DOCSLIB.ORG

Recovery Plan for Pimelea Spicata Pimelea Spicata Recovery Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

© Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW), 2005 This work is copyright, however material presented in this plan may be copied for personal use or published for educational purposes, providing that any extracts are fully acknowledged. Apart from this and any other use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced without prior written permission from the Department of Environment and Conservation. The NPWS is part of the Department of Environment and Conservation Department of Environment and Conservation 43 Bridge Street (PO Box 1967) Hurstville NSW 2220 www.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au Requests for information or comments regarding the recovery program for Pimelea spicata should be directed to: The Director General, Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) C/- Coordinator Pimelea spicata recovery program Biodiversity Conservation Section, Metropolitan Branch Environment Protection and Regulation Division Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) PO Box 1967 Hurstville NSW 2220 Ph: (02) 9585 6678 Fax: (02) 9585 6442 Cover photograph: Pimelea spicata in flower growing amongst grasses at Mt Warrigal in the Illawarra Photographer: Martin Bremner This Plan should be cited as following: Department of Environment and Conservation (2005) Pimelea spicata R. Br. Recovery Plan. Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW), Hurstville NSW. ISBN: 1 74137 333 6 DEC 2006/181 Approved Recovery Plan for Pimelea spicata Pimelea spicata Recovery Plan Executive summary This document constitutes the formal Commonwealth and New South Wales State Recovery Plan for the small shrub Pimelea spicata (Thymelaeaceae), and as such considers the conservation requirements of the species across its known range. It identifies the future actions to be taken to ensure the long-term viability of P. spicata in nature and the parties who will carry out these actions. Pimelea spicata is listed as endangered in the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and as endangered in the schedules of the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995. The species is a NSW endemic with a relatively scattered distribution occurring in two disjunct areas, the Cumberland Plain (western Sydney) and coastal Illawarra (south of Sydney). There are 30 known extant populations of P. spicata, 25 within the Cumberland Plain and five within the Illawarra coastal region. The majority of populations are small and isolated and the species possesses a restricted area of occupancy of only 17ha. The local extinction of at least two populations has been recorded and there are an additional four populations that may be extinct. In western Sydney, P. spicata is associated with the endangered ecological community Cumberland Plain Woodland and in the Illawarra associated vegetation includes coastal grasslands and tall open forest. Extensive clearing of the Cumberland Plain and coastal Illawarra for urban and rural development has destroyed much of the natural habitat of the species and the remaining habitat is restricted, degraded and highly fragmented. The main threats to the survival of the species are further habitat loss as a result of residential development and habitat degradation, particularly from weed invasion. Other threats include; roadside and parkland maintenance activities (slashing and spraying of herbicide), inappropriate fire regimes, dumping of rubbish and garden waste, and grazing and associated trampling. The overall objective of this recovery plan is to ensure the continued and long-term survival of P. spicata in the wild by promoting the in-situ conservation of the species across its natural range. Specific recovery objectives include: • conserve P. spicata using land-use and conservation planning mechanisms; • identify and minimise the operation of threats at sites where P. spicata occurs; • develop and implement a survey and monitoring program that will provide information on the extent and viability of P. spicata; • provide the community with information that assists in conserving the species; • raise awareness of the species and involve the community in the recovery program; and • conduct research that will assist future management decisions. It is intended that this recovery plan will be implemented over a five year period. The total cost to implement the Plan is $49,000 over five years, although this does not include site management costs or the costs associated with the preparation and implementation of management plans for community land, as these costs are yet to be determined. Lisa Corbyn Bob Debus MP Director General Minister for the Environment Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) i Approved Recovery Plan for Pimelea spicata Acknowledgements This recovery