Approved - NSW THREAT ABATEMENT PLAN

Invasion of native plant communities 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) 2006 This work is protected by copyright. No part of this publication may be reproduced without the prior written permission of the Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW DEC), except where permitted under the Copyright Act 1968.

Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) Parks and Wildlife Division Pest Management Unit 43 Bridge Street PO Box 1967 Hurstville NSW 2220 Telephone: 1300 361 967 Website: http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/index.htm

For further information regarding this plan contact: Bitou bush threat abatement plan coordinator Pest Management Unit Parks and Wildlife Division Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) PO Box 1967 Hurstville NSW 2220

Cover photos: 1 Flowers of bitou bush (Chrysanthemoides monilifera subsp. rotundata) – Hillary Cherry 1 2 Flowers of boneseed (Chrysanthemoides monilifera subsp. monilifera) – 3 Hillary Cherry 2 3 Chrysanthemoides monilifera subsp. rotundata (bitou bush) infestation near Wooli, New South Wales – Paul Downey

4–8 High priority species threatened by Chrysanthemoides monilifera 4 Zieria smithii – Jackie Miles and Max Campbell 4 5 6 7 8 5 Eastern suburbs banksia scrub – P.H. Glass 6 Senecio spathulatus – Jackie Miles and Max Campbell 7 Calystegia soldanella – Jackie Miles and Max Campbell 8 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 Threat Abatement Plan - Invasion of native plant communities by Chrysanthemoides monilifera

Table of contents Page Executive summary iv Preface vi What is a threat abatement plan? vi The draft Bitou TAP and this final TAP vi The 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 3 2.1 National legislation, policies, strategies and programs 3 2.1.1 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 3 2.1.2 Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code Act 3 2.1.3 Biological Control Act 4 2.1.4 Commonwealth Coastal Policy 4 2.1.5 National Weeds Strategy 5 2.1.6 Weeds of National Significance 6 2.1.7 Cooperative Research Centre for Australian Weed Management 6 2.1.8 Natural Heritage Trust initiatives 6 2.1.9 Defeating the Weeds Menace initiative 7 2.1.10 Other national legislation, policies, strategies and programs 8 2.2 NSW legislation, policies, strategies and programs 8 2.2.1 NSW Noxious Weeds Act 8 2.2.2 NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 9 2.2.3 NSW Pesticides Act 10 2.2.4 Protection of the Environment Operations Act 11 2.2.5 NSW National Parks and Wildlife Act 11 2.2.6 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 12 2.2.7 Local Government Act 13 2.2.8 Catchment Management Authorities 13 2.2.9 NSW Coastal Policy 13 2.2.10 NSW Weeds Strategy 14 2.2.11 NSW Biodiversity Strategy 14 2.2.12 Strategies to manage bitou bush in New South Wales 14 2.2.13 Other NSW legislation, policies, strategies and programs 16 3 The biology and ecology of bitou bush and boneseed 17 3.1 Plant descriptions and biology 17 3.1.1 Bitou bush (Chrysanthemoides monilifera subsp. rotundata)17 3.1.2 Boneseed (Chrysanthemoides monilifera subsp. monilifera)18 3.2 Bitou bush and boneseed as environmental weeds 19 3.2.1 Arrival and spread of bitou bush in Australia 19 3.2.2 Arrival and spread of boneseed in Australia 20 3.2.3 Invasion by bitou bush and boneseed 20 3.2.4 Habitats invaded by bitou bush and boneseed 21 4 The impact of bitou bush and boneseed invasions on native plant communities 22 4.1 Bitou bush and boneseed invasions and biodiversity 22 4.1.1 Disturbance and bitou bush and boneseed invasions 23 4.2 Plant species, populations and ecological communities at risk 24 4.2.1 Why select biodiversity at risk? 24 4.2.2 Selecting and prioritising plant species at risk from invasion 24 4.2.3 High priority species 26 4.2.4 Selecting and prioritising plant populations at risk 30 4.2.5 High priority plant populations 31 4.2.6 Selecting and prioritising ecological communities at risk 32

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

Table of contents Page

4.2.7 High priority ecological communities 33 4.2.8 Revising the priority lists of species, populations and ecological communities 36 5 The impact of bitou bush and boneseed invasions on fauna 37 5.1 Interactions between bitou bush and vertebrates (birds and mammals) 37 5.2 Interactions between bitou bush and invertebrates 39 6 Determining priority sites for bitou bush control 41 6.1 Selecting and prioritising sites 41 6.1.1 Control categories 42 6.2 Bitou bush control 42 6.2.1 Control category 1 sites (high priority) 42 6.2.2 Control category 2–5 sites 43 6.2.3 Control at locations not addressed in this plan 44 7 Control of bitou bush and boneseed 45 7.1 Control techniques 45 7.2 Issues associated with bitou bush and boneseed control 47 7.3 Follow-up treatments 48 7.4 A staged approach to bitou bush control 49 7.4.1 Littoral rainforest - an example of a staged approach 50 7.5 Site-specific management 50 7.5.1 A framework for site-specific management plans 50 7.6 Infestation levels and control options 51 7.7 Areas presently free of bitou bush and boneseed in NSW 53 7.7.1 Areas at risk of invasion by bitou bush and boneseed 53 7.8 The ‘no change in current management’ control option 53 7.9 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 55 8.1 Developing a monitoring system for control category 1 sites 55 8.1.1 Measuring the effect of control programs on bitou bush infestations 56 8.1.2 Measuring the response of high priority species, populations and ecological communities to bitou bush control 57 8.1.3 Measuring the response of other weed species to bitou bush control 57 8.1.4 Proposed monitoring system 57 8.2 Monitoring other variables of importance to the TAP 58 8.2.1 Measuring the response of priority species to herbicide 58 8.2.2 Measuring the response of priority species to non-herbicide control 59 8.2.3 Measuring the spread of bitou bush and boneseed in NSW 59 8.2.4 Specific monitoring and research to help reduce impacts 59 8.2.5 Monitoring fauna impacts 60 9 A strategy to minimise the impact of Chrysanthemoides monilifera on priority biodiversity in New South Wales 61 9.1 Background 61 9.2 Aims and objectives of the Bitou TAP 61 9.3 Objective 1: Priority bitou bush control programs 62 9.3.1 Action 1.1 63 9.3.2 Actions 1.2 and 1.3 64 9.3.3 Action 1.4 64 9.4 Objective 2: Monitor the effectiveness of bitou bush control programs 65 9.4.1 Action 2.1 65 9.4.2 Action 2.2 66 9.4.3 Action 2.3 66 9.4.4 Action 2.4 66 9.5 Objective 3: Native plant species and bitou bush 67 9.5.1 Action 3.1 67 9.6 Objective 4: Public involvement and awareness 67 ii Threat Abatement Plan - Invasion of native plant communities by Chrysanthemoides monilifera

Table of contents Page

9.6.1 Action 4.1 67 9.6.2 Action 4.2 69 9.7 Objective 5: Bitou TAP coordinator 69 9.7.1 Action 5.1 69 9.8 Objective 6: Impact of bitou invasions on fauna 70 9.8.1 Action 6.1 70 9.9 Objective 7: Effect of bitou bush control on fauna 71 9.9.1 Action 7.1 71 9.10 Objective 8: Review data and set future priorities 72 9.10.1 Action 8.1 and 8.2 72 10 Social and economic impacts of the Bitou TAP 74 11 Costs and implementation of this TAP 76 11.1 Summary of the current expenditure associated with proposed actions outlined in this TAP 76 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 management plans (Actions 1.2 and 1.3) 78 11.2.3 Bitou control in northern and southern containment zones (Action 1.4) 78 11.2.4 Monitor bitou bush control programs at priority sites (Action 2.1) 78 11.2.5 Determining the effects of herbicide on threatened species (Action 2.2) 78 11.2.6 Monitoring the spread of bitou bush and boneseed (Action 2.3) 79 11.2.7 Developing a management strategy for boneseed (Action 2.4) 79 11.2.8 Decline in native plants due to bitou bush (Action 3.1) 79 11.2.9 Coordination and training of volunteers (Action 4.1) 79 11.2.10 Public awareness of the Bitou TAP (Action 4.2) 79 11.2.11 Bitou TAP coordinator (Action 5.1) 80 11.2.12 Bitou bush and fauna (Actions 6.1–7.2) 80 11.2.13 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 communities threatened 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 and ecological 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

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

Executive summary

Since the arrival of Chrysanthemoides monilifera subsp. rotundata (bitou bush) from South Africa in 1908, this highly invasive shrub has spread to occupy approximately 80% of coastal New South Wales. 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 be no area of the NSW coast unaffected. It forms dense infestations that smother sand dune, headland and 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 a key threatening process under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act) in 1999. In accordance with the TSC Act, the Department of Environment and Conservation has finalised a Threat Abatement Plan (TAP) which proposes actions to reduce the impacts of C. monilifera on biodiversity, particularly threatened species, populations and ecological communities. 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 the species, populations and ecological communities at greatest risk and where C. monilifera control programs are likely to have the most significant outcome for such threatened biodiversity. While this TAP establishes a strategic approach to deliver statewide conservation benefits, other C. monilifera management programs will occur independently of this TAP, for example, at high visitation areas within national parks, or where small isolated patches can be easily treated before they become problematic.

Nationally, C. monilifera poses a direct threat to at least 30 threatened plant species and one ecological community listed under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). Within New South Wales, it poses a direct threat to at least 55 threatened plant species, three endangered plant populations and 15 endangered ecological communities (EEC) listed under the TSC Act. It also threatens another 103 plant species and 11 ecological communities not formally recognised as threatened (i.e. under threatened species legislation). In addition, there are potentially many other plant species and ecological communities that are under threat 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) independent of land tenure < monitor the effectiveness of control programs in terms of the recovery of the biodiversity 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 for the conservation of native plant species and ecological communities in New South Wales. The Bitou TAP determines priority plant species, populations and ecological communities that are at risk and identifies locations of such biodiversity to determine priority sites for the control of

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

C. monilifera. This matrix of threatened entities (species, populations and ecological communities) by sites establishes statewide as well as regional priorities for C. monilifera control which 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 ensure best practice management, site-specific management plans are to be developed for priority sites. These plans will maximise effectiveness of control programs while minimising any negative impacts 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 the Bitou 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 monitoring programs is critical in determining the success of this plan and to refine future control methods and guide future priorities.

While the development of this plan has substantially increased our understanding of the impact of C. monilifera on native plant communities, significant additional information is still needed. For example, with respect to: i) the effects of C. monilifera and its control on fauna species, ii) how native 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, the actual cost associated with each of these actions in the 2005–06 financial year is presented here as a guide to the estimated cost of implementing this TAP. The cost of implementing these actions in 2005–06 was $2,845,500. This included expenditure by the DEC, Department of Lands (DoL), numerous councils, the five coastal Catchment Management Authorities (CMAs) and the University of Wollongong. Those actions currently unfunded are not presented in the costing of this TAP (these are research actions which target the knowledge gaps identified during the preparation of this TAP). It is anticipated that the actual expenditure in 2005–06 is a reasonable estimate of the actual annual cost of implementing this plan, assuming that a similar level of commitment 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. Actions in 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 a range of other stakeholders are currently involved with the actions outlined in this TAP. These groups along with local government, CMAs, private landholders and the community are encouraged to participate in the implementation of this TAP.

