shire Council; P = Private; PSC = Port Stephens Council; PWC = Pittwater Council; RC =Randwick Council; ShellCC = Shellharbour City Council; ShoalCC = Shoalhaven City Council; SuthSC = Sutherland Shire Council; SW = Sydney Water; TSC =Tweed Shire Council; WarC = Warringah Council; WLALC = Wagonga Local Aboriginal Land Council; WySC = Wyong Shire Council

g Sites with the same score were given an equal rank value (e.g. two sites scored 50 and were ranked equal 5th), therefore sites with the next lowest score (e.g. 49) weregiven the next actual rank (e.g. 7th instead of 6th).


123

Table A8.2 Category 1 sites for each of the high priority populations.

population b rank bsiteno. c Category 1 – site name a, d

no. ofentities


rankg

Glycine clandestina(broad leaf form) 1 SM40 Towra Point NR 11 DEC 5

SM37 Kurnell, Botany Bay 8 DEC 22NR127 Scott's Head 4 DoL, NaSC 123

Zieria smithii (lowgrowing form) 1 NR148 Sea Acres NR / Tacking Point 10 DEC 10

NR154 Kattang NR 11 DEC 16NR145 Limeburners Creek NR 10 DEC 18NR121 Bongil Bongil NP (including SEPP26 sites 75, 76, 77, 78) 4 DEC 58NR114 Diggers Head 3 DEC 72NR156 Crowdy Bay NP – Diamond Head 3 DEC 86NR137 Hat Head NP, O'Connors Beach 2 DEC 102NR141 South Hat Head 1 ? 123

a-g see Table A8.1 for details

Table A8.3 Category 1 sites for each of the high priority ecological communities.


no. ofentities


rankg

1 SM26 La Perouse (Jennifer St sites 1 and 2 plus Botany Bay NP) 3 DEC, Telstra, ALC 54Eastern Suburbs BanksiaScrub SM22 Malabar Headland 2 DoFA, RC 81

SM20 Bunnerong Rd, Chifley (including Wassell St) 2 DoL, RC 102SM27 NSW Golf Club / Botany Bay NP (Cape Banks area) 1 DoL 123SM25 St Michaels Golf Course, Little Bay 1 DoL 123

1 NR29 Cape Byron SCA (including SEPP26 no. 27, 27A, 27B) 13 DEC 2NR36 Broken Head NR (including SEPP26 no. 32, 33B, 34A) 12 DoL, DEC, P 3SM40 Towra Point NR 11 DEC 5

Littoral Rainforest(including SEPP 26 andSutherland ShireLittoral Rainforest) SR16 Warrain Beach / Currarong Beach 12 ShoalCC, DEC, FH 7

HCR108 Wamberal Lagoon NR 12 DEC 7HCR96 Munmorah SCA 16 DEC 7NR148 Sea Acres NR / Tacking Point 10 DEC 10NR25 Brunswick Heads NR (including SEPP26 no. 18) 14 DEC 11NR3 Fingal Head, Tweed Coastal Reserve (SEPP26 no. 2A) 12 TSC 12SR13 Seven Mile Beach NP (including SEPP 26 no. 175, 175A) 7 DEC, DoL 13HCR43 Mungo Brush, Myall Lakes NP 7 DEC 13NR154 Kattang NR 11 DEC 16NR145 Limeburners Creek NR 10 DEC 18SR20 Bherwerre Peninsula Booderee NP 10 DEH 19HCR105 Wyrrabalong NP and Council Rd Reserve 9 DEC, WySC 19NR70 Woody Head (including SEPP 26 no. 52, 52A) 8 DEC 22SR14 Comerong Island NP and Crown land to the north 8 DEC 25HCR109 Bouddi NP 7 DEC 28HCR20 One Mile Beach, Forster 6 GLC 29NR32 Arakwal NP 8 DEC 31NR9 Cudgen NR (SEPP26 no. 4) 7 DEC 33HCR1 Crowdy Bay NP (south) 6 DEC 33NR61 Broadwater NP 6 DEC 39SR18 Beecroft Peninsula Jervis Bay 6 DoD 41

NR47 Boulder Beach, Ballina (including SEPP26 no. 38 – Boulder Beachsouth) 6 BaSC 41

SR19 Beecroft Head, Jervis Bay 6 DoD, P 47HCR37 South of Bald Head 5 DoL 47NR18 Wooyung NR (including SEPP26 no. 11 – South) 5 DEC, P 49NR56 South of Lennox Head (including SEPP 26 no. 37) 3 P 49HCR28 Tiona (including SEPP26 no. 155B – Seven Mile Beach) 4 P 51NR52 Angels Beach, Ballina 6 BaSC 51

HCR12 Diamond Head, Red Head, Black Head, Hallidays Point (includingSEPP 26 no. 150, 152C) 4 DoL, DEC, GTCC 54

SR10 Killalea State Park 3 DoL, KT, ShellCC 58NR121 Bongil Bongil NP (including SEPP26 no. 75, 76, 77, 78) 4 DEC 58NR73 Iluka NR 5 DEC 58NR22 Fern Beach – South Golden Beach 3 BySC, DoL 63SR9 Bass Point (including SEPP26 no. 173A) 5 DoP, ShellCC 63HCR97 Budgewoi 4 DEC, DoL, WySC 63HCR26 Booti Booti NP 5 DEC 63NR51 Sharps Beach, Ballina 4 BaSC 68NR63 Bundjalung NP – Ten Mile Beach and Bombing Range 3 DEC 68HCR39 Seal Rocks, Myall Lakes NP 4 DEC 72NR65 Bundjalung NP (Iluka Bluff) 3 DEC 72

NR46 Lennox Head, inland from Boulder Beach (including SEPP26 no. 37,37A, 37B, 37C – 4 patches) 3 BaSC, Private 72