plan is based on a previous Conservation Research Statement and Recovery Plan for Pimelea spicata (NSW NPWS 1993) and incorporates the outcomes of recovery actions implemented under the draft plan (Nash and Matthes 1995; NSW NPWS 1997; Tozer and Robertson 1998). A number of people contributed significantly to the 1993 plan and the implementation of recovery actions, including; Maria Matthes, Sharon Nash, Geoff Robertson, Merin Tozer, Dessalegn Ayallew, and Janelle Brooks. The Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) wishes to acknowledge the following individuals and organisations for their contributions to the development of this recovery plan: • Tony Willis, Julie Matarczyk, Doug Benson, and Jocelyn Howell for providing information and discussions on the ecology of Pimelea spicata. • The following people and their organisations for providing information during preparation of this recovery plan; Diana Picone (Bankstown City Council); Fiona Barnwell and Carolyn Adamcewicz (Blacktown City Council); Rob Corby (Camden Council); Phillip Cleaton (Camden Golf Club); Deryck Linden (Camden Lakeside Country Club); Emma Stephenson (Campbelltown City Council); Katrina Jensz (Commonwealth Department of the Environment and Heritage); Ken Turner (Department of Planning); Ian Tait (Ecosearch); Brian Wilson (Ecotone Ecological Consultants); Teresa James (Environmental Consultant), Rachel Cumming and Michelle Englehard (Hawkesbury City Council); Maree Costigan (Holroyd City Council); Ian Perkins (Ian Perkins Consultancy Services); Peter Stuckey (Kiama Municipal Council); Rebecca Ward (Liverpool City Council); Deb Little, Lotte von Richter, and Richard Johnston (Mount Annan Botanic Gardens); Maria Matthes, Martin Smith and Lyndal Kaye (Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW)); Marlene Spinks (Penrith City Council); Alison Scobie (Shellharbour City Council); Chelsea Wilson (Sydney Catchment Authority); Pam Browne (Wilson Crescent Community Group); and Daryl Wells. • Mt Annan Botanic Garden for allowing monitoring of seedling survival within the gardens. • Department of the Environment and Heritage (previously Environment Australia) through the Australian Government’s Natural Heritage Trust Program for the provision of funding to prepare this recovery plan and also the previous Conservation Research Statement and Recovery Plan. ii Approved Recovery Plan for Pimelea spicata Table of Contents Executive summary ................................................................................................................................................i Acknowledgements................................................................................................................................................ii 1. Introduction................................................................................................................................................ 1 2. Legislative context...................................................................................................................................... 1 2.1 Conservation status..................................................................................................................... 1 2.2 Recovery plan preparation .......................................................................................................... 1 2.3 Recovery plan implementation.................................................................................................... 1 2.4 Relationship to other legislation and planning instruments ........................................................ 2 2.5 Environmental assessment .......................................................................................................... 2 2.6 Key threatening processes........................................................................................................... 3 2.7 Critical habitat............................................................................................................................. 3 3. Taxonomy and description........................................................................................................................ 4 4. Distribution, abundance and land tenure ................................................................................................ 4 4.1 Current distribution..................................................................................................................... 4 4.2 Historical distribution.................................................................................................................. 7 4.3 Population size and area.............................................................................................................. 7 4.4 Land tenure and zoning..............................................................................................................
Recommended publications
  • Thymelaeaceae)