Lisa Corbyn Hon Bob Debus Director General Minister for the Environment

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

Preface

What is a threat abatement plan?

A threat abatement plan or TAP is a statutory document prepared in accordance with the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act), for a key threatening process (KTP) listed under the Act. The TAP’s principle aim is to reduce, abate or ameliorate the threat posed by the KTP to threatened species, populations and ecological communities, or those species which may become threatened as a result of the KTP. A TAP is a five year plan to reduce, abate or ameliorate the threat, rather than an eradication strategy per se. This is because the nature of some KTPs precludes 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 identified under 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 plant communities by bitou bush/boneseed (Chrysanthemoides monilifera) was released for public comment (see DEC 2004). After the public exhibition period, the draft TAP was revised based on the written submissions received. A statement of how these submissions were addressed in the amended plan formed part of the approval process for the final TAP. While the objectives of the TAP have not changed in terms of the actions, the major amendments to the TAP between the draft and this final version include: a) a revision of the species model b) the development of a population and ecological community model c) the inclusion of 95 additional species, 1 population and 17 ecological communities at risk d) 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 risk f) a revised process for ranking sites g) a revised number and list of priority sites (i.e. Category 1 sites) h) a new action relating to the northern and southern containment zones i) a new action relating to the mapping of boneseed and the development of a management strategy j) updated costings k) 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 in accordance with the TSC Act.

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

Acknowledgments

This document was written by Dr Paul Downey (Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW DEC) 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 Aaron Coutts-Smith, Phil Craven, Sharon Davern, Alex Deura, Mike Dodkin, John Eaton, Joanne Edney, Vicki Elliot, 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, Brendon Neilly, Brad Nesbitt, Clare O'Brien, Samantha Olson, Russell Palmer, Brett Pengilley, Liz Phelps, Lucinda Ransom, Tim Scanlon, Mel Schroder, Craig Shepherd, Libby Shields, Martin Smith, Jeff Thomas, Julia Visser, Maxine Walker, Ross Wellington, Lisa Wellman, Graham Wilson and Peter Windle.

Local government staff (in alphabetical order): Richard Ali (Warringah Council), Greg Banks (Greater Taree City Council), Mat Bell (Great Lakes Council), Ian Borrowdale (Shoalhaven City Council), Hank Bower (Byron Shire Council), Stewart Brawley (Tweed Shire Council), Jai Cooper (Greater Taree City Council), Andrew Coughlan (Sutherland Shire Council), David Croft (Sutherland Shire Council), Geoff Doret (Sutherland Shire Council), Greg Egan (Kempsey Council), Leigh Ernst (Port Stephens Council), Ian Gaskell (Ballina Council), Christine Guthrie (Sutherland Shire Council), Graham Harding (Eurobodalla Shire 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 (Clarence Valley 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), Ian Turnbull (Bellingen Shire Council), Eva Twarkowski (Pittwater Council) and Darren Williams (Wyong Shire 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 Regional Weeds Committee), David Burton (NSW Golf Club), Phillip Busuttil (Clarkes Beach Caravan Park), Nick Dexter (DEH), Rod Ensby (NSW Agriculture), Paul Flower, Kris French (UoW), Daintry Gerrand, Russ Glover (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 Weeds Committee), Tanya Mason (UoW), Gerard Proust, Rita Roberts (St Michael's Golf Course) and Kerry Thompson. 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, Jeff Thomas (DEC) made a significant contribution to the draft and the final TAP, especially with respect to selecting species at risk, sites and feedback on the content of the TAP, and Clare O’Brien (DEC) collated site information and assisted in the development of the new site assessment system. Thank you again to all those who helped. It would not have been possible to complete this TAP without your assistance. If anyone has been excluded it is an oversight and your help is hereby acknowledged in hindsight.

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

List of abbreviations used

Abbreviation expanded text Agvet Act Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code 1994 (Commonwealth) [also Agvet Chemicals] ANZECC Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council APVMA Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (formerly NRA) AQIS Australian Quarantine Inspection Service ARMCANZ Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand AWC Australian Weeds Committee BC 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 Agreement CAP Catchment Action Plan CCP Commonwealth Coastal Policy CMA Catchment Management Authority CRC Cooperative Research Centre DAFF Department of Agricultural Forestry and Fisheries Australia DEC Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW: incorporating the former NPWS and EPA) DEH Department of the Environment and Heritage DoD Department of Defence DoL Department of Lands (NSW) DPI Department of Primary Industries (NSW) DWM Defeating the Weeds Menace EEC Endangered Ecological Community as defined under the NSW TSC Act and the EPBC Act EPA 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 Scrub GIS Geographical Information System IWM Integrated Weed Management JAMBA Japan–Australia Migratory Bird Agreement KDF Kurnell Dune Forest KTP Key Threatening Process LCA Local Control Authorities (referring to regions under the Noxious Weeds Act 1993) LGA Local Government Area LG Act Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) NCWAC North Coast Weeds Advisory Committee NHT Natural Heritage Trust NP National Park NPW 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 Reserve NRA National Registration Authority for agricultural and veterinary chemicals (now APVMA) NRC Natural Resource Commission NRM Natural Resource Management NRMSC Natural Resource Management Standing Committee NW Act Noxious Weeds Act 1993 (NSW) NWAC NSW Noxious Weeds Advisory Committee NWS National Weeds Strategy PAS Priorities Action Statement PoM Plan of Management POEA polyoxethylene amine POEO Act Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 QNR&M Queensland Department of Natural Resources and Mines RCC Regional Competitive Component RBG Royal Botanic Gardens RMP Regional Management Plans ROTAP Rare or threatened Australian plants SCA State Conservation Area (formerly SRA: State Recreation Area) SCARM Standing Committee on Agricultural and Resource Management SEPP State Environmental Planning Policy subsp. Subspecies (also referenced as ssp. in some texts) TAP Threat abatement plan TSC Act Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (NSW) WINS Weed Impacts on Native Species assessment tool WONS Weeds of National Significance viii Threat Abatement Plan - Invasion of native plant communities by Chrysanthemoides monilifera

1 Introduction

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

A recent survey of bitou bush in New South Wales showed that it was present along approximately 900 km (80%) of the coastline (Thomas and Leys 2002), an increase of approximately 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 dominant species along 400 km of the coast. The extent of the bitou bush problem in New South Wales has resulted 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 small infestations, 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 it is not managed.

Bitou bush and boneseed proliferate because of their rapid growth, large seed production, the capacity 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 potential threat from boneseed within New South Wales. The worst case scenario for bitou bush/boneseed invasion 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 Leys 2002). 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 regional strategies within New South Wales (Gerrand 2000; Scanlon 2001; Broese van Groenou and Wolfenden 2002). These strategies prioritise and coordinate management objectives across different levels of government, interest groups and local communities, resulting in a more focused and extensive control effort within New South Wales. However, these strategies are not specifically designed to combat the threat of bitou bush or boneseed invasion to threatened species and ecological communities. As such, both the national and state strategies identified the development 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 (Chrysanthemoides monilifera) was listed as a Key Threatening Process (KTP) to biodiversity under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act). The NSW Scientific Committee listed bitou bush as a KTP because of the area occupied, its biology and dominance, and the number of species and ecological communities that are potentially at risk from invasion (NSW SC 1999a).

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

Prior to the development of the draft of this plan (see DEC 2004), bitou bush and boneseed had been 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, two populations 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 listings for Chrysanthemoides monilifera, specifically with respect to bitou bush. Information on boneseed is also presented where relevant however, as this subspecies could pose a similar problem in New South Wales if its distribution were to increase substantially as has occurred in Victoria and Tasmania. To avoid repeated usage of the compound term ‘bitou bush/boneseed’ all mentions of bitou bush within this TAP are to be understood also to include the threat and proposed 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 Weed listings)

< 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 invasion along 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 outlines the site selection process (see Chapter 6 and Appendices 6–8)

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

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

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

< objectives and actions to abate, ameliorate or eliminate the threat of bitou bush to native threatened plant species, populations and ecological communities within New South 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).

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

2 Relevant legislation, policies, strategies and programs

2.1 National legislation, policies, strategies and programs

The Commonwealth legislation and national policies, strategies and programs that influence bitou bush 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 a national framework for environmental management (including the recognition of nationally threatened species and ecological communities), thereby directing resources towards the delivery of 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 or ecological community or where its control may have adverse effects on matters of national environmental significance on Commonwealth land. In New South Wales, bitou bush currently poses serious threats to several species/ecological communities listed on schedules of the EPBC Act.

2.1.2 Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code Act

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

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

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

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 a detailed set of procedures and a framework for the selection of agents (through host-specificity testing), the importation of agents into Australian quarantine and the intentional release of agents from quarantine. Prior to allowing importation and intentional release from quarantine, the impacts of the agent on the target as well as non-target species are assessed. In addition, the importation of biological control agents requires approval from Biosecurity Australia (part of the Department of Agricultural Forestry and Fisheries Australia: DAFF), the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS), and the Department of Environment and Heritage (DEH). The Australian Weeds Committee (AWC), in conjunction with the Natural Resource Management Standing Committee [NRMSC: formerly the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Resource Management (SCARM)] must also approve all biological control proposals before any control is attempted. 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 control methods were deemed ineffective at suppressing the spread and impact of large-scale bitou bush infestations.

Host-specificity testing undertaken in South Africa identified 19 potential agents for the control of C. monilifera (bitou bush and boneseed) in Australia (being 17 insects and two pathogens: see Adair and Edwards 1996). Nine of these agents have been released in Australia, with an additional agent recently approved for release on boneseed. Several other agents have been rejected after initial testing (for a full review of the biological control program for C. monilifera in Australia see Downey et al. submitted). Of the remaining agents several are identified as having potential for boneseed, and one for bitou bush, however all these agents will require significant additional resources and time (see Downey et al. submitted). Of the six agents released for the control of bitou bush 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 roller moth (Tortrix sp.).

2.1.4 Commonwealth Coastal Policy

In May 1995 the Australian Government initiated its coastal policy. The Commonwealth Coastal Policy (CCP) arose in response to several government reports on the status of Australia’s coastline/coastal zone. The CCP addresses the nature and complexity of coastal management. The CCP acknowledges that coastal management cannot be achieved by any one jurisdiction and that the management of Australia’s coastal zone needs to be shared across all levels of government and the community. The CCP is a blueprint for the management and use of Australia’s coastal zone with the aim to ‘promote ecologically sustainable use of Australia’s coastal zone’ (DEH 2005). The CCP acknowledges that indigenous Australians manage a significant proportion of the Australian coastal zone and as such need to be included in the development and implementation of the CCP.

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

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

< 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 terrestrial ecosystems and natural processes within the coastal zone for present and future generations. Where environmental qualities have been degraded remedial action should be 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 of nationally significant weeds through four principles: < Weed management is an essential and integral part of the sustainable management of natural resources and the environment, and requires an integrated multi-disciplinary approach. < Prevention and early intervention are the most cost-effective techniques that can be deployed against weeds. < Successful weed management requires a coordinated national approach, which involves all levels of government in establishing appropriate legislative, educational and coordination frameworks in partnership with industry, landholders and the community. < The primary responsibility for weed management rests with landholders/land managers, but collective action is necessary where the problem transcends the capacity of 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 (or WONS) had to be developed. A further discussion of WONS and how they were determined is presented below.