NR21 Billinudgel NR (including SEPP26 no. 13A, 13B, 13 C – CrabbesCreek Beach north) 4 DEC 81

HCR50 Yacaaba Head, Myall Lakes NP 4 DEC 81NR132 Arakoon SCA 3 DEC 81HCR35 Blueys Beach (including SEPP 26 no. 157–158) 3 DoL, P 81NR34 Clarkes Beach Caravan Park 3 DoL 86NR97 Yuraygir NP 9 DEC 86NR54 Shaws Bay Ballina 3 BaSC, P 86



124


no. ofentities


rankg

NR39 Seven Mile Beach North – 1km south of Jews Point (SEPP26 no. 34) 3 P 93

HCR11 Saltwater and Khappinghat NP – Wallabi Pt Headland (SEPP26 no.147, 148, 148A, 149) 2 DEC 93

HCR85 Lake Macquarie SCA 2 DEC 102NR134 Hat Head NP – Big Smoky section 2 DEC 102

Littoral Rainforest(including SEPP 26 andSutherland ShireLittoral Rainforest) –continued

NR109 Moonee Beach NR 2 DEC 102NR67 Bundjalung NP – many locations 8 DEC 115NR53 Shelley Beach Ballina 2 BaSC 115NR2 Ukerabagh NR including Tweed Heads Historic Site 2 DEC 119NR5 Fingal Southwest – Shallow Bay (SEPP26 no. 2C) 2 119HCR53 John Goulds NR / Cabbage Tree Island 2 DEC 119

HCR36 Between Blueys head & Bald Head (SEPP26 no. 159, 160 – 2 largepatches) 1 DoL 123

NR4 Fingal West – Golf Course (SEPP26 no. 2B) 1 P 123NR16 SEPP26 (10 – Wooyung NR North) 1 DEC 123

NR19 SEPP26 (12 – at Wooyung Rd junction, near Caravan park Wooyungbeach) 1 P 123

SR31 Cunjurong Beach / Point 2 ShoalCC, DoL 123SR32 Bannister Headland Mollymook (SEPP26 no. 184A) 1 ShoalCC 123SR39 Tomakin 1 EuSC 123HCR29 Booti Booti (west of Flat Rock) in Booti Booti NP (SEPP26 no. 155) 1 DEC 123HCR2 The Gap – southern end of Crowdy Bay NP (SEPP26 no. 125, 126) 1 DEC 123

HCR3 Harrington – Crowdy Head Rd – part Crowdy Bay NP (SEPP26 no.131) 1 DEC, GTCC 123

HCR5 North Harrington (SEPP26 no. 132) 1 GTCC 123HCR6 Manning Pt, Manning River (SEPP26 no. 134A, 135) 1 GTCC 123HCR8 Farquhar Park (SEPP26 no. 142) 1 GTCC 123HCR9 Old Bar North (SEPP26 no. 144) 1 GTCC 123HCR10 Old Bar South (SEPP26 no. 145) 1 GTCC 123

NR149 Miner's Beach, South of Sea Acres NR – near Tacking Pt (SEPP26 no.113) 1 DoL 123

NR144 Delicate Nobby Headland – 1.5km N of Limeburner's Creek NR(SEPP26 no. 105B) 1 FH 123

NR140 Hat Head NP (Crescent head) 1 DEC 123NR130 Clybucca HS – northern section (SEPP26 no. 101B) 1 DEC 123NR128 1km North of Grassy Head (SEPP26 no. 96) 1 FH 123NR113 Sapphire Gardens, Coffs Harbour (including SEPP26 no. 69) 2 DEC 123NR111 East of Crystal Waters (SEPP26 no. 68B) 1 DEC 123NR55 Lighthouse Beach Ballina 1 BaSC 123

Kurnell Dune Forest 1 SM40 Towra Point NR 11 DEC 5SM35 Charlotte Breen Reserve (and south-east of the reserve) 1 SW, SuthSC 93SM39 Boat Harbour Reserve 2 DoL, SuthSC 102

4 SR16 Warrain Beach / Currarong Beach 12 ShoalCC, DEC, FH 7SR13 Seven Mile Beach NP (including SEPP 26 no. 175, 175A) 7 DEC, DoL 13

Coastal BanksiaWoodlands (Banksiaintegrifolia) SR20 Bherwerre Peninsula Booderee NP 10 DEH 19

SR14 Comerong Island NP and Crown land to the north 8 DEC, DoL 22SR26 Haven, Alamin & Farnham Headland (Conjola NP) 8 DEC, DoL 29HCR20 One Mile Beach, Forster 6 GLC 29SR15 Culburra beach, Crookhaven Heads 5 DoL, PSC, AL 33HCR59 Boat Harbour 5 PSC 39SR17 Callala Bay & Beach (Miola Peninsula) 5 ShoalCC 41HCR46 Bennetts Beach 5 GLC 41NR64 Bundjalung NP (north) 6 DEC 41HCR28 Tiona (including SEPP26 no. 155B – Seven Mile Beach Tiona) 4 P 51HCR17 Forster Breakwall / Pilot Hill 4 DoL 51HCR57 Fingal Beach / Barry Park 4 PSC 58NR97 Yuraygir NP 9 DEC 86SM3 Long Reef 2 P, WarC 93SR27 Narrawallee Creek NR and Conjola Beach 2 DEC, DoL 102SM30 Pott Pt, Cooks Knoll, Kurnell 1 DEC 123