    Thymelaeaceae)

    Origin and diversification of the Australasian genera Pimelea and Thecanthes (Thymelaeaceae) by MOLEBOHENG CYNTHIA MOTS! Thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree PHILOSOPHIAE DOCTOR in BOTANY in the FACULTY OF SCIENCE at the UNIVERSITY OF JOHANNESBURG Supervisor: Dr Michelle van der Bank Co-supervisors: Dr Barbara L. Rye Dr Vincent Savolainen JUNE 2009 AFFIDAVIT: MASTER'S AND DOCTORAL STUDENTS TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN This serves to confirm that I Moleboheng_Cynthia Motsi Full Name(s) and Surname ID Number 7808020422084 Student number 920108362 enrolled for the Qualification PhD Faculty _Science Herewith declare that my academic work is in line with the Plagiarism Policy of the University of Johannesburg which I am familiar. I further declare that the work presented in the thesis (minor dissertation/dissertation/thesis) is authentic and original unless clearly indicated otherwise and in such instances full reference to the source is acknowledged and I do not pretend to receive any credit for such acknowledged quotations, and that there is no copyright infringement in my work. I declare that no unethical research practices were used or material gained through dishonesty. I understand that plagiarism is a serious offence and that should I contravene the Plagiarism Policy notwithstanding signing this affidavit, I may be found guilty of a serious criminal offence (perjury) that would amongst other consequences compel the UJ to inform all other tertiary institutions of the offence and to issue a corresponding certificate of reprehensible academic conduct to whomever request such a certificate from the institution. Signed at _Johannesburg on this 31 of _July 2009 Signature Print name Moleboheng_Cynthia Motsi STAMP COMMISSIONER OF OATHS Affidavit certified by a Commissioner of Oaths This affidavit cordons with the requirements of the JUSTICES OF THE PEACE AND COMMISSIONERS OF OATHS ACT 16 OF 1963 and the applicable Regulations published in the GG GNR 1258 of 21 July 1972; GN 903 of 10 July 1998; GN 109 of 2 February 2001 as amended.
  • Approved Plant List 10/04/12

    Approved Plant List 10/04/12

    FLORIDA The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago, the second best time to plant a tree is today. City of Sunrise Approved Plant List 10/04/12 Appendix A 10/4/12 APPROVED PLANT LIST FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES SG xx Slow Growing “xx” = minimum height in Small Mature tree height of less than 20 feet at time of planting feet OH Trees adjacent to overhead power lines Medium Mature tree height of between 21 – 40 feet U Trees within Utility Easements Large Mature tree height greater than 41 N Not acceptable for use as a replacement feet * Native Florida Species Varies Mature tree height depends on variety Mature size information based on Betrock’s Florida Landscape Plants Published 2001 GROUP “A” TREES Common Name Botanical Name Uses Mature Tree Size Avocado Persea Americana L Bahama Strongbark Bourreria orata * U, SG 6 S Bald Cypress Taxodium distichum * L Black Olive Shady Bucida buceras ‘Shady Lady’ L Lady Black Olive Bucida buceras L Brazil Beautyleaf Calophyllum brasiliense L Blolly Guapira discolor* M Bridalveil Tree Caesalpinia granadillo M Bulnesia Bulnesia arboria M Cinnecord Acacia choriophylla * U, SG 6 S Group ‘A’ Plant List for Single Family Homes Common Name Botanical Name Uses Mature Tree Size Citrus: Lemon, Citrus spp. OH S (except orange, Lime ect. Grapefruit) Citrus: Grapefruit Citrus paradisi M Trees Copperpod Peltophorum pterocarpum L Fiddlewood Citharexylum fruticosum * U, SG 8 S Floss Silk Tree Chorisia speciosa L Golden – Shower Cassia fistula L Green Buttonwood Conocarpus erectus * L Gumbo Limbo Bursera simaruba * L
  • Sydney Harbour a Systematic Review of the Science 2014