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

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

2.1.6 Weeds of National Significance

The WONS (Weeds of National Significance) were determined from a list of 71 major weed species, 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 Lynch 2000), following which a national strategy was produced (see ARMCANZ et al. 2000). The national 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 a cooperative organisation which aims to combat Australia’s weed problem, involving Australian Government and state agencies, research institutions, industries and stakeholders.

The Weeds CRC is currently in it second phase. Chrysanthemoides monilifera was one of six target weeds identified in the original Weed CRC’s environmental weeds program. This resulted in funding for research and the biological control program, as well as the production of best practice management guides for bitou bush (see Vranjic 2000) and boneseed (see Adair and Ainsworth 2000). There is no such commitment to bitou bush and boneseed under the current Weeds 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 in activities that contribute to reversing land degradation and promoting sustainable agriculture. The Bushcare program invests in activities that contribute to conserving and restoring habitat for our unique native flora and fauna which underpin the health of our landscapes. The Rivercare program invests in activities that contribute to improved water quality and environmental conditions in our river systems and wetlands. The Coastcare program invests in activities that contribute to protecting our coastal catchments, ecosystems and the marine environment (NHT 2005).

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

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

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

The NHT, through Coastcare, has funded a range of projects in New South Wales that have incorporated 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 the Bitou TAP address six of the ten Areas of Activity: < protecting and restoring the habitat of threatened species, threatened ecological communities and migratory birds < reversing the long-term decline in the extent and quality of Australia’s native vegetation < 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 sustainable natural resource management < establishing institutional and organisational frameworks that promote conservation and ecologically 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 regions in 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 to be funded through the Defeating the Weeds Menace initiative (see below). However, as this plan also addressed several of the key themes of the RCC, including coastal management and threatened species, RCC funding was granted in 2005 to help with its implementation over the period 2005–06 through to 2007–08. This RCC funding is administered through the Southern Rivers Catchment Management Authority (see below) in conjunction with the other four coastal NRM regions in New South Wales and the DEC.

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

In addition, the second stage of the NHT includes a new initiative, the Australian Government Envirofund. Grants of up to $50,000 are available from the Envirofund for community groups to address local land management issues and to carry out on-ground actions. Numerous community groups 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 the Weeds Menace’ (DWM) program was thus initiated in 2005 (spanning 2005–08). The DWM funding is $40 million, of which $32 million is new money allocated for weeds. One of the aims

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

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 a Boneseed Management Manual (DEC in prep.). Numerous bitou bush and boneseed applications were submitted to the second round of funding, but no decision on the success of these projects was 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 the Ramsar convention on wetlands of international importance, migratory bird conventions including JAMBA (Japan–Australia Migratory Bird Agreement) and CAMBA (China–Australia Migratory Bird 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 migratory bird populations is not clear (see Chapter 5), some initial evidence indicates that it may be extremely important. For example, little terns will not nest in areas containing dense bitou bush infestations. Any link between bitou bush infestation and migratory bird decline or destruction of wetlands could have major consequences for the management of bitou bush, as well as wetlands and migratory birds.

2.2 NSW legislation, policies, strategies and programs

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

2.2.1 NSW Noxious Weeds Act

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

Amendments to the NW Act in 2005 repealed the NSW Seeds Act 1982 and introduced a new classification system of weed control classes based on the degree of threat and the distribution of the introduced plant within the state. These new control classes are: Control Class 1 – State Prohibited Weeds Control Class 2 – Regionally Prohibited Weeds Control Class 3 – Regionally Controlled Weeds Control Class 4 – Locally Controlled Weeds Control Class 5 – Restricted Plants. Under this new classification system Control Class 1, 2 and 5 noxious weeds are referred to as notifiable weeds.

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

Prior to these amendments bitou bush and boneseed were declared noxious in all designated coastal councils/control areas of New South Wales (including metropolitan Sydney). These declarations have remained under the new classification system and amended listings that came into 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 to conserve threatened species, populations and ecological communities in New South Wales. The objectives 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 critically endangered species and communities, endangered species, populations and communities, and extinct species; Schedule 2 contains lists of vulnerable species and communities; and Schedule 3 contains 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 Wales Scientific Committee, it: < adversely affects two or more listed threatened species, populations or ecological communities or < could cause species, populations or ecological communities that are not threatened to become threatened. The Invasion of native plant communities by bitou bush and boneseed was listed as a KTP in March of 1999 (see NSW SC 1999a).

Until the 2004 amendments to the TSC Act the preparation of a threat abatement plan (TAP) for each listed KTP was mandatory. However, this is no longer the case, with the requirement for preparation 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 ecological communities. As a legal document under the TSC Act, a TAP requires ministers and public authorities to undertake the actions where appropriate, however a measure must not be included in a threat abatement plan for implementation by a public authority unless the authority’s CEO approves its inclusion. This plan meets the requirements of a TAP for the Invasion of native plant communities by bitou bush and boneseed as per the TSC Act.

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

Where recovery plans are prepared and implemented for species, populations and ecological communities listed under the TSC Act they must identify any relevant threatening processes and how they are to be ameliorated. As such some recovery plans may require the control or management of bitou bush. For example, the Zieria prostrata recovery plan requires the control of bitou bush at several locations (NPWS 1998). This interaction between recovery plan and TAP objectives 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 ecological communities 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 a Section 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 by the DEC.

Recent Amendments to the TSC Act

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

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

The draft PAS outlines recovery and threat abatement actions for the biodiversity listed under the TSC Act (see DEC 2006a). The actions contained in this TAP for each of the TSC listed entities identified in this plan as being at risk from bitou bush and boneseed invasion are included in the draft 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. This includes 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 that they:

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

< use only pesticides registered by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (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 use of 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 aerial pesticide applicator companies and the prescribed qualifications that pilots must hold before an aerial agricultural licence will be issued to them. The Regulations also outline the requirements for 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 their occupation or business. Pesticide Training: People who use pesticides in their business or as part of their occupation must be trained in how to use those pesticides. Any person employed or engaged to use pesticides must also be trained. Pesticide Notification: From 1 February 2007, new notification requirements apply to pesticides applications by public authorities in outdoor public places and to pesticide applications 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 regulates general 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 legislation and 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 and Wildlife Service (NPWS), now part of DEC. The Parks and Wildlife Division of DEC is responsible for the care, control and management of all national parks, historic sites, nature reserves, Aboriginal areas, state conservation areas, karst conservation reserves, marine parks and regional parks within New South Wales in accordance with the NPW Act. DEC is also responsible under the Act for the protection of native fauna and flora and Aboriginal relics. DEC is responsible for the administration of the TSC Act and the Wilderness Act 1987.

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

Bitou bush projects fall within the main responsibilities of the Parks and Wildlife Division of DEC under the NPW Act (i.e. education, maintenance of and scientific research with respect to preservation, protection and management). DEC currently undertakes education and awareness programs with respect to the impacts and management of bitou bush. The Parks and Wildlife Division also undertakes maintenance with respect to control of bitou bush on their land. In addition, DEC contributes to the statewide coordination of bitou bush management in conjunction with other agencies. Research into the effects/impacts of bitou bush on native ecosystems and threatened species, populations and ecological communities needs to be increased and the scope broadened however (see Chapters 5 and 9).

It is an offence under the NPW Act to knowingly destroy, deface and/or damage an Aboriginal site without the prior written approval of the DEC Director General. The control or management of bitou bush may in some instances impact, damage and/or destroy Aboriginal cultural heritage and therefore will require a licence. Consultation with Aboriginal communities relating to potential impacts on Aboriginal cultural heritage related to bitou bush control and management is required and will occur during the development of site-specific management plans for each priority 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 reserve managed by the Parks and Wildlife Division of DEC. The conservation of wildlife, including the conservation of threatened species, populations and ecological communities and their habitats is a goal of each PoM. Thus, a PoM provides a process for examining the occurrence and distribution of weed species, investigating management strategies and setting priorities for weed control programs. Regional weed strategies have also been developed to address weed problems over a broader area.

2.2.6 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act

The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) provides the framework for the environmentally, socially and economically sound planning, use, conservation and development of land in New South Wales. The main objects of the EP&A Act that relate to the Bitou TAP are to encourage: < protection of the environment, including the conservation of native animals and plants, including threatened species, populations and ecological communities, and their habitats < proper management, development and conservation of natural and artificial resources… for the purpose of promoting the social and economic welfare of the community 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 as per the TSC Act and the NPW Act.

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

2.2.7 Local Government Act

The Local Government Act 1993 (LG Act) defines the powers, duties and functions of all local councils in New South Wales. The LG Act provides a framework for the use and management of council-managed public land (or community land). The LG Act requires councils to use and manage 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 respect to 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) and undertake environmental conservation and protection. The control of bitou bush on council lands should 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 Natural Resources Management (NRM) regions, based primarily on catchments. In New South Wales there are 13 NRM regions, which are called Catchment Management Authorities (CMAs). The CMAs are responsible for managing natural resources at the catchment scale, through strategic investment. Each CMA has a Catchment Action Plan (or CAP) that details their actions for achieving statewide targets established by the Natural Resource Commission (NRC). The five coastal CMAs are committed to bitou bush management through an RCC project (see 2.1.8 above) and for the Hunter/Central Rivers, Northern Rivers and Southern Rivers CMAs more specifically through their CAPs.

2.2.9 NSW Coastal Policy

The NSW Coastal Policy (NSW Government 1997) is a framework to manage the NSW coastal zone in an ecologically sustainable way though the balanced and coordinated management of the coast’s unique physical and economic attributes. The NSW Coastal Policy is designed to coordinate coastal management across state and local governments as well as the community. The policy 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 to the management of bitou bush in New South Wales: < The implementation of State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) 14 (Coastal Wetlands) 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 TSC Act (including preparation of TAPs), and where possible controlled (Action 1.2.7).

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

< Coastal development proposals which pose a threat to the physical ‘well being’ of the coastline will be approved subject to conditions which minimise impacts, or rejected where they pose unacceptable threats (Action 1.4.5). < Methods will continue to be developed and implemented to control the spread and impact 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 preparing plans 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 weeds on the economy, community, industries and environment of New South Wales’ (NSW Agriculture 1998). One outcome of the strategy is ‘the development and implementation of programs to reduce environmental degradation and the loss of biodiversity through weed invasion’. To achieve this outcome the NSW Weeds Strategy outlines seven main processes, of which four are of direct relevance to this plan: < implement control programs for weeds, such as bitou bush, which cause major environmental problems < support TAPs for environmental weeds listed as threatening processes under the TSC Act < undertake and promote research into the development and release of biological control agents 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 native biological diversity of NSW and the maintenance of ecological processes and systems’. The strategy establishes priority actions to address the major threats to biodiversity and maximise conservation benefits within New South Wales. This strategy is currently undergoing a review and 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 (NPWS 2001a), the recent mapping of bitou bush in New South Wales (see Thomas and Leys 2002), as well 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 main strategies is presented below.