4 NR29 Cape Byron SCA (including SEPP26 no. 27, 27A, 27B) 13 DEC 2NR36 Broken Head NR (including SEPP26 no. 32, 33B, 34A) 12 DoL, DEC, P 3HCR96 Munmorah SCA 16 DEC 7HCR76 Glenrock SCA (various locations throughout park) 6 DEC 13HCR95 Wallarah NP 8 DEC 21NR110 Look at me now Headland, Moonee Beach NR 6 DEC 22HCR107 Wyrrabalong NP South (Bateau Bay to Wamberal North) 6 DEC 25

Themeda (Themedatriandra) grassland onsea cliffs & coastalheadlands in the NSWNorth Coast, SydneyBasin and South EastCorner bioregions

HCR109 Bouddi NP 7 DEC 28NR66 Snapper Rock, Bundjalung NP 6 DEC 31NR94 Bare Point–Wilsons Headland Yuraygir NP 6 DEC 33HCR59 Boat Harbour 5 PSC 39HCR37 South of Bald Head 5 DoL 47NR107 Dammerels Head, Moonee Beach NR 4 DEC 54NR82 Angourie Point, Yuraygir NP 5 DEC 58NR85 Redcliff, Yuraygir NP 4 DEC 63NR71 Middle Bluff Bundjalung NP 3 DEC 68HCR41 Yagon Gibber, Myall Lakes NP 3 DEC 72NR65 Bundjalung NP (Iluka Bluff) 3 DEC 72SM3 Long Reef 2 P, WarC 93NR83 Shelley Headland Yuragir NP 2 DEC 93NR50 Sharps Beach Ballina (White's Head) 2 BaSC 93HN1 Lion Island (north east face) 1 DEC 123HN2 Barrenjoey (northern and eastern slopes of headland) 1 DEC 123HN8 Mona Vale cliff 1 PwC 123HN9 Turrimetta headland 1 PwC 123SM1 Narrabeen Headland 1 PwC 123SM2 Warriewood beach / cliff 1 PwC 123NR98 Dirrangan Lookout track Yuraygir NP 1 DEC 123NR84 Plumbago Headland, Yuraygir NP 1 DEC 123

4 HCR107 Wyrrabalong NP South (Bateau Bay to Wamberal North) 6 DEC 25HCR109 Bouddi NP 7 DEC 28

Eastern Suburbs BanksiaScrub equivalentcommunities (CoastalSand Wallum Heath)



125


no. ofentities


rankg

4 SR16 Warrain Beach / Currarong Beach 12 ShoalCC, DEC, FH 7Frontal Dune VegetationComplex HCR108 Wamberal Lagoon NR 12 DEC 7

HCR96 Munmorah SCA 16 DEC 7SR13 Seven Mile Beach NP (including SEPP 26 no. 175, 175A) 7 DEC, DoL 13SR20 Bherwerre Peninsula Booderee NP 10 DEH 19HCR105 Wyrrabalong NP and Council Rd Reserve 9 DEC, WySC 19HCR95 Wallarah NP 8 DEC 21SR14 Comerong Island NP & Crown land to the north 8 DEC, DoL 25HCR48 Yacaaba Peninsula 6 DoL 25SR26 Haven, Alamin & Farnham Headland (Conjola NP) 8 DEC, DoL 29SR15 Culburra beach, Crookhaven Heads 5 DoL, AL 33HCR46 Bennetts Beach 5 GLC 41HCR28 Tiona (including SEPP26 no. 155B – Seven Mile Beach Tiona) 4 P 51HCR17 Forster Breakwall / Pilot Hill 4 DoL 51HCR14 Nine Mile Beach, North Tuncurry 3 DoL 72HCR35 Blueys Beach (including SEPP 26 no. 157, 158) 3 DoL 81NR97 Yuraygir NP 9 DEC 86HCR32 Boomerang Beach 2 DoL 93NR67 Bundjalung NP – many locations 8 DEC 115SR55 Fuller's Beach Wagonga 1 WLALC 123SM29 Potter Point, Kurnell – Botany Bay NP 1 DEC 123

4 SR16 Warrain Beach / Currarong Beach 12 ShoalCC, DEC, FH 7HCR96 Munmorah SCA 16 DEC 7SR13 Seven Mile Beach NP (including SEPP 26 no. 175, 175A) 7 DEC, DoL 13

Coastal Sand DuneComplex (Acacialongifolia var.sophorae) HCR76 Glenrock SCA (various locations throughout park) 6 DEC 13

HCR105 Wyrrabalong NP and Council Rd Reserve 9 DEC, WySC 19HCR95 Wallarah NP 8 DEC 21SR14 Comerong Island NP and Crown land to the north 8 DEC 25HCR107 Wyrrabalong NP South (Bateau Bay to Wamberal North) 6 DEC 25HCR48 Yacaaba Peninsula 6 DoL 25SR26 Haven, Alamin & Farnham Headland (Conjola NP) 8 DEC, DoL 29HCR20 One Mile Beach, Forster 6 GLC 29SR15 Culburra beach, Crookhaven Heads 5 DoL, AL 33HCR44 Banksia Green, Myall Lakes NP 5 DEC 33HCR42 Coastline from Big Gibber to Banksia Green, Myall Lakes NP 5 DEC 33SR17 Callala Bay and Beach (Miola Peninsula) 5 ShoalCC, DoL 41HCR46 Bennetts Beach 5 GLC 41HCR17 Forster Breakwall / Pilot Hill 4 DoL 51HCR14 Nine Mile Beach, North Tuncurry 3 DoL 72HCR35 Blueys Beach (including SEPP 26 no. 157, 158) 3 DoL, P 81NR97 Yuraygir NP 9 DEC 86HCR32 Boomerang Beach 2 DoL 93SM38 Yena/Muru Kurnell – Botany Bay NP 2 DEC 102NR67 Bundjalung NP – many locations 8 DEC 115

a-g see Table A8.1 for details


126

Appendix 9 Pro-forma for developing site-specific management plans

Site Management Plan pro-formafor sites identified in the Bitou Bush

Threat Abatement PlanThis pro-forma is to be used at all control category 1 sites as identified in the Bitou Bush Threat AbatementPlan (TAP) to ensure that the control of bitou bush meets the objectives of the TAP (i.e. is aimed at protectingthe priority biodiversity). This pro-forma can also be used for sites in other categories. Each site-specificmanagement plan should be developed in consultation with relevant stakeholder/s and in accordance with theTAP. Copies of this pro-forma are available in electronic format from the TAP coordinator([email protected]).