    Sydney Harbour a Systematic Review of the Science 2014

    Sydney Harbour A systematic review of the science 2014 Sydney Institute of Marine Science Technical Report The Sydney Harbour Research Program © Sydney Institute of Marine Science, 2014 This publication is copyright. You may download, display, print and reproduce this material provided that the wording is reproduced exactly, the source is acknowledged, and the copyright, update address and disclaimer notice are retained. Disclaimer The authors of this report are members of the Sydney Harbour Research Program at the Sydney Institute of Marine Science and represent various universities, research institutions and government agencies. The views presented in this report do not necessarily reflect the views of The Sydney Institute of Marine Science or the authors other affiliated institutions listed below. This report is a review of other literature written by third parties. Neither the Sydney Institute of Marine Science or the affiliated institutions take responsibility for the accuracy, currency, reliability, and correctness of any information included in this report provided in third party sources. Recommended Citation Hedge L.H., Johnston E.L., Ayoung S.T., Birch G.F., Booth D.J., Creese R.G., Doblin M.A., Figueira W.F., Gribben P.E., Hutchings P.A., Mayer Pinto M, Marzinelli E.M., Pritchard T.R., Roughan M., Steinberg P.D., 2013, Sydney Harbour: A systematic review of the science, Sydney Institute of Marine Science, Sydney, Australia. National Library of Australia Cataloging-in-Publication entry ISBN: 978-0-646-91493-0 Publisher: The Sydney Institute of Marine Science, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia Available on the internet from www.sims.org.au For further information please contact: SIMS, Building 19, Chowder Bay Road, Mosman NSW 2088 Australia T: +61 2 9435 4600 F: +61 2 9969 8664 www.sims.org.au ABN 84117222063 Cover Photo | Mike Banert North Head The light was changing every minute.
  • Chrysanthemoides Monilifera Ssp

    Chrysanthemoides Monilifera Ssp

    MANAGEMENT OF BONESEED (CHRYSANTHEMOIDES MONILIFERA SSP. MONILIFERA) (L.) T. NORL. USING FIRE, HERBICIDES AND OTHER TECHNIQUES IN AUSTRALIAN WOODLANDS Rachel L. Melland Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy School of Agriculture, Food and Wine University of Adelaide August 2007 Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................................... II ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................ VI DECLARATION ................................................................................................................ VIII ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................. IX CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 1 1.1 AIMS OF THIS THESIS .......................................................................................................... 3 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................... 5 2.1 PROCESSES OF NATIVE ECOSYSTEM DEGRADATION ............................................................ 5 2.2 GLOBAL PLANT INVASIONS – ECOSYSTEM DEGRADING PROCESSES .................................... 6 2.3 THE ENVIRONMENTAL WEED PROBLEM IN AUSTRALIA ..................................................... 10 2.4 CAUSES AND PROCESSES OF INVASIVENESS .....................................................................
  • Effects of Sydney Coastal Dry Sclerophyll Forest Litter on Fuels and Fire Behaviour in Hornsby Shire

    Effects of Sydney Coastal Dry Sclerophyll Forest Litter on Fuels and Fire Behaviour in Hornsby Shire

    Effects of Sydney Coastal Dry Sclerophyll Forest Litter on Fuels and Fire Behaviour in Hornsby Shire Angela G. Gormley A thesis submitted to fulfil requirements for the degree of Master of Philosophy School of Life and Environmental Sciences Faculty of Science The University of Sydney February 2019 ii Angela G. Gormley iii O! for a muse of fire, that would ascend the brightest heaven of invention Prologue The Life of King Henry V William Shakespeare iv Acknowledgements Most universities ban their students from setting fire to litter on the campus so it was necessary to transfer to the School of Life and Environmental Sciences, The University of Sydney, halfway through my degree. My supervisors, Assoc. Prof. Tina Bell and Dr Malcolm Possell, solved all my problems during our first meeting. I appreciate their guidance with my research, their support and, they took my research in an interesting direction. I would like to thank Veronica Quintanilla Berjon for help with the burning experiments. The School of Life and Environmental Sciences provided me with the facilities and equipment that were necessary to support my research. I appreciate the financial assistance and networking opportunities provided by the Bushfire and Natural Hazards Cooperative Research Centre. I appreciate the support of Amelia Jones and Michelle Brown from Hornsby Shire Council because they encouraged me to keep trying when it seemed impossible for my research to continue. They assisted me with access to sites, maps, accompanied me on my field trips and provided a lot of useful information. I would like to thank students and staff at the School of Life and Environmental Sciences and the Sydney Institute of Agriculture, The University of Sydney, because a friendly and sociable environment makes studying more enjoyable.
  • Biodiversity Assessment Report (BAR) Template for Refs Biodiversity Assessment Practice Note - EIA- N06