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

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

< 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 plan for 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 the North Coast Weeds Advisory Committee to coordinate bitou bush control by a number of stakeholders 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 NSW Noxious 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 outline the actions and responsibilities of stakeholders for noxious weed control within a given time frame. They are also the mechanism by which local control authorities (LCAs) obtain funding for noxious 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 South Coast regional bitou bush strategy (see Broese van Groenou and Wolfenden 2002) to coordinate bitou bush control by a number of stakeholders including community groups. The strategy sets out four 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 in southern New South Wales (i.e. from the Illawarra to the Victorian border). This task force oversees the implementation of the South Coast regional bitou bush strategy. In addition, the NWAC 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 management strategies (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.

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

Other councils are in the process of developing bitou bush management plans (e.g. the plan for Sydney 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 bitou bush 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 pest strategies developed by the NPWS (see NPWS 2002b). In recent years, such plans have changed the management focus from specifically targeting one weed species (e.g. bitou bush), to managing weeds in the context of habitat restoration (i.e. the control of numerous weeds at once, see Joseph 1995) or to a more strategic management approach (e.g. North Coast Coastal Weeds Management Plan – see NCWAC 2005). The realisation that the control of one species may pave the way for invasion by other weed species aided this change. These approaches to weed management are discussed in more detail in Chapter 7.

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

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 South Africa. The species C. monilifera has six subspecies, all described on the basis of fruit shape. Two of these, subsp. rotundata (DC.) T. Norl. (bitou bush) and subsp. monilifera (L.) T. Norl. (boneseed), were introduced to Australia, where they have subsequently become major environmental weeds (Weiss et al. 1998). The two subspecies are capable of hybridising to produce fertile plants with intermediate characteristics (Weiss et al. 1998). The fruit of Chrysanthemoides is different from that of other members of the Asteraceae, being a fleshy drupe which is readily dispersed by animals, in contrast to other members of the Asteraceae which are dispersed by wind (Gosper 2004a). Dispersal of fruits by animals can lead to greater dispersal distances 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 woody shrub, 1–3 m high and 2–6 m wide, with long stems that lie along the ground or over other vegetation. These almost prostrate stems have erect ends. This decumbent habit is accentuated if a plant grows under shade, where stems may reach more than 10 m, giving it the appearance of a creeper rather than a shrub. The leaves are entire or slightly toothed, bright green, glossy, broadly oval shaped, 3–8 cm long. The leaves and stems of juvenile plants are typically covered with cobweb 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 fruits when mature are black, <10 mm in length and contain a single egg-shaped seed, 5–7 mm in length. The seeds have a hard bone-like endocarp or seed coat. Up to 13 fruits are produced per inflorescence (Weiss et al. 1998; Vranjic 2000).

The age at which sexual reproduction (flowering) begins varies, but on average is 2–3 years after germination. 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 year round, although Gosper (2004a) found the peak was March to May. Peak seed production generally 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 off the parent plant or by animals ingesting the fruits and either defecating or regurgitating viable seeds in a different location. The latter can result in long distance dispersal events. Dispersal agents are typically birds (e.g. honeyeaters, currawongs and silvereyes, see Dodkin and Gilmore 1984) 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 is unknown, as are the mechanisms of seed dormancy. Seed viability (the ability of a seed to germinate) 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

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

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

Seed germination occurs throughout the year, mainly following rainfall. Other factors known to promote germination are fire, exposure of seeds to heating (e.g. temperatures of 60°C), removal of the seed coat and seed age (Weiss et al. 1998). The response of bitou bush to fire is influenced by the 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 the absence of soil disturbance (Vranjic 2000).

Bitou bush can tolerate salt spray, mild frost and, to a limited extent, water-logged soil (e.g. it can invade 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 the stems. Vegetative reproduction occurs when the prostrate stems are buried by soil or sand (Weiss et 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 m high (rarely to 6 m). The leaves have toothed margins and are dull green, more or less broadly obovate, and 5–7 cm long. Juvenile growth is typically covered by cobweb like hairs, with the hairs being shed with age. The inflorescences are a compound head of tiny male and female flowers, surrounded by 5–8 (mostly 5–6) bright yellow floral bracts, or ligulate (see photo on the cover). 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 8 fruits 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 et al. 1998; Adair and Ainsworth 2000). In mature plants, flowering peaks during August–October and fruiting peaks during November–January. Initial seed dispersal occurs either by fruit falling off the parent plant or by animals ingesting the fruits and either defecating or regurgitating viable seeds in a different location. The latter can result in long distance dispersal events. Dispersal agents are birds and mammals (Adair and Ainsworth 2000). 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 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 very low in seed that is three or more years old, with a low percentage remaining viable for up to 10 years (Weiss et al. 1998). The soil seed bank beneath mature infestations ranges from 800 to 3,000 seeds/m2 (Adair and Ainsworth 2000).

Seed germination occurs mainly in autumn, although germination can occur at other times following 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

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

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

Boneseed is fire-sensitive (i.e. is killed by fire), intolerant of water-logged soil conditions, salt spray and mild frosts. It is relatively short-lived (10–20 years). It has a shallow root system and unlike 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, the Islands 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 a herbarium specimen dated 1908, collected from the Stockton area near Newcastle in New South Wales. It is thought that this infestation originated from ballast carried from South Africa (Gray 1976; Cooney et al. 1982).

From 1946–1968, bitou bush was deliberately planted by the NSW Soil Conservation Service to stabilise sand dunes along the NSW coast. It was also planted along the northern NSW coast to stabilise 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 following such mining operations (Barr 1965).

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

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

A comprehensive survey of the distribution of bitou bush in New South Wales in 1981–82 showed that 660 km of the NSW coastline was infested (Love 1984). Of the area surveyed, bitou bush was the dominant plant along approximately 220 km. The NSW coast was re-surveyed in 2000–01, revealing that the length of coastline infested had increased to 900 km (82%), of which bitou 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 the Queensland border, with most of the north coast being heavily infested. South of the Shoalhaven

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

River to Batemans Bay, areas free of bitou bush are interspersed with heavy infestations. South of Batemans Bay, bitou bush only occurs in isolated disjunct infestations. The survey undertaken in 2000 (see Thomas and Leys 2002) estimated that more than 36,000 ha of private and public land in 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 not dominant) and 20,100 ha had light infestations (scattered plants). In addition, the survey recorded bitou bush up to 10 km inland. A map of the density of bitou bush in New South Wales is presented 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 record is from a Sydney garden in 1856. The first known locations elsewhere in Australia include Melbourne 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 the present day infestations can be attributed to escapes from gardens and nurseries (Adair and Ainsworth 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 near Wimmera) and Tasmania (parts of the East Coast), with historic infestations in Western Australia near Perth, the status of which is unclear. In New South Wales, boneseed occurs in coastal areas from 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 with bitou bush in non-dunal areas, and in the Sydney Metropolitan Area, where dense infestations are found 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 and ability to compete: rapid growth (including seedlings), a range of growth forms (bitou bush: shrub or creeper), the capacity to grow in a wide variety of habitats, high fecundity, various vectors for seed dispersal (particularly vertebrates) and seed dormancy. These attributes do not always result in invasion or species dominance however.

Some native species have the ability to persist despite bitou bush’s vigorous growth rate and dominance. For example, bitou bush has higher seedling vigour and greater survival at each life stage 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 the absence of their natural predators. Over the past 20 years six biological control agents have been released on bitou bush, four of which have established, and six agents for boneseed, none of which have established (see Downey et al. submitted). The lack of natural predators, and deliberate plantings to stabilise sand dunes and remediate sand mining sites, has increased the dominance and spread of bitou bush in Australia.

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

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 have invaded various ecological communities. Bitou bush occurs in coastal ecosystems containing fore- dune grasslands, dune scrub, dune forests/woodland, open and closed heaths and littoral rainforests (Dodkin and Gilmore 1984). Boneseed occurs in coastal woodlands, shrublands and open forest, dry and wet sclerophyll forests, foothills, open forest, woodlands and mallee (Adair and Ainsworth 2000). Bitou bush and boneseed both occur in coastal regions in their native South Africa, with boneseed occurring on the east and south-east coasts and adjacent mountains, while bitou bush is restricted more to coastal areas in the east (see Weiss et al. 1998).

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

4 The impact of bitou bush and boneseed invasions on native plant communities

The impacts of bitou bush and boneseed invasions on biodiversity are outlined below (e.g. flora in this chapter and fauna in Chapter 5), however it is also important to discuss their impacts on the aesthetic value of coastal landscapes (e.g. sand dunes, beaches and headlands). Through the formation of a dense shrub layer, these plants can obscure entire sand dunes, converting picturesque coastal landscapes into significant weed infestations. In many areas, pristine beaches (and adjacent dunes and coastal vegetation) have been covered with dense infestations of bitou bush. Such values are not directly addressed in this TAP (with the exception of a brief discussion in Chapter 10), but the control of bitou bush and boneseed for the purposes of conserving biodiversity, 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 biological invasions are one of the greatest threats to biodiversity globally (IUCN 2000), and more recently to threatened biodiversity in New South Wales (Coutts-Smith and Downey 2006). Plants that invade native ecosystems can have devastating impacts on biodiversity, although the level of such impacts 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 studies conducted to date investigations have only been confined to a few native plant species (i.e. Weiss and 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 Eardley 1997) - a further discussion on the impacts to fauna is presented in Chapter 5). However, such studies have not been resulted in a comprehensive assessment of the impacts or the species most at risk.

Despite this lack of information, many assumptions have been made as to the extent of the impacts across a broader range of species. For example, bitou bush impacts on other plant species through increased competition, shade and litter level. Objective data quantifying the impacts are limited, especially with respect to the impacts on entire communities (see Dodkin and Gilmore 1984; Vranjic 2000); a situation that is now being rectified mainly by the University of Wollongong. 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 aspects of this TAP (e.g. with respect to fauna). Research to address the lack of information forms key actions in this TAP (see Chapter 9). Despite this lack of quantitative data, bitou bush had been assessed 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-Smith and Downey 2006). However, the initial number thought to be at risk has been greatly increased since the KTP listing in 1999, both in terms of TSC listed species and native plants more generally (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

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

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

In New South Wales very little has been documented on the distribution, abundance and impact of boneseed. 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 was to increase dramatically. In addition, initial investigations into the biodiversity at risk from boneseed in Tasmania suggest a similar level of impact to bitou bush (see Downey in press). Due to the low levels of boneseed in New South Wales, Section 4.2 deals exclusively with bitou bush and 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 of disturbance, and in the past this assumption has been applied to bitou bush and boneseed. It is based on the idea that disturbance events create new resources or opportunities for invaders. Many studies 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 for invasion to occur, the invading plant species must be able to utilise these resources more effectively than existing native species (Davis et al. 2000).

Evidence is now mounting that for a wide range of species disturbance is not necessary for invasion 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 disputing the well entrenched assumption. Invasion in the absence of disturbance (Dodkin pers. comm.) has also been noted for bitou bush, however no objective scientific data are available regarding how this process occurs.