Site number(outlined in the

TAP)

Controlcategory

(i.e. 1–5 outlinedin the TAP)

Site location details GPS coordinates(i.e. one of these

three)

Where GPSreading wastaken from?

(i.e. centrepoint of site)

Site name latitude / longitude

AMG (Australian Map Grid)Site owner

(or contact) GDA (Geodetic Datum ofAustralia)

Contact namefor site

Phone number

Mobile

Email

LGA orNational Park name

Scientific name/s Common name/s PriorityList all species,populations or

ecologicalcommunities presentfrom Appendix 3 and

5 of TAP

Prepared by (name/organisation)

Address

Phone number Date prepared

Mobile Review date of plan

Email Plan duration(i.e. dates –TAP is 5 years)


127

Section 1 – site map1. Map of the priority site (include scale, legend and north orientation, as well as locations of bitou bush and all

species, populations and ecological communities listed in the TAP that are present). Use cross-hatching toillustrate the general area for those species, populations and ecological communities where the exact location isunknown, and for widely dispersed species, populations and ecological communities.

Section 2 – site history2. Outline the long-term management of the site (i.e. site history – ideally over the last 5 years, if not whatever is

readily available), including all bitou bush control and work on threatened species (i.e. listed under the NSWThreatened Species Conservation Act 1995), please include the year each activity took place and the stakeholdersand costs involved. Also include information on any other weed control undertaken at the site.

YearControl measure

undertaken

List all threatenedspecies, populations orecological communities

present

Stakeholders(community group

and contractor)

Cost($ and in-kind)(where possible)

Other controlmeasures and

the target weedspecies

3. Identify all programs or actions undertaken for those threatened species present (i.e. as per the Priority ActionStatement (PAS), threat abatement or recovery plans, or park or reserve specific pest management plans (or otherlegislative requirement)), or any other high conservation value (i.e. HCV (high conservation vegetation), orcultural heritage values (also see below)).

List all species, populations orecological communities present

Program or action undertaken Reference (e.g. recovery plan)

4. List all threat abatement and recovery plan actions relevant to the site (e.g. the Green and Gold Bell FrogRecovery Plan: see NPWS 2003b) and their likely interactions with the Bitou TAP. Also check with the PriorityAction Statement to ensure that all actions have been accounted for.

List all species, populations orecological communities

presentSource Action required

How this links withthe Bitou TAP

Section 3 – site attributes5. Identify the physical attributes of the site which may affect control and thus the cost (e.g. terrain, access, and other

local conditions like remediation works that may be needed and fencing). Physical attributes may also includevisitation rates, e.g. in high visitation areas aerial spraying may not be an option due to the need for park closures.

Physical attributes that may affect control at the site How they affect control

6. Identify the priority native biodiversity present other than the priority species, populations and ecologicalcommunities listed in the TAP (i.e. herbicide sensitive species, locally/regionally significant species).

Other priority biodiversity presentSignificance

(e.g. southern limit)Linkage with your control program

and other plans


128

Section 4 – control7A. Identify the stages of bitou bush control required and the proposed timetable for each stage over a 5 year period

(i.e. stages 1–3 as outlined in Section 7.4 of the Bitou TAP).7B. Identify the most appropriate management technique required for the level of bitou bush present and the stage of

control identified above. Note: aerial spraying must be consistent with the best practice guidelines (Broese vanGroenou and Downey 2006).

7C. Outline the follow-up control required in each stage to prevent re-invasion/re-infestation of the site after the initialcontrol.

YearStages of

control as perthe TAP

Area/location to be treated(please also mark on map above in

Section 1)

Initial control techniqueto be used (e.g. cut and

paint, ground spraying, etc.)

Follow-up controltechnique to be used (e.g.for recruitment and resprouting

plants)12345

8. Identify any likely non-target effects of the control program outlined above.

Non-target effects of control Specifics (i.e. the species affected)

Section 5 – other weeds9. Identify all other significant weed species present and highlight those that are likely to invade following the

removal of bitou bush.

Other significantweed species present

(common/scientificname)

Density of weed species(i.e. scatter, scarce,

dominant)

How these weed species influenceyour bitou bush control program(e.g. much harder to control and require

other techniques)

Likely changefollowing bitou control

(i.e. increase, stay same,decrease, don’t know)

10. Outline a control program that addresses the weed species identified above (e.g. do not move onto stage 2 untilglory lily is controlled as well). Ensure that this information is also provided in the control Section above.

Stages ofcontrol as per

the TAPOther weed species present

Control measure to be implemented whichdiffers from that used for bitou bush

Stage 1Stage 2Stage 3

Section 6 – legislative requirements

11A. Ensure all pesticide applications comply with the Pesticides Act (see Chapter 2) and APVMA regulations.11B. Ensure that all herbicides are used in accordance with the label recommendations.11C. Ensure all regulations of the NSW Pesticides Act 1999 are upheld (i.e. training, record keeping and notification).

12. Where required, a Section 132C Licence (see Section 2.2.2 of the TAP) can be applied for either individually(through DEC) or by completing this pro-forma and submitting it to the plan coordinator, who has applied for ageneric licence, and agreeing to any conditions placed upon such a licence.