    Biodiversity Assessment Report (BAR) Template for Refs Biodiversity Assessment Practice Note - EIA- N06

    Resource 3 Biodiversity Assessment Report (BAR) Template for REFs Biodiversity Assessment Practice Note - EIA- N06 BLANK PAGE Spring Farm Parkway Stage 1 Biodiversity Assessment Report Roads and Maritime Services | February 2019 BLANK PAGE Spring Farm Parkway Stage 1 Biodiversity Assessment Report Roads and Maritime Services | February 2019 Prepared by Niche Environment and Heritage Pty Ltd Provide Roads and Maritime Services Publication Number Provide details and any disclaimers Document control Project no.: 3986 Project client: Roads and Maritime Services Project office: Wollongong Document description: Spring Farm Parkway Biodiversity Assessment Report Project Manager: Sian Griffiths Authors: Sian Griffiths Internal review: Evelyn Craigie Document status: Final R4 Local Government Area: Campbelltown Council Document revision status Author Revision Internal Date issued number review Sian Griffiths D1 Evelyn Craigie 18/10/2018 Sian Griffiths R0 Paul Amos 19/10/2018 (Roads and Maritime) Sian Griffiths R1 David 31/10/2018 Tawadros (Roads and Maritime) Sian Griffiths R2 09/11/2018 Sian Griffiths R3 12/02/2019 Sian Griffiths R4 15/02/2019 Executive summary NSW Roads and Maritime Services (Roads and Maritime) is proposing to deliver Spring Farm Parkway Stage 1 which would provide access to a new housing subdivision being developed by Dahua Pty Ltd on the western side of the Hume Motorway. Access, to the new housing subdivision, would be provided to and from the Hume Motorway and Menangle Road. The proposal has strong short-term benefits in meeting access requirements for housing release in the urban development whilst enabling the realisation of longer term future network benefits. Methods for the biodiversity assessment involved a background review of relevant literature and databases, habitat assessment to determine the species with potential to occur in the study area and field survey, including targeted searches for threatened species with potential habitat in the study area.
  • Taxonomic Overview of Ligustrum (Oleaceae) Naturalizaed in North America North of Mexico

    Taxonomic Overview of Ligustrum (Oleaceae) Naturalizaed in North America North of Mexico

    Phytologia (December 2009) 91(3) 467 TAXONOMIC OVERVIEW OF LIGUSTRUM (OLEACEAE) NATURALIZAED IN NORTH AMERICA NORTH OF MEXICO Guy L. Nesom 2925 Hartwood Drive Fort Worth, TX 76109, USA www.guynesom.com ABSTRACT A key, morphological descriptions, and basic synonymy are provided for the eight species of Ligustrum known to be naturalized in North America north of Mexico: L. japonicum, L. lucidum, L. obtusifolium (including L. amurense), L. ovalifolium, L. quihoui, L. sinense, L. tschonoskii, and L. vulgare. Identifications have been inconsistent particularly between L. sinense and L. vulgare and between L. japonicum and L. lucidum. The occurrence of L. quihoui outside of cultivation in Arkansas, Mississippi, and Oklahoma is documented. Phytologia 91(3): 467-482 (December, 2009). KEY WORDS: Ligustrum, Oleaceae, North America, naturalized, taxonomy The lustrous, mostly evergreen leaves and masses of white, fragrant flowers make privets popular for landscaping and hedges. Many of the species, however, have become naturalized in the USA and Canada and already have proved to be destructive colonizers, especially in the Southeast. Among the naturalized species, European privet (Ligustrum vulgare) is native to Europe and northern Africa; all the rest are native to Asia, mainly China, Japan, and Korea. Many new species and varieties of Ligustrum have been described since overviews of Koehne (1904), Lingelsheim (1920), and Mansfield (1924). The genus in eastern Asia has recently been studied by Chang & Miao (1986), and Qin (2009) has provided a taxonomic overview of the whole genus that recognizes 37 species - divided into five sections based primarily on fruit and seed morphology. In Qin’s arrangement, among the North American species, sect.
  • 2017 NSW Landscape Architecture Award Winners