It is extremely important to understand how weeds affect ecosystems once they invade. Weeds impact upon several ecosystem properties (Gordon 1998) and physical properties (e.g. decomposition rates – see Lindsay and French 2004a) which can modify pre-invasion disturbance regimes (Mack and D’Antonio 1998). Modification of disturbance regimes often has a greater impact on biodiversity than the invasion itself (Mack and D’Antonio 1998). Knowledge of these modifications is lacking however, as is the understanding of how these modifications impact upon the invaded communities. A weed species has the potential to modify the disturbance regime in more than one way (e.g. Scotch broom can enhance soil disturbance by encouraging the actions of feral pigs, as well as alter fire behaviour through structural habitat modification, see Downey 2002), the impact of which is different for each type of disturbance. The ability of bitou bush or boneseed to modify disturbance regimes is unknown, however its ability to respond to fire with increased germination and rapid seedling growth rates may have led to substantial vegetation changes, 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. Similar observations have been made for boneseed in the You Yangs, Victoria, following experimental fires (Melland pers. comm.). It should be noted that failure to implement adequate controls following such disturbances has led to major establishment events.

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

4.2 Plant species, populations and ecological communities at risk

4.2.1 Why select biodiversity at risk?

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

Given the extent of bitou bush in New South Wales (occurring over 80% of the coastline), its rapid expansion (36% increase in 20 years, see Thomas and Leys 2002), the duration of the invasion (50+ years since wide-scale plantings), and the level of biodiversity present in the coastal zone (i.e. a high diversity of species over a small area), the impact from bitou bush invasion on biodiversity is likely to be significant. In addition, the eradication of bitou bush in the short term is not feasible. Thus, a system is needed to assess the biodiversity at greatest risk and the sites at which 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/or ecological communities at risk from bitou bush invasion in New South Wales, the distributions of bitou 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 bush collected during the latest survey (see Thomas and Leys 2002 for methods) was matched with flora records contained within the NPWS Atlas of NSW Wildlife (incorporating the Royal Botanic Gardens (RBG) database of scheduled threatened species). The flora dataset was supplemented with information from published literature, local knowledge from individuals or community groups working in areas infested with bitou bush, and site inspections. The impacts on animal species are discussed in Chapter 5.

The data derived from the distribution GIS analysis showed a total of 850 plant species, spanning 151 families within the bitou bush infested areas of New South Wales. Of these, 55 were listed as either endangered or vulnerable species under the Commonwealth EPBC Act or the NSW TSC Act, 30 of which were considered to be threatened by bitou bush. In addition, those species not covered by such threatened species legislation occurring within the distribution of bitou bush in New South Wales may also be classified as threatened if they were:

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

< 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 be at risk from bitou bush invasions, and thus be subjected to analysis of the threat, it does not address plant species not formally listed as threatened but which are likely to be or are at risk from invasion. Therefore consideration of both threatened species and non-threatened species that are potentially at risk by bitou bush is needed to establish a complete list of the species at risk. Such an approach is supportive of the KTP determination in which it was acknowledged that bitou bush invasion 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 assessment process involves four stages, being 1) a review of the literature; 2) collation and assessment of the knowledge from land managers and botanists with specific involvement, either in managing bitou bush, or the native species in bitou bush infested areas; 3) rigorous evaluation and examination of an 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 that would otherwise not be available, and evaluating the quality of that information in order to determine its integrity, respectively. When the list of species potentially at risk, as produced in stage 3, is then modelled, i.e. during stage 4, and emphasis is given to the highest priorities, a robust process for quickly assessing the biodiversity at risk from weed invasions can be determined 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, instead the final list of species identified as potentially at risk from bitou bush invasion, i.e. the outcome of Stage 3, is presented in Appendix 3, while the model used for Stage 4 is presented in Appendix 2. The 63 plant species identified in the draft TAP as potentially at risk from bitou bush invasion using 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 newly published information (see Coutts-Smith and Downey 2006) along with new threatened species determinations, while stage 3 involved evaluation and revisions to the list of species at risk as a result of the comments received during the public exhibition, and in stage 4 most of the 70 species identified in the draft which were not modelled were added and modelled. Some species identified as 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 in rapidly determining species at risk.

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

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

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

threatened status a recovery actions species name family name TSC Act b EPBC Act c ROTAP d plan in PAS e Plectranthus cremnus Lamiaceae 3K no no Zieria prostrata Rutaceae E E 2E yes yes Chamaesyce psammogeton Euphorbiaceae E no yes Senecio spathulatus Asteraceae E no yes Acianthus exiguus Orchidaceae 3RC- no no Calystegia soldanella Convolvulaceae no no Chamaecrista maritima Caesalpiniaceae no no Sophora tomentosa Fabaceae E no yes Lepturus repens Poaceae no no Pultenaea maritima Fabaceae V no yes Stackhousia spathulata Stackhousiaceae no no Ischaemum triticeum Poaceae no no Vigna marina Fabaceae no no Gleichenia mendellii Gleicheniaceae no no Actites megalocarpa Asteraceae no no Poa poiformis Poaceae no no Fontainea oraria Euphorbiaceae E E 2E draft yes Diuris praecox Orchidaceae V V 2VC- no yes Westringia 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 of this 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 (see Appendices 2 and 3) are presented below in rank order. Species descriptions were extracted from Harden (1990–2002) unless otherwise noted. Information is also presented on the other threats to these species where known.

1. Plectranthus cremnus Conn (Lamiaceae) Plectranthus cremnus is a compactly branched, prostrate to decumbent aromatic herb, growing to 30 cm in height and spreading to 2 m across. The white-blue purple flowers are present all year as are the dry fruits. It grows in shallow sandy soils that have been deposited by wind into the crevices of coastal headlands where it is rare. Plectranthus cremnus is also reported to occur in dunes (including stabilised dunes). The species only occurs on the north coast of New South Wales 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 bitou bush). The stabilisation of sand by bitou bush may also reduce the level of wind blown material that can lodge into headland crevices and provide suitable substrate and habitat for P. cremnus. In addition, bitou bush grows over many headlands, potentially occupying suitable habitats. As the species flowers all year round it may be damaged by aerial application of herbicide to control bitou bush because it is physiologically active at all times (NPWS 2001d and Appendix 10A).

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

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 low mat. It occurs on exposed headland sites in low coastal heath. In more sheltered aspects, it grows in association with open to sparse shrublands, characterised by coast banksia (Banksia integrifolia var. integrifolia) and coastal wattle (Acacia sophorae) (NPWS 1998). It has a very restricted distribution and is known from only four headlands within Moonee Beach NR, 20 km north of Coffs Harbour. The four sites have approximately 1,000 plants in total. There is some genetic variation between the four sites (NPWS 1998). To maintain the full genetic diversity, all four locations 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 and kikuyu. Bitou bush poses a major threat as it shades individual plants with its dense canopy. A pest management plan has been prepared for Moonee Beach NR. Weed control has been undertaken for many years and the immediate threat of weed invasion has been alleviated at all four sites. Bitou bush still poses a serious threat of re-invasion and ongoing follow-up maintenance/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 prostrate perennial herb that forms mats to 1 m in diameter. It grows on incipient fore-dunes in Spinifex hirsutus communities, and exposed headlands, as well as on the beach aspect of the fore-dune with a range of herbs, vines, shrubs and grasses. It occurs sporadically north from Jervis Bay into Queensland, as well as on Lord Howe Island. Some botanists considered it to be in danger of extinction (Clarke and Carolin 1991) and its final determination under the TSC Act was based on the fact that it was formerly widespread and is now only known from a few small populations (see NSW SC 1998a). A comparison of present and historical records in New South Wales showed that it had disappeared from some areas (e.g. Sydney: Heyligers 1998). Despite this, new populations have been recorded (e.g. Yuraygir NP: Flower and Clarke 2001). The majority of the records in the NPWS Atlas of NSW Wildlife are from one survey (see Clarke 1989), which suggests 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 its prostrate habit and preference for sand dunes). Populations on the seaward edge of incipient dunes are less threatened, as bitou bush rarely establishes in these areas. These populations are threatened by other factors however (e.g. beach erosion and the removal of habitat). The sites recorded 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 and Entwisle 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 (McDougall pers. comm.). Herbarium specimens were collected in the 1980s from Mungo Corner, Myall Lakes 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

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

in the Kurnell–Cronulla area. Information on the impact of bitou bush and the infestation level at many 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 littoral rainforest, dry rainforest, wet sclerophyll forests, dry sclerophyll forests, grassy sclerophyll forests and dunes (including stabilised sands). The upper leaf surface is dark green, while the lower surface is light reddish purple. Flowers are translucent greenish white with a pink and green labellum with lateral sepals having a faint red central stripe. Since its identification in 1987 it has been identified from 11 sites along the NSW coast north from Wyrrabalong. Several of these locations are now infested with bitou bush, and bitou bush is suspected as being a threat to this species.

6. Calystegia soldanella (Roem. & Schult) Juss. (Convolvulaceae) Calystegia soldanella is a glabrous perennial herb/vine with trailing stems, which prefers growing along the ground. This species is widespread in northern and southern temperate zones growing in sandy and rocky coastal areas, but few recent records exist for New South Wales. Leaves are heart-shaped, waxy and fleshy, and provide protection from water loss in coastal habitats. The flowers 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 bitou bush. The species may also be at threat from bush regeneration as it could be mistaken for one of the 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 soils north 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, Port Macquarie), with very few being post 1990 (i.e. Cape Byron, Sawtell, Smoky Cape, Hat Head NP). Chamaecrista maritima can be locally common but most known populations are small. Its major habitat type is Themeda grasslands, an Endangered Ecological Community (EEC) listed under 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 frontal coastal dunes or along the seashore. Field observations also indicate that this species prefers coarse sands on the ends of beaches (e.g. Woody Head, Bundjalung NP, Shelley Beach, Port Macquarie), at the base of headlands (e.g. Woolgoolga Headland), or protected areas adjacent to creeks or intermittently open lagoons draining across beaches (e.g. Sandon River). It occurs north from Port Macquarie into Queensland and Papua New Guinea. Historically it occurred as far south as Port Stephens. Several populations are now thought to be extinct. One of the main threats in 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 long trailing stolons that root at the nodes. It grows in sandy soils along the coast and is known from

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

four locations on the north coast of New South Wales, as well as on Lord Howe Island. Little information 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, once considered a prostrate form of P. vilosa, is now listed as vulnerable under the TSC Act. This species predominantly occurs within Themeda grasslands, an Endangered Ecological Community, on sea cliffs and coastal headland communities. Pultenaea maritima occurs north from Newcastle into Queensland. Within New South Wales P. maritima is only known from 16 headlands and information 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 sclerophyll forest 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 small and infrequently encountered (Thomas pers. comm.). It usually grows on partly stabilised coastal sand dunes, occasionally on the margins of coastal lagoons and on headlands. This species has been found in Themeda grasslands, an Endangered Ecological Community, on sea cliffs and coastal 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 to 2 m long. It grows on the fore-dune of coastal sand dunes and in sandy soils deposited on headlands and cliffs. This species is restricted to the north coast of New South Wales, from Laurieton north. Ischaemum triticeum was probably more common in the past but sandmining and bitou 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 are yellow, with 2–6 seeds in a pod, giving rise to its common name of ‘dune bean’. This species occurs on the incipient dune and in exposed locations on headlands along the north coast of New South Wales, north of Port Macquarie, as well as on Lord Howe Island. It is uncommon in the southern 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 Endangered Ecological 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 described species, grows in and around swamps, drainage lines, sheltered vertical faces of permanently moist coffee rock and along creek banks of coastal lowlands north from Minnie Water into Queensland. Its distribution is disjunct, with the main populations occurring in Bundjalung NP and smaller populations in Yuraygir NP, Dirrawong Reserve and Minnie Water Foreshore Reserve. Bitou bush threatens some populations, especially those in non-water logged sites where bitou bush grows more readily. Bitou bush may also occupy habitats which could otherwise provide connectivity of the disjunct populations. There is some suggestion that the control of bitou 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 factors like decreased moisture levels, and potentially aerial herbicide application as used to control bitou bush (Flower pers. comm. and Appendix 10A).