13. Assess the potential environmental impacts of the management strategies outlined and if needed undertake a riskassessment.

14. Ensure all activities comply with OH&S standards/guidelines and that a Job Safety Analysis (or similar) has beenprepared where required.


129

Section 7 – monitoring15. Outline any monitoring programs being undertaken to evaluate the effectiveness of bitou bush control or the

response of native species to bitou bush control.

Monitoring methodundertaken

(e.g. photo points, quadrats)

Measures collected(i.e. what is being measured or

recorded – seedling counts)

Interval of collection(frequency at which data is

collected)

Where the data is storedand the collector of the

data

Section 8 – stakeholder involvement16. Identify and determine the roles and responsibilities of all stakeholders, especially for each stage of the plan (i.e.

see point 9, Section 5 above).

Stakeholder’s details Responsibility of stakeholder Stage as per the TAP

Section 9 – indigenous involvement17. Where possible identify any Aboriginal cultural heritage sites present (where possible including those covered

under the NPWS Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System). Check the sensitivity of any disclosureof this information before listing below.

Culturalheritage site

name(if knownofficially)

Description ofthe site (e.g.

midden)

Location(coordinates – if location details are

sensitive ensure that knowledge of thesite is passed on to personnel

implementing the control)

Site number (i.e.NPWS Aboriginal

Heritage InformationManagement System)

Protection worksrequired

18. Identify and consult with indigenous people with respect to any special knowledge or interest in the site or thespecies, population or ecological community and control programs at that site, including the likely social, culturaland economic consequences.

Name of personcontacted

Details of interest Date contacted Outcomes of consultation

Section 10 – community involvement19. Identify the community groups that presently work in the area or any other groups that may wish to work in the

area (either now or in the future) and the skills and qualifications of those volunteers.

Name of community groupor individual/s working at

the site

Frequency of workundertaken at the site

Number of peopleinvolved

Training/qualifications

Section 11 – other information20. Outline any other aspect of your site and bitou bush control program that may influence the delivery of the Bitou

TAP objectives.

Other aspects of the site which may influence deliveryof the TAP

Effect


130

Appendix 10A Species at risk from herbicide application

There are approximately 850 plant species recorded within the distribution of bitou bush in New SouthWales, however information on the impacts of herbicide on native plants from controlled laboratory andfield studies is limited.

The species listed in Tables A10.1 and A10.2 are either known to be susceptible or are suspected of beingvulnerable to herbicide used to control bitou bush. Consideration should be given to these species duringbitou bush control programs and management plans. In addition, a list of species examined for herbicidesensitivity as part of the aerial bitou bush spraying program in New South Wales is presented in Appendix10B below.

Table A10.1 List of native plants susceptible to herbicide which are not included in Tables A10.3 andTables A10.4 – unfortunately the herbicide formulation was not noted/recorded, ratherthese are observations based on post herbicide application.

species at risk status a information reference

Baumea juncea nl some dead plant observed White pers. comm.Bracteantha brachteata nl some dead plant observed White pers. comm.Casuarina equisitifolia nl some foliage burn evident White pers. comm.Chamaesyce psammogeton E susceptible to herbicide Thomas pers. comm.Crinum pedunculatum nl some foliage burn evident White pers. comm.Cyperus spp. nl some dead plant observed White pers. comm.Dampiera stricta nl some foliage burn evident White pers. comm.Eragrostis interruptus nl some dead plant observed White pers. comm.Ficus watkinsiana nl some foliage burn evident White pers. comm.Gleichenia mendellii nl susceptible to herbicide Flower pers. comm.; White pers. comm.Ischaemum spp. nl some dead plant observed White pers. comm.Juncus krassii nl some dead plant observed White pers. comm.Melaleuca quinquenervia nl some foliage burn evident White pers. comm.Pandanus tectorius nl some dead plant observed White pers. comm.Plectranthus cremnus nl question marks over susceptibility NPWS (2001d)Pimelea spicata E susceptible to herbicide Matarczyk (1999)Senecio spathulatus E susceptible to herbicide Thomas pers. comm.Valleia paradoxa nl some dead plant observed White pers. comm.Zieria prostrata E susceptible to herbicide Thomas pers. comm.Zieria smithii (lgf) EP susceptible to herbicide Thomas pers. comm.Orchids susceptible to herbicide Jones, Groves and Weston pers. comm.

a E = Endangered, V = Vulnerable, EP = Endangered Population as defined under the TSC Act, and nl = not listed under the Act

Table A10.2 Preliminary list of fauna susceptible to herbicide

species at risk status a information reference

amphibians•Crinia tinnula (Wallum froglet) V susceptible to herbicide contamination of aquatic habitats Wellington pers. comm.

Litoria aurea (green and gold bell frog) E susceptible to herbicide contamination of aquatic habitats Wellington pers. comm.Litoria brevipalmata (green-thighed frog) V susceptible to herbicide contamination of aquatic habitats Murphy pers. comm.Litoria olongburensis (Olongburra frog) V susceptible to herbicide contamination of aquatic habitats Wellington pers. comm.

fishNannaperca oxleyana (Oxleyan pygmy perch) E susceptible to herbicide contamination of aquatic habitats Murphy pers. comm.

insectsPetalura gigantia (giant dragonfly) E susceptible to herbicide contamination of aquatic habitats Murphy pers. comm.

a E = Endangered, V = Vulnerable, EP = Endangered Population as defined under the TSC Act, and NL= not listed under the Act


131

Appendix 10B Plant species examined for herbicide sensitivity

The information below was adapted from the Best Practice Guidelines for Aerial Spraying of Bitou Bush inNew South Wales (see Broese van Groenou and Downey 2006).