    2017 NSW Landscape Architecture Award Winners

    20 17 NSW Landscape Architecture Awards Principal Corporate Partner Major Corporate Partners Supporting Corporate Partners Principal NSW Partners Major NSW Partners Supporting NSW Partners Jury Report NSW AILA Awards 2017 The NSW 2017 awards jury was a diverse group of 7 landscape architects and urban designers. It consisted of three male and four female jurors and represented academia, government, large and small private practice and the AILA. The jury made the decision to undertake site visits to a select group of projects and found this process essential in fully understanding projects and informing decision making. With the largest number of award entries ever received, the 2017 NSW awards offered a true indication of the breadth of project work being undertaken by landscape architects. There is no doubt that NSW is experiencing a time of massive urban restructuring. Urban centres are densifying, expanding and growing at speed. Grey is threatening green and landscape architects are working on challenges of social equity and environmental resilience across all scales. The debate about open space in the city, how much, what type and where, continues to underpin most strategic investigations, yet the voice is now charged with a growing ‘evidence base’ to argue for better quality, better connectivity and more trees. As urban centres expand and densify, they are also connecting, and mega scaled infrastructure projects are being reconceptualised by landscape architects as catalysts for change. Landscape architects across the state are turning infrastructure projects once seen as environmental threats into vital opportunities for large scale remaking, restoration and environmental stewardship of the vast landscapes which they cross and connect.
  • New M5 EIS Vol 2H App S Biodiversity Assessment

    New M5 EIS Vol 2H App S Biodiversity Assessment

    New M5 Environmental Impact Statement Biodiversity Assessment Report Appendix S November 2015 WestConnex The New M5: Biodiversity Assessment Report DOCUMENT TRACKING Item Detail Project Name The New M5 Environmental Impact Assessment Project Number 14SYD_349 Meredith Henderson Project Manager 02 8536 8650 299 Sussex Street Sydney, NSW 2000 Prepared by Matthew Dowle, Meredith Henderson, Danielle Adams-Bennett Reviewed by Ryan Smithers Approved by Mark Adams Status FINAL Version Number 8 Last saved on 19 November 2015 This report should be cited as ‘Eco Logical Australia 2015. The New M5 - Biodiversity Assessment Report. Prepared for Roads and Maritime Services of NSW.’ ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This document has been prepared by Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd with support from Roads and Maritime Services of NSW and AECOM. Disclaimer This document may only be used for the purpose for which it was commissioned and in accordance with the contract between Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd and Roads and Maritime Services of NSW. The scope of services was defined in consultation with Roads and Maritime Services of NSW, by time and budgetary constraints imposed by the client, and the availability of reports and other data on the subject area. Changes to available information, legislation and schedules are made on an ongoing basis and readers should obtain up to date information. Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for or in respect of any use of or reliance upon this report and its supporting material by any third party. Information provided is not intended to be a substitute for site specific assessment or legal advice in relation to any matter.
  • Listing Advice