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

15. Actites megalocarpa (Hook.f.) Lander (Asteraceae) Actites megalocarpa is a fleshy perennial herb growing to 40 cm high in large clumps. The flowers are yellow florets that are sometimes pale purple at the base. This species is often referred to as dune thistle. It grows in coastal sand dunes and on coastal headlands and cliffs. This species is 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 oblique rhizomes. It grows along estuaries and ocean foreshores, occasionally on coastal sand dunes and cliffs, especially south facing cliffs south from Port Stephens. Recently the species was also found near 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 which grows as part of the regrowth of inner edges of littoral rainforest. It is known from only one location near Lennox Head in northern New South Wales, on a basaltic headland within 1 km of the ocean. It is not known within conservation reserves (NPWS 1999c). This population supports only 10 mature trees, of which one or two are known to bear fruit (NPWS 1999c). Other populations may exist but suitable habitat appears limited (Hunter et al. n.d.). Threats include development, recreational use of the area, salt dieback, competition from weeds, trampling of seedlings, 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 in the 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 Bay and Ourimbah. There are a total of 13 records on the NPWS Atlas of NSW Wildlife and Royal Botanic 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–heavy infestations). A bush regeneration program has started at Glenrock SRA to remove bitou bush from D. praecox habitat but this needs to be maintained and expanded. Bitou bush and lantana have 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 about 1.5 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. Westringia fruticosa 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 many locations.

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, a specific 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,

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

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

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

As the site model (see below) allows for individual populations of species at risk to be assessed based on the relative threat from bitou bush, only those populations listed under the TSC Act were examined here. The locations of each of these populations were matched against the distribution of bitou bush. Only those populations that occurred within the distribution or within close proximity to bitou bush were selected and modelled. Three endangered plant populations fitted the criteria (see Appendix 5, Table A5.1), two of which were ranked as at greatest risk from bitou bush 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 along with 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 no Zieria 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 the population and ecological community model (see Appendices 4 and 5) are presented below in rank 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 in coastal grasslands at Scotts Head on the mid-north coast. It is a distinctive form of the widespread species G. clandestina not found elsewhere. Glycine clandestina is thought to be a species complex, which is a species with several distinct forms present. It is threatened by loss of its grassland habitat and from the risk of bitou bush invasion (NSW SC 2001). At present, bitou bush occurs on the margins of this grassland site and in higher densities in nearby coastal banksia

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

vegetation. Monitoring of the population and removal of bitou bush seedlings (and adults) is currently 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 as Z. smithii (lgf)) is a low growing semi-prostrate shrub similar in habit to Z. prostrata, unlike the type species (Z. smithii), which is an erect robust shrub to 2 m in height. Recent genetic work showed 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 as endangered because it contained <3 individual plants (NSW SC 1998b). The known threats are weed invasion from bitou bush, kikuyu (NSW SC 1998b) and lantana (Hogbin 1999). The Coffs Harbour 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 several additional populations have been discovered. A targeted Z. prostrata and Z. smithii (lgf) survey of 51 sites (mostly headlands) from Treachery Head (near Myall Lakes) to Bare Bluff (north of Coffs Harbour) recorded Z. smithii (lgf) at 10 of these sites (Hogbin 1999), nine of which were new locations. The distribution of Z. smithii (lgf) stretches from Boomerang Point (south of Forster) to Cape Byron (Hogbin 1999). Population sizes ranged from a few to several hundred individual plants. Weed invasion (primarily bitou bush) was the main threat at the majority of these ‘new’ sites, specifically: Boomerang Point (medium–heavy infestation); Grants Headland (light infestation); Nobby Head, Port Macquarie (heavy infestation); Big Hill, south of Crescent Head (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) and at Byron Bay (Hogbin 1999). As bitou bush poses one of the major threats to these additional populations 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 risk from bitou bush invasion due to its wide distribution (along 80% of the coastline), information on those 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 risk based on the degree of overlap, because there is no comparable dataset for coastal vegetation communities (see Benson 1999). The selection of the ecological communities potentially at risk was therefore undertaken using the WINS assessment process. As outlined above, this also allows for 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 risk from bitou bush invasion. Fifteen are EECs and 11 were not formally listed ecological communities. Eight of these 26 ecological communities were ranked as at greatest risk from bitou bush 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 being potentially at risk from bitou bush invasion but were not modelled due to insufficient information (see Appendix 5, Table A5.3).

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

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

actions in ecological communities threatened status a, b recovery plan PAS c Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub EEC (EPBC & TSC Act) yes yes Littoral Rainforest (including SEPP26 and Sutherland Shire EEC (TSC Act), SEPP 26 d some e yes Littoral Rainforest) Kurnell Dune Forest EEC (TSC Act) no yes Coastal Banksia Woodlands (Banksia integrifolia) n/a n/a Themeda (Themeda triandra) grassland on sea cliffs & coastal EEC (TSC Act) no no headlands in the NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner bioregions Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub equivalent communities (i.e. n/a n/a Coastal Sand Wallum Heath) Frontal Dune Vegetation Complex n/a n/a Coastal 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 Environment Planning Policy. b TSC Act = NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995, and EPBC ACT = Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. 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). d Littoral rainforests are classified as SEPP 26 (i.e. those which do not occur within conservation reserves) and an EEC. The SEPP 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 the population and ecological community model (see Appendices 4 and 5) are presented below in rank order. Information is also presented on the other threats to these ecological communities where known.

1. Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub (Sydney) The Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub (ESBS) is a heath/scrubland community (occasionally forming 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 in conservation reserves (Botany Bay NP, La Perouse and Sydney Harbour NP, North Head: NPWS 2003a). The remaining isolated remnants are restricted to the Eastern Suburbs region of Sydney in the 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 the community are: fragmentation; altered nutrient, water and fire regimes; habitat loss or degradation from development; weed invasion; grazing and erosion by horses and rabbits; erosion by bicycles and motorcycles; excessive pedestrian use; seed collection; and physical damage from illegal access 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 of the 23 ESBS sites and control programs have commenced in Botany Bay NP and the NSW Golf Course (NSW Golf Club), at St Michael’s Golf Course and in several smaller patches administered by Randwick Council, and on York Road.

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

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 Coast Bioregion, Sydney Basin Bioregion and South East Corner Bioregion (NSW SC 2004). Littoral rainforests are recognised as having high conservation significance because they contain elements of both subtropical and dry rainforests and a high diversity of plants and animals, including many rare and threatened species (Mills 1996; McDonald 1999). The plant species in this ecological community are predominantly rainforest species with evergreen mesic or coriaceous leaves, and vines may be a major component of the canopy, however, there is considerable floristic variation between stands (NSW SC 2004). Littoral rainforests also provide habitat for many migratory and nomadic animals.

Littoral rainforests are very rare and occur in many small stands – less than a quarter of their original extent remains. In total, littoral rainforests comprise less than one percent of the total area of rainforest in New South Wales. Although a number of stands exist in reserves (e.g. 90 ha stand in Iluka NR), there are at least 130 stands of littoral rainforest of state significance which are not encompassed within a formal conservation reserve. These stands are small, mostly degraded remnants 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 Policy Number 26 (SEPP 26). The SEPP 26 gazettal includes a 100 m buffer around each remnant. Note that not all stands of this community have been included in mapping for SEPP 26, especially stands which are already protected by formal reserves. In 2004, littoral rainforests in the NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner bioregions were listed as an EEC under the TSC Act. While this listing replaces and incorporates the Sutherland Shire Littoral Rainforest listing 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 both the 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 have commenced many littoral rainforest restoration programs. Many of these programs have involved general weed control, however control of bitou bush is often a low priority because it occurs primarily 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 mesophyll element. It is found on sand, often in association with areas of sclerophyll heath and scrub (NSW SC 1999b). The KDF community has been greatly reduced since European settlement and in 1999 was listed as an EEC under the TSC Act. Patches occur within the Sutherland Shire (including the Kurnell Peninsula and the City of Rockdale) on a range of public and private land. Threats are disturbance 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) has conducted extensive bitou bush control programs including aerial spraying, and involving contractors, NPWS staff and a number of volunteer groups. In 1998 Sutherland Shire Council began a major bitou bush control program on the Kurnell Peninsula. To date, bitou bush has been managed 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 the Parks 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, where a dense infestation of bitou bush occurs.

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

4. Coastal Banksia Woodland Coastal Banksia Woodland communities are an open forest to shrubland on deep sand soils usually in close proximity to the ocean. The ecological community comprises numerous small banksia tree species including coast banksia (Banksia integrifolia var. integrifolia), which is the most 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 headlands Themeda grasslands on sea cliffs and coastal headlands in New South Wales are described as a unique ecological community (see Adam et al. 1989). This ecological community is found in the NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner bioregions, on sea cliffs and coastal headlands. The structure of the community is typically closed tussock grassland, but may be open shrubland or open heath with a grassy matrix between the shrubs (NSW SC 2005). The community belongs to the Maritime Grasslands vegetation class of Keith (2004). Due to its highly restricted distribution, small patch size and ongoing threats to the community, it was recently 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 headland form or subspecies (Dodkin pers. comm.). This ecological community also contains scattered shrubs in many stands, most frequently Pimelea linifolia, Banksia integrifolia and Westringia fruticosa. These and other woody species often have dwarf growth forms. Although a number of woody species are listed as part of the community, these are usually sparsely distributed and may be absent from some stands. Tussocks of Poa poiformis may be found in some stands of the community. A number of threatened species occur in some stands of the community, including Diuris byronensis (Synonym: Diuris sp. aff. Chrysantha), Pultenaea maritima, Rutidosus heterogama, Thesium australe (Cohn 2004) and Zieria prostrata (Hogbin 2001). The endangered population of the low growing form of Zieria smithii at Diggers Head is also found in this community. The community is the major habitat for a number of other species, including Chamaecrista maritima, Plectranthus cremnus and Stackhousia spathulata examined here. Invasion of bitou bush and other weeds is acknowledged as a major threat to the persistence of Themeda grasslands (NSW SC 2005).

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

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

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

fore-dunes and to a lesser extent on exposed parts of dunes a short distance inland, but still within the coastal dune zone. Dominant species in this ecological community include: S. sericeus, Carex pumila, 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 Shire Council 2004). This ecological community is closely associated with other frontal dune vegetation communities, like coastal Acacia communities and coastal banksia woodland. In some instances this ecological community may include an intergrade with littoral rainforest (Tweed Shire Council 2004).