Although a rigorous assessment of the species at risk from herbicide application as used to control bitoubush has not been undertaken, information on the toxic effects of aerial spraying of bitou bush (usingpopulation-based visual assessment of herbicide injury) has been compiled over the past 15 years forglyphosate and 12 years for metsulfuron methyl (John Toth unpublished data). These lists contain 220species examined for glyphosate (Table 10.3) and 83 species for metsulfuron methyl (Table 10.4).

Table A10.3 Herbicide sensitivity to Roundup® (glyphosate 360g a.i./L) of native and some introducedplants – a compilation of results from 1989–2004 for the spraying of 2 L of Roundup® in30 L water ha–1 from a helicopter, during winter (1 June to 31 August) (John Tothunpublished data). These results are for Roundup® 360 only a.

plant condition b plant condition b

species name

after 8weeks

after 6months comments c species name

after 8weeks

after 6months comments c

Acacia bineruia OK OK N Clematis glycinoides SL OK YAcacia implexa SL OK Y Clerodendrum floribundum OK, M, SD OK, M, SD YAcacia longifolia var.

sophoraeOK OK N Comesperma ericinum OK OK Y

Acacia maidenii OK OK Y – insect galldamage

Commelina cyanea OK, M OK, SD N

Acacia myrtifolia OK OK N Commersonia fraseri OK OK YAcacia saligna* SL OK Y Conospermum taxifolium OK OK YAcacia suaveolens SL SD, OK Y Correa alba OK OK YAcacia terminalis SL OK Y Corymbia gummifera OK OK YAcacia ulicifolia OK OK Y Cotoneaster glaucophylla* OK OK YAcmena smithii OK OK Y Crinum pedunculatum M SL, OK YAcronychia imperforata M OK Y Cryptocarya triplinervis SL M YActinotus helianthi OK OK N Cupaniopsis anarcardioides OK, SL OK YActinotus minor OK OK Y Cuscuta campestris* SD SD YAegiceras corniculatum OK OK Y Cyperus enervis OK OK YAlectryon coriaceous SL OK Y Dianella caerulea OK OK YAlectryon subcinereus OK OK Y Dianella caerulea var.

productaOK OK Y

Allocasuarina distyla OK OK Y Dianella congesta SL OK YAllocasuarina littoralis OK OK Y Dianella revoluta OK OK NAllocasuarina nana OK OK Y Dichondra repens OK OK YAlphitonia excelsa OK, M OK, SD Y Dillwynia floribunda OK OK YAmmophila arenaria* OK OK Y Dillwynia glabberima OK OK YAmperea xiphoclada OK OK Y Dodonaea triquetra OK, M OK, D YAndropogon virginicus* OK OK Y Duboisia myoporoides SL, M OK, D YAngophora costata OK OK Y Einadia hastata OK OK YAnredera cordifolia OK OK Y Elaocarpus reticulatus OK OK YAotus ericoides OK OK Y Empodisma minus OK OK YAraujia hortorum OK OK Y Endiandra sieberi OK OK YAristida ramosa M OK Y Entolasia stricta M M YAstroloma pinifolium OK OK Y Epacris microphylla OK OK YAustromyrtus dulcis OK OK Y Epacris obtusifolia SL SL YAvicennia marina OK OK Y Erythrina X sikesii OK OK YBaeckea brevifilia OK OK Y Eucalyptus botryoides OK, SL OK YBaeckea imbricata OK OK Y Eucalyptus globoidea OK OK YBanksia aemula SL OK Y Eucalyptus gummifera OK OK YBanksia ericifolia OK OK Y Eucalyptus pilularis OK OK NBanksia integrifolia OK, SL OK Y – few died Eucalyptus punctata OK OK YBanksia oblongifolia OK OK Y Eucalyptus robusta OK OK YBanksia serrata OK OK N Eucalyptus signata OK OK YBillardiera scandens OK, M OK Y Euroschinus falcata var.

falcataOK OK Y

Blechnum sp. OK OK Y Eustrephus latifolius OK, OK, SL OK, OK, M YBossiaea ensata OK OK N Excoecaria agallocha OK OK YBossiaea heterophylla OK OK N Exocarpos cupressiformis OK OK YBrachyloma daphnoides OK OK Y Ficus fraseri M M Y – resproutingBreynia oblongifolia OK, M OK? N Ficus rubiginosa OK OK YBriza maxima* OK OK Y Gahnia clarkei/minus OK OK NCakile maritima subsp.

maritima*OK OK Y Geitonoplesium cymosum OK OK Y

Callistemon citrinus OK OK Y Gleichenia dicarpa OK OK YCallitris globoidea M OK Y Gleichenia microphylla OK OK YCanavalia rosea OK OK Y Glochidion ferdinandii OK OK YCanthium coprosmoides OK OK Y Glycine clandestina M SD YCarpobrotus

glaucescensSL, M OK, SD N – susceptible if

fully exposedGonocarpus teucrioides OK, SD OK, SD Y

Cassina sp. OK OK Y Hardenbergia violacea OK, M, SL OK, SD, M YCassine australis var.

australisOK OK Y Hibbertia fasciculata OK OK Y

Cassinia aculeata M M Y Hibbertia linearis OK OK YCassytha pubescens OK OK N Hibbertia obtusifolia OK OK N



132


species name

after 8weeks

after 6months

comments c species name

after 8 weeks after 6 months

comments c

Casuarina equisetifolia SL, M OK Y Hibbertia scandens OK, SL OK NCasuarina glauca OK, SL,

MOK, SL, OK Y Hibbertia vestita OK OK Y

Cayratia clematidea OK, M OK, D Y Homoranthus virgatus OK OK YChelilanthes siberi OK OK Y Hydrocotyle bonariensis* OK, M OK, M, SD NCissus antartica OK OK N Imperata cylindrica M M YClematis aristata OK OK YImperata cylindrica var.