    Listing Advice

    The Minister listed this as a key threatening process, effective from 8 January 2010 Advice to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts from the Threatened Species Scientific Committee (the Committee) on Amendments to the List of Key Threatening Processes under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) 1. Name and description of the threatening process 1.1 Title of the process Loss and degradation of native plant and animal habitat by invasion of escaped garden plants, including aquatic plants. 1.2 Name Changes The original title of the nomination was ‘Loss and degradation of native plant and animal habitat by invasion of escaped garden plants’. The Committee changed the name of the nomination to ‘Loss and degradation of native plant and animal habitat by invasion of escaped garden plants, including aquatic plants’ to reflect that the threatening process is not restricted to the terrestrial environment. 1.3 Description of the process The homogenisation of the global flora and fauna through the mass movement of species is creating one of the greatest environmental challenges facing the planet (Wilson, 1992). In natural ecosystems, invasive plants impact negatively on the biodiversity of many Australian vegetation types ranging from tropical wetlands to arid riverine vegetation. Leigh and Briggs (1992) identified weed competition as the primary cause for the extinction of at least four native plant species, and estimated that another 57 species were threatened or would become so in the future through competition of weeds. These figures almost certainly underestimate the contemporary problem by a large margin. The gardening industry is by far the largest importer of introduced plant species, being the source for the introduction of 25 360 or 94% of non-native plant species into Australia (Virtue et al., 2004).
  • Identification and Control of Invasive Privets (Ligustrum Spp.) in the Middle Southern United States

    Identification and Control of Invasive Privets (Ligustrum Spp.) in the Middle Southern United States

    Invasive Plant Science and Management 2010 3:482–488 Notes and Commentary Identification and Control of Invasive Privets (Ligustrum spp.) in the Middle Southern United States Victor Maddox, John Byrd, Jr., and Brett Serviss* The identification of privet in the middle southern United States can be difficult. Because most introduced species of privet can be invasive, and recent mapping projects seek location and species population data, proper identification is important. Without proper identification of privet species, data on species distributions and other pertinent information regarding invasiveness could lead to improper conclusions. Currently, information on privet identification is scattered throughout a number of reference materials. The purpose of this publication is to assist with the proper identification of escaped privet species, and suggest management options. Nomenclature: Fosamine ammonium; glyphosate; hexazinone; imazapyr; metsulfuron; triclopyr; 2,4-D; 2,4-DP; Amur privet, Ligustrum obtusifolium Sieb. & Zucc. var. suave (Kitagawa) Kitagawa (Syn. L. amurense Carrie`re); border privet, Ligustrum obtusifolium Sieb. & Zucc. var. obtusifolium; California privet, Ligustrum ovalifolium Hassk.; Chinese privet, Ligustrum sinense Lour.; common privet, Ligustrum vulgare L.; glossy privet, Ligustrum lucidum Ait.; Japanese privet, Ligustrum japonicum Thunb.; waxyleaf privet, Ligustrum quihoui Carrie`re. Key words: Invasive species, management. Since the 1700s, at least nine species of privets have been Thunb.) is native to Korea and Japan. The most common introduced into the United States; it is probable that all species in the southern portion of the middle southern were introduced as ornamentals. They have been very region is Chinese privet, although Amu, border, California, successful as ornamentals and continue to be marketed for common or European, glossy, Japanese, and waxyleaf or such purposes.
  • Strategic Assessment Report, Heathcote Ridge, West Menai

    Strategic Assessment Report, Heathcote Ridge, West Menai

    STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT REPORT HEATHCOTE RIDGE, WEST MENAI November 2012 Prepared for Gandangara Local Aboriginal Land Council By Cumberland Ecology with input from BBC Consulting Planners and 1. PURPOSE AND DESCRIPTION .......................................................................... 3 1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 3 1.1.1 Background........................................................................................................... 3 1.2 The Program ..................................................................................................... 4 1.2.1 Background........................................................................................................... 4 1.2.2 Proposed Development Concept ..................................................................... 5 1.3 Regional Context ............................................................................................. 12 1.4 Land Use Planning .......................................................................................... 13 1.4.1 Land to Which the SEPP Amendment will Apply ............................................ 13 1.4.2 Proposed Land Use Zones ................................................................................. 13 1.4.3 Principal Development Standards ................................................................... 14 1.4.4 Consent Authority ..............................................................................................