8. Coastal sand dune complex (Acacia longifolia var. sophorae) The coastal sand dune complex ecological community forms on sand substrates and is dominated by species such as coastal wattle (Acacia longifolia var. sophorae) which in some situations have been actively planted as part of a dune stabilisation program. Other species present include blackwood wattle (Acacia melanoxylon), hickory wattle (A. aulacocarpa) and golden wattle (A. saligna) (a non-local native species). In northern New South Wales, other species that sometimes occur in this community include umbrella cheese tree (Glochidion sumatranum), cheese tree (G. ferdinandii), brown kurrajong (Commersonia bartramia), macaranga (Macaranga tanarius), coast banksia (Banksia integrifolia var. integrifolia), broad-leaved paperbark (Melaleuca quinquenervia), swamp mahogany (Eucalyptus robusta), pink bloodwood (Corymbia intermedia), and coast teatree (Leptospermum laevigatum). Bitou bush and other weeds like camphor laurel (Cinnamomum camphora) pose a threat (Brewer and Whelan 2003; Tweed Shire Council 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 bush invasion in New South Wales was undertaken here, there may be other species, populations and ecological communities which are threatened by bitou bush which were not considered. Thus this prioritisation process is not static, especially given that there were species and ecological communities 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 such changes are unlikely to influence the implementation of the TAP actions, as the TAP aims to maintain commitment to priority sites for its five year duration. After this a full review will be undertaken, at which stage new priorities may be established.

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

5 The impact of bitou bush and boneseed invasions on fauna

In the past, studies on the effect of plant invasions on fauna have received little attention (French and Eardley 1997; Adair and Groves 1998). However, recent studies involving a range of weed species 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 of habitat 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 like the southern brown bandicoot (see Regel et al. 1996). Such weed–fauna interactions can also affect groups of species in different ways. For example, bird species were both negatively (8 species) and positively (10 species) affected following Scotch broom invasion (see Bell 1990). Weeds affect fauna in different ways: altering food resources, feeding substrate, nesting/breeding sites, 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 animal signs such as scats) within infested areas, to determine weed–fauna interactions. In Australia 225 bird species have been recorded interacting with 482 introduced plant species, and 43 mammals interacting with 55 introduced plant species (Lawrie 2002). The information obtained by this audit system 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. In addition, the proposed audit system does not provide detailed information on the exact nature of effects on fauna and detailed studies are needed in some areas to provide information in addition to that obtained from the proposed audit system.

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

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

5.1 Interactions between bitou bush and vertebrates (birds and mammals)

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

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

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

Anecdotal and observational evidence suggests that bitou bush invasion can result in the decline of some native bird populations, for example those that nest or roost in hind-dunes such as little terns (S. albifrons: Ross pers. comm.). In addition, monthly counts of shorebirds on Pelican Island, off Port Macquarie showed that as bitou bush and lantana increased on the island, bird densities 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 not consistent across bird species. On the South Coast, canopy-feeding generalists and understorey insectivores were found to be more abundant in some bitou bush infested areas than some areas of native vegetation (French and Zubovic 1997).

The sprawling branches, dense foliage cover, long flowering period and abundant fleshy fruit production of bitou bush may provide shelter and food for some animals (French and Eardley 1997). However, simply because bitou bush offers a potential food resource does not mean that animals utilise or prefer this resource to their typical diet. The presence of bitou bush did not appear 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 a short period of the year, however during fruiting, this temporary food source may be exploited by generalist feeders, rather than specialists as highlighted by the list of species reported to consume bitou 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 the occurrence 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 its seeds (Meek 1998). Unlike many native coastal plants, bitou bush flowers in winter and provides an important food source for many animals during late winter/early spring (French and Eardley 1997). Conversely, the reduction in native species that flower in summer due to bitou bush infestation 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 three mammal 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 bird species to bitou bush invasions. Of particular concern is the role of coastal habitats in providing sources of nectar for fauna over winter, a period of regional shortage, following bitou bush invasion and competition (Dodkin and Gilmore 1984; Law et al. 2000; Gosper 2004b). Similar studies for mammals are also needed, especially given that the only mammal species for which there 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 on fauna species which may be at risk from bitou bush invasion (Table 5.2). Unfortunately, most of this information was not available prior to completion of this plan and thus no assessments have been made of the exact nature of the threat or how the impacts due to bitou bush invasion might be reduced or sites where control will be beneficial. In addition, it appears that the WINS assessment tool (see Downey in press) may also be useful in determining fauna at risk, based on

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

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 that priority sites for fauna be established. However, given that some of the sites or plant species identified in Table 5.2 are also listed in Appendix 7 it is hoped that control at these sites will also have positive benefits for such species.

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

birds mammals common name reference common name reference Australia raven 2 cattle* 1 common blackbird* 1 rabbit* 1 black-faced cuckoo-shrike 2 European red fox* 1, 3 common koel 1 crimson rosella 2, 5 eastern rosella 2 emu 1 grey currawong 4 house sparrow* 2 lewins honeyeater 1, 2 noisy miner 1 mistletoebird 1, 2 olive-backed oriole 1, 2 pied currawong 1, 2 red wattlebird 1, 2 red-whiskered bulbul* 2 regent bowerbird 1 silvereye 1, 2 satin bowerbird 2 southern figbird 1 superb fairy-wren 2 common starling* 1, 2 white-cheeked honeyeater 1 yellow-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 for birds and mammals. On the south coast of New South Wales, examination of the composition of litter invertebrates (i.e. species richness and relative abundance) between sites with and without bitou bush showed no difference in overall species richness or abundance (French and Eardley 1997). However, Collembola (springtails) were more abundant in infested sites, while Dermaptera (earwigs), Hymenoptera (wasps, sawflies, bees and ants) and Blattodea (cockroaches) were more abundant in uninfested sites. Litter invertebrates were not identified to species level, which may mask 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 on insects and bitou bush are currently being conducted (Wilkie pers. comm.).

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

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 and thus caution should be shown when inferring any threatened status.

threatened status a fauna common name TSC Act EPBC Act suspected reason for threat suggested sites for possible control birds beach-stone curlew E listed in NSW SC (1999a) black-winged petrel V bitou bush grows in nesting sites coastal emu Population eastern bristlebird E E listed in NSW SC (1999a) flesh footed shearwater V bitou bush grows in nesting sites gould’s petrel E bitou bush grows in nesting sites Cabbage Tree and Boondelbah (Gosper 2004b) Islands, as well as adjacent sites on the mainland near Hawk’s Nest. little shearwater V bitou bush grows in nesting sites litte tern E bitou bush grows over or close to Quibray Bay in Towra Point NR nesting sites, and listed in NSW SC (1999a) masked booby V bitou bush grows in nesting sites pied oystercatcher V bitou bush grows close to preferred Five Islands NR habitat and nesting sites red-capped plover bitou bush grows close to preferred nesting sites red-tailed tropic bird V bitou bush grows in nesting sites regent honeyeater E E bitou bush competes with food swamp mahogany (Eucalyptus sources (Gosper 2004b) robusta) – in the central coast region sooty tern V bitou bush grows in nesting sites swift parrot E E bitou bush competes with food swamp mahogany (Eucalyptus sources (Gosper 2004b) robusta) – i.e. Perkins Beach Reserve, Port Kembla threatened shorebirds encroaching on nest/roost sites Belongil Spit (Bower pers. comm.) mammals black flying fox V loss of coastal banksia woodland may impact on food source common blossom bat V loss of coastal banksia woodland may impact on food source eastern bentwing bat V loss of coastal banksia woodland may impact on food source eastern long-eared bat V loss of coastal banksia woodland may impact on food source greater broad-nosed bat V loss of coastal banksia woodland may impact on food source grey-headed flying fox V V loss of coastal banksia woodland may impact on food source koala (Hawks Nest & Tea Population Hawks Nest & Tea Gardens Gardens) little bentwing bat V loss of coastal banksia woodland may impact on food source squirrel glider V loss of coastal banksia woodland may impact on food source yellow-bellied sheathtail- V loss of coastal banksia woodland may bat impact on food source invertebrates Lord Howe Island E placostylus

a E = Endangered, V = Vulnerable, Population = Endangered Population, as defined under TSC Act = NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995, EPBC ACT = Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

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

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 their entire range. Therefore, control programs should be targeted. When addressing biodiversity conservation, 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 bush invasion 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 communities at risk from bitou bush invasion (see Table 6.1). Thus, these entities should be used as a basis for ensuring that control programs focus on biodiversity conservation.

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

priority biodiversity at risk a High Medium Low Total

plant species 19 41 98 158 plant population b 2 0 1 3 ecological 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) and those 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 Wales were determined initially with the aid of distribution information supplied by a wide range of people (including staff from the DEC and local councils). This information was combined with data from the NPWS Atlas of NSW Wildlife (including the Royal Botanic Gardens Database) and other sources (e.g. Harden 1990–2002; local site surveys and inspections). Locations were selected irrespective of land tenure. It is acknowledged that this list is not definitive, as some locations may have been inadvertently overlooked, the distribution data for some species is incomplete, and additional locations may be discovered in the future (as outlined in Section 4.2.8 this process can be re-run to establish additional priorities).

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

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

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

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

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

Sites were divided into one of five control categories according to the site’s highest entity matrix score. 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. Sites with 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 process is given in full detail in Appendix 6). The complete list of sites and their ranks, split into the five categories 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 which locations were identified (no site locations were identified for 34 species and 2 ecological communities, see Table A7.7, Appendix 7). The 349 sites were separated into the five control categories 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 7 for further information).

control categories 1 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 biodiversity conservation will be achieved. In addition, control of bitou bush at these sites is expected to have biodiversity benefits beyond reducing, abating or ameliorating the threat to the high priority entities identified here, in terms of medium and low priority entities as well as those not identified in this plan. A list of the control category 1 sites is presented in Table A7.1 in Appendix 7. The control category 1 sites that will conserve each of the 29 high priority entities (19 plant species, 2 populations 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

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

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

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

number of control total number of sites high priority entities rank category 1 sites examined examined species Plectranthus cremnus 1 13 17 Zieria prostrata 2 3 5 Chamaesyce psammogeton 3 21 26 Senecio spathulatus 4 7 9 Acianthus exiguus 4 4 4 Calystegia soldanella 4 1 4 Chamaecrista maritima 4 2 2 Sophora tomentosa 4 10 14 Lepturus repens 4 1 1 Pultenaea maritima 4 12 13 Stackhousia spathulata 4 24 24 Ischaemum triticeum 4 10 11 Vigna marina 4 9 10 Gleichenia mendellii 14 8 9 Actites megalocarpa 14 3 3 Poa poiformis 14 2 3 Fontainea oraria 17 2 2 Diuris praecox 17 6 7 Westringia fruticosa 19 15 17 populations Glycine clandestina (broad leaf form) 1 3 3 Zieria smithii (low growing form) 1 8 10 ecological communities Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub 1 5 13 Littoral Rainforest (including SEPP 26 & 1 84 128 Sutherland Shire Littoral Rainforest) Kurnell Dune Forest 1 3 4 Coastal Banksia Woodlands (Banksia integrifolia) 4 18 23 Themeda (Themeda triandra) grassland on sea cliffs 4 29 40 & coastal headlands in the NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin & South East Corner bioregions Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub equivalent 4 2 2 communities (i.e. Coastal Sand Wallum Heath) Frontal Dune Vegetation Complex 4 21 25 Coastal Sand Dune complex (Acacia longifolia var. 4 23 30 sophorae)

6.2.2 Control category 2–5 sites

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

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

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 state strategy (NPWS 2001a) and regional strategies (e.g. Scanlon 2001)].