majorOK, SL OK, SL N Pittosporum revolutum OK OK Y

Indigofera australis OK OK Y Pittosporum undulatum OK, SL OK YIpomoea brasiliensis OK OK Y Planchonella australis OK OK YIpomoea cairica* OK OK Y Platysace lanceolata OK, SL OK YIpomoea indica* OK OK Y Polygalifolium OK OK YIsolepis nodosa OK, SL,

MOK Y Polyscias sambucifolius OK, SL OK Y

Jacksonia scoparia OK OK Y Pomaderris discolor OK OK YKennedia rubicunda OK, M,

SLOK, SD N – susceptible if

fully exposedProtasparagus densiflorus* OK OK Y

Lantana camara* SL, M OK Y Pteridium esculentum OK, SL OK, SL NLeptomeria acida OK OK Y Pultenaea retusa OK OK YLeptospermum

juniperinumOK OK Y Pultenaea villosa OK OK Y

Leptospermumlaevigatum

OK OK N Rapanea variabilis OK, M, SD OK, M Y

Leptospermumliversedgei

OK OK Y Rhagodia candolleana OK, SL, M OK Y

Leptospermumpolygalifolium

OK OK Y Rhodomystus psidioides SL OK Y

Leucopogon ericoides OK OK Y Ricinocarpos pinifolius OK OK YLeucopogon parviflorus OK OK N Ricinus communis OK OK YLeucopogon sp.

(unnamed)OK OK Y Rubus sp.* OK, M OK Y

Leucopogon virgatus OK OK Y Scaevola calendulaceae OK, SL, M, SD OK, SD NLomandra longifolia OK, M OK N Scaevola ramosissima OK OK YLomandra multiflora OK OK Y Schoenus ericetorum OK, SL OK, SL YLupinus cosentinii* OK OK Y Scolopia braunii OK OK YMacaranga tanarius OK OK Y Senna pendula var glabrata* OK OK YMaclura

cochinchinensusOK, M OK Y Senecio linearifolius SL OK Y

Macrozamia sp. OK OK Y Senecio autus subsp. maritima OK OK YMarsdenia rostrata OK OK Y Sesuvium portulacastrum OK, SL OK YMelaleuca armillaris OK OK Y Smilax australis OK, SL OK, M YMelaleuca ericifolia OK OK Y Smilax glyciphylla OK OK YMelaleuca nodosa OK OK Y Solanum nigrum OK OK YMelastoma affine OK OK Y Solanum vescum SL OK YMonotoca elliptica OK OK N Sonchus oleraceus OK OK YMonotoca scoparia OK OK Y Spinifex hirsutus OK OK YMuchenbeckia

gracillimaSL OK Y Spinifex sericeus OK OK Y

Myoporum boninense OK, SD OK, MD Y Sprengelia incarnata M M YMyoporum insulare OK OK Y Stackhousia spathulata OK, M OK, M YMyoporum lucidum OK OK Y Stephania japonica OK, M, SL OK, D YNephrolepis cordifolia* OK OK Y Stylidium graminifolium OK OK YNotelaea longifolia OK, M,

SLOK Y Styphelia viridis subsp.

brevifloraM OK Y

Opuntia sp. OK OK Y Styphelia viridis subsp. viridis OK OK YPandorea pandorana OK, M OK, D Y Syzygium australe OK OK YParsonsia straminea OK OK Y Syzygium oleosum OK, SL OK, OK, M YPelargonium australe OK, SD OK, SD Y Tetragonia tetragonoides OK, M, SL OK YPennisetum

clandestinumOK OK Y Themeda triandra OK, M, SD OK, M, SD Y

Persoonia lanceolata OK OK N Trachymene anisocarpa OK OK YPersoonia linearis OK OK Y Tylophora benthamii OK OK YPersoonia

stradbrocensisSL, M OK, M, SD Y Viminaria juncea SL SL Y

Persoonia tenuifolia M M Y Viola hederacea OK OK YPhebalium squameum OK OK Y Westringia fruticosa OK, M OK, M YPhragmites australis OK, MD OK, SL Y Wikstromia indica SL M YPimelea linifolia OK, M OK, SD Y Zoysia macrantha OK OK YPinus sp.* OK OK Y

a Results presented here are for Roundup® 360 only. These results should not be used to determine the impacts of other glyphosate based products(e.g. Biactive) or when additives have been used with Roundup® 360. Given the paucity of data, the collection of such information is critical toour understanding of herbicide impacts, and thus users are encouraged to collect and report this information to the plan coordinator.

b A) Codes used to assess plant condition at i) 8 weeks and ii) 6 months after herbicide application. All observations are presented, being:OK = no effect on foliage; SL = some foliage burn; M = 25% foliage burn; SD = some dead; MD = most dead

B) Data compiled between 1989–2004, from multiple observers. Where multiple plant conditions were observed, each is presented to illustratethe variability of results observed.

c Comments made by observers on the need for additional observations, being:Y = more observations required; N = no more observations required.

* Denotes that the species is introduced.


133

Table A10.4 Herbicide sensitivity to Brush-Off® (Metsulfuron methyl 600g a.i./kg) of native and someintroduced plants – a compilation of results from 1992–2004 for the spraying of 30g ofBrush-off® in 30 L water ha–1 from a helicopter, during winter (1 June to 31 August)(John Toth unpublished data). These results are for Brush-off® only a.


species name

after 8weeks

after 6months comments c species name

after 8weeks

after 6months comments c

Acacia melanoxylon OK OK Y Juncus kraussii OK OK YAcacia sophorae OK OK Y Kennedia rubicunda OK OK YAcacia suaveolens OK OK Y Leptospermum laevigatum OK OK YAcacia ulicifolia OK OK Y Leptospermum liversedgei OK OK YAcmena smithii OK OK Y Leucopogon ericoides OK OK YActinotus helianthi OK OK Y Leucopogon lanceolatus OK OK YAllocasuarina littoralis OK OK Y Leucopogon parviflorus OK OK YAndropogon virginicus* SL OK Y Leucopogon virgatus OK OK YAotus ericoides OK OK Y Lomandra longifolia OK OK YAstroloma pinifolium OK OK Y Maclura cochinchinensis M OK YBanksia integrifolia OK OK Y Melaleuca quinquenervia OK OK YBanksia serrata OK OK Y Monotoca elliptica OK OK YBillardiera scandens OK OK Y Monotoca scoparia OK OK YBossiaea ensata OK OK Y Muehlenbeckia gracillima SL OK YBossiaea heterophylla OK OK Y Myoporum boninense OK OK YBreynia oblongifolia OK OK Y Pandorea pandorana OK OK YCakile maritima subsp.

maritima*OK OK Y Persoonia lanceolata OK OK Y

Callistemon citrinus OK OK Y Persoonia stradbrokensis SL SL YCanavalia rosea SL OK Y Phebalium squameum OK OK YCarpobrotusglaucescens

M OK Y Pittosporum undulatum OK OK Y

Cassytha pubescens OK OK Y Platycerium bifurcatum OK OK YCasuarina glauca OK OK Y Platysace lanceolata OK OK YCayratia clematidea OK OK Y Polyscias sambucifolius SL SL YConospermumtaxifolium

OK OK Y Pteridium esculentum OK OK Y

Correa alba OK OK Y Pyrrosia rupestris OK OK YCrinum pedunculatum OK OK Y Rhodomyrtus psidioides SL OK YCupaniopsisanarcardioides

OK OK Y Ricinocarpos pinifolius OK OK Y

Cyperus enervis OK OK Y Rubus parvifolius* OK OK YDianella caerulea SL OK Y Scaevola calendulaceae OK OK YDillwynia glabberima OK OK Y Schoenus ericetorum OK OK YEucalyptus pilularis OK OK Y Senecio lautus subsp.

maritimeOK OK Y

Eucalyptus signata OK OK Y Sesuvium portulacastrum M OK YFicus Fraseri M M Y Smilax australis SL OK YGonocarpus teucrioides SD OK Y Spinifex hirsutus OK OK YHardenbergia violacea OK OK Y Spinifex sericeus OK OK YHibbertia fasciculata OK OK Y Stackhousia spathulata OK OK YHibbertia linearis OK OK Y Stephania japonica OK OK YHibbertia obtusifolia OK OK Y Styphelia viridis subsp. viridis OK OK YHibbertia scandens OK OK Y Syzygium australe OK OK YImperata cylindrica OK OK Y Tylophora benthamii OK OK YIpomoea brasiliensis OK OK Y Zoysia macrantha OK OK YIsolepis nodosa OK OK Y

a Results presented here are for Brush-off® only. These results should not be used to determine the impacts when additives have been used withBrush-off®. Given the paucity of data, the collection of such information is critical to our understanding of herbicide impacts, and thus users areencouraged to collect and report this information to the plan coordinator.

b A) Codes used to assess plant condition at i) 8 weeks and ii) 6 months after herbicide application. All observations are presented, being:OK = no effect on foliage; SL = some foliage burn; M = 25% foliage burn; SD = some dead; MD = most dead

B) Data compiled between 1989–2004, from multiple observers. Where multiple plant conditions were observed, each is presented to illustratethe variability of results observed.

c Comments made by observers on the need for additional observations, being:Y = more observations required; N = no more observations required.

* Denotes that the species is introduced.


134

Appendix 11 Map of bitou bush density in NSW

The density of bitou bush in New South Wales, at three scales: high, medium and low (after Thomas 2002).Note: more than one density of bitou bush may be present at any one location.

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

Eden

Batemans Bay

Sydney

Newcastle

Port Macquarie

Coffs Harbour

Byron Bay

�

�

Bega

Nowra

�Forster

� Iluka

�

Legend

Low

Medium

High0 125 250 375 50062.5Kilometres


135

Appendix 12 Distribution maps of high priority species andecological communities in NSW

Distribution maps of the 19 highest priority species within New South Wales were created using dataderived from DEC Wildlife Atlas (DEC 2006b) and the Australian Virtual Herbarium (AVH 2006).Distribution maps were only created for those ecological communities for which information was available.

A) Distribution maps for the 19 high priority species within New South Wales (by priority rank).

1) Plectranthus cremnus 2) Zieria prostrata 3) Chamaesyce psammogeton 4) Senecio spathulatus

5) Acianthus exiguus 6) Calystegia soldanella 7) Chamaecrista maritima 8) Sophora tomentosa

9) Lepturus repens 10) Pultenaea maritima 11) Stackhousia spathulata 12) Ischaemum triticeum


136

A) Distribution maps for the 19 high priority species within New South Wales (by priority rank),continued.

13) Vigna marina 14) Gleichenia mendellii 15) Actites megalocarpa 16) Poa poiformis

17) Fontainea oraria 18) Diuris praecox 19) Westringia fruticosa

B) Distribution maps for the high priority ecological communities within New South Wales, for whichspatial data was available (by priority rank). Distributions of the other high priority ecologicalcommunities were unavailable at the time of writing.

1) Littoral Rainforest 2) Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub

Documents

Approved - NSW THREAT ABATEMENT PLAN · 11.2 Breakdown of the current costs (2005–06) 77. 11.2.1 Bitou bush control at priority sites (Action 1.1) 77. 11.2.2 Development of site-specific