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

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

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 a combination of methods is used: aerial and ground application of herbicides; biological control; physical removal; slashing; and burning. In addition, revegetation can be used to suppress recruitment of seedlings once the initial control has occurred. These techniques have changed little 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 Ainsworth 2000; Vranjic 2000: further discussion presented below). The introduction of new biological control agents is the main exception. Best practice guidelines recommend an integrated approach to 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 individual plants by hand) and fire. These techniques are typically employed in densely infested areas containing few native species. Any potential disturbance to aboriginal sites as a result of these techniques needs to be addressed in site-specific plans (see below and Appendix 9). Machinery is used to slash or knock down dense infestations, often as an initial operation to allow other techniques to be used. It is impractical for use over large areas. As many plants re-sprout after such treatments, follow-up control is nearly always required. The cost of using machinery varies depending 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 in lightly infested areas or for isolated plants. Hand removal can be very effective following previous 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 to volunteers and the costs can be reduced substantially if volunteers are used. Fire can kill mature plants and reduce the seed bank through heat/smoke stimulated germination. The effects will depend on the intensity and duration of the fire (see Downey 1999). The need to consider impacts to non-target species, protection of life and property and the need to obtain a permit add considerably to the time and cost involved in using this technique. In addition, follow-up control is essential because of increased seedling recruitment. Fire may also cause additional problems such as erosion, habitat loss for fauna and the provision of a suitable environment for other weed species to establish.

The use of herbicides is the most effective method of controlling bitou bush. Glyphosate is the most commonly used herbicide, although when impacts on grasses need to be avoided metsulfuron methyl is preferred. Glyphosate and metsulfuron methyl are typically applied in winter 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 a foliar 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 on site conditions (as documented above for hand removal).

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

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

spraying to determine which herbicides were most effective in controlling bitou bush. Following this further trials were undertaken to determine the impact of over-spray on native species and thereby ascertain appropriate application rates. The results showed that spraying in winter reduced the impact on natives while delivering effective control of bitou bush. In addition, the rate of herbicide required to kill bitou bush during winter was very low (using glyphosate). Trials were subsequently undertaken using aerial techniques at four sites along the NSW coast from Jervis Bay to Yamba. The results supported the ground spraying trials, suggesting that effective control of 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 in New South Wales (see Broese van Groenou and Downey 2006). All aerial spraying programs to control bitou bush in New South Wales should follow these guidelines. Aerial application using low rates of glyphosate (0.76 kg active ingredient/ha) is a very effective technique that is used widely for the control of bitou bush. This technique is very cost-effective ($100–205/ha) and allows large areas to be treated rapidly.

The NPWS (now the Parks and Wildlife Division of the DEC) recently gained approval from APVMA to aerial spot-spray bitou bush using a helicopter. Average costs are not yet available but should 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 preceding or following the use of herbicides. In heavily infested areas the cost of this combined technique may exceed $15,000/ha (Jack pers. comm.). Many of these combined techniques form the basis for Integrated Weed Management (discussed further below).

Biological control involves the use of other live organisms to control weeds (or other pests). A national research program on biological control of bitou bush has been operating since 1986 (see Downey et al. submitted). Host specificity testing in South Africa revealed 19 possible agents for the control of Chrysanthemoides monilifera (bitou bush and boneseed) in Australia (see Adair and Edwards 1996). Over the past 19 years extensive work has been undertaken to assess and release as many agents from this list as possible. The biological control program for bitou bush in New South 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 roller moth (Tortrix sp.). One of the released agents, the bitou seed fly is now well established along the NSW 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 NSW coast, however it has only established at six sites, all of which are on headlands. Research shows that 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 to date. It is too early to draw any conclusions from these releases, but Australian and South African scientists are confident of the bitou leaf roller moth’s potential to have a major impact on bitou bush in Australia. Without further host-specificity testing in South Africa, it is unlikely that any additional agents will be released to control bitou bush in Australia. For boneseed, however, there

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

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 be influenced by the longevity of the target species. For example, the actions of a seed fly which parasitises the seeds of a long-lived plant (e.g. 25 years) will not alter the longevity of an individual plant, but rather will reduce the seed bank, leading to a reduction in recruitment and plant density over subsequent generations.

Integrated weed management (IWM) strategies and best practice management guidelines (see Adair and Ainsworth 2000; Vranjic 2000) outline holistic approaches using a combination of control techniques (Sindel 2000). This is because the use of a single technique is rarely successful in 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), and rehabilitate and re-vegetate the site with desirable indigenous species (i.e. locally occurring natives). In addition, IWM establishes a framework to manage sites following the initial control event. The nature of bitou bush invasions means that an IWM strategy for this weed needs to be long-term if it is to reduce the initial infestation as well as deplete the soil seed bank. Lack of appropriate 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 one species may provide an opportunity for another to proliferate. Where there is more than one weed species present, bush regeneration techniques should be adopted (see Buchanan 1989). The ideal strategy is to replace bitou bush with native species in such a way that the process of natural regeneration and succession is sustainable and bitou bush is not simply replaced by other weeds or re-invades itself. Some of the species that flourish after bitou bush control are even more difficult to control, e.g. glory lily (Gloriosa superba), ground asparagus (Asparagus aethiopicus), mirror bush (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 weed species 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 on non-target species. Best practice guidelines for aerial boom spraying have been developed to help limit some of these concerns (see Broese van Groenou and Downey 2006). Even so, recent studies and reviews have revealed that some native plant and animal species are susceptible to herbicide application as used to control bitou bush (e.g. Pimelea spicata). Species that are susceptible to or potentially susceptible to herbicides are presented in Appendices 10A and 10B as well as in the best practice aerial spraying guidelines. These species, along with any others identified in the future should be considered when undertaking herbicide control of bitou bush or boneseed. The lists in Appendix 10B contain information on the susceptibility of 280 species to Round-up® 360 and 85 species for metsulfuron methyl. However, different formulations of glyphosate or the use of surfactants or other additives could alter the response of the species on these lists. In addition, herbicides should be used with extreme caution in areas where priority plant species,

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

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

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

Some formulations of glyphosate contain a polyoxethylene amine (POEA) surfactant that is toxic to some frogs (see Bidwell and Gorrie 1995; Mann and Bidwell 1999). Only formulations of glyphosate containing non-POEA surfactants are registered for use in aquatic situations (NRA 1996). Consideration should also be given to using these formulations in any terrestrial situation that is a potential habitat for frogs, particularly those frog species listed under the threatened species legislation (TSC or EPBC Acts), and at sites identified in relevant recovery plans, e.g. for the green and gold bell frog (NPWS 2003b). Any other herbicide, surfactant or adjuvant that may have adverse effects on aquatic organisms should be avoided in any terrestrial situation buffering an aquatic ecosystem. A list of the aquatic organisms most likely to be impacted is presented in Appendix 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 on these invertebrates (see Lindsay and French 2004b).

When using other control techniques with biological control agents it may be important to leave 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 and incorrect 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 within the habitat of threatened entities (species, populations or endangered ecological communities) they must follow an interim draft checklist developed by DEC for such instances [the final checklist 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 many factors 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)

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

< 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 or regrowth of surviving plants. Seedlings are capable of producing seed within 24 months, with some observations on the north coast of New South Wales suggesting that newly germinated plants can set seed within 12 months (Thomas pers. comm.). The timing of follow-up control treatments must be sufficiently flexible to allow maximum recruitment, as well as prevent seed production. Follow-up controls should also ensure that enough time has elapsed for most bitou bush seedlings to reach a size/age that makes them easy to see amongst the re-sprouting native vegetation. Seedling mortality appears to be high, therefore delaying follow-up control techniques will 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 bitou bush and the other weed species present. The two most common methods are hand removal or spot-spraying of seedlings. However, biological control agents can be employed to help limit establishment, particularly in the longer term where they can reduce spread and lower plant vigour.

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 a single 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 vicinity of the species, population or ecological community at risk. This will reduce the direct threat in the short term.

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

The third and subsequent stages involve the further expansion of earlier stages with the aim of removing all bitou bush from the site and surrounding areas to prevent re-invasion. This stage also includes the continual follow-up control of bitou bush seedlings in all previously controlled stages/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.

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

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-specific management plan (see below) < only control areas for which there are resources available to undertake the subsequent stages, including most importantly the follow-up treatment of seedlings. Irrespective of the initial control measure implemented, follow-up treatments are required to control recruitment (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 main ways. First, it invades the margins, where it competes with or suppresses the species that protect the rainforest. The exposed margins are then subject to further degradation particularly on the seaward fringes, which are exposed to salt spray and desiccating winds. Second, bitou bush establishes 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 in the canopy occur, lantana and native species may replace bitou bush. However, in larger gaps and on 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 it does not result in exposure of the littoral rainforest following the removal of bitou bush from where it replaces the forest’s protective vegetation. Thus stage 1 would involve a staggered removal 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 in canopy 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 forest margins, 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 (NPWS 2001a) both emphasise the importance of site-specific strategies or management plans for the control of bitou bush. Previously there has been no framework for developing such strategies, but rather information was presented on a series of bitou bush densities and invaded habitats along with a range of control options (see Vranjic 2000).

The use of site-specific management strategies should not result in broader management objectives being compromised. To avoid this occurring and still ensure effective site management, a framework has been developed for compiling site-specific management strategies/plans (see below) 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 and conditions, 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

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

bitou bush at priority sites (i.e. control category 1 sites). Each site-specific management plan should: < 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. traditional foods) and control programs at that site, including the likely social, cultural and economic consequences < specify the priority species, populations and ecological communities present as per threat abatement or recovery plans (or for any other legislative requirement), as well as any other species of high conservation value < identify the most appropriate management techniques for the level of bitou bush present, as well as for other aspects of the site including the native flora, non-target effects, the terrain, access, and other local conditions, as well as for the priority species, etc. identified above (including remediation methods, e.g. fencing) < ensure all pesticide applications comply with the Pesticides Act (see Chapter 2) and APVMA regulations < identify the milestones, performance criteria and measures to be achieved during the life 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 site after the initial control (in line with the staged approach) < outline any monitoring programs being undertaken to evaluate the effectiveness of bitou bush control programs < identify other weed species that are likely to invade following the removal of bitou bush and outline a control program to address the problem < identify training requirements for all stakeholders and/or persons who will undertake the management actions (including volunteers), e.g. the application of herbicides < identify and incorporate all threat abatement and recovery plan actions relevant to the site (e.g. the Green and Gold Bell Frog Recovery Plan: see NPWS 2003b) < identify and incorporate all relevant actions outlined in the draft Priority Action Statement (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 land managers prepare site-specific management plans (see Appendix 9). At all control category 1 sites, a site-specific management plan should be prepared using this proforma and the framework listed above. 7.6 Infestation levels and control options

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

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

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

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 the light infestation level prevents a worsening scenario. Sites need to be monitored regularly to control and prevent re-invasion by bitou bush.

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

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 invaded vegetation 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 the risk of erosion. Fire may be considered however, if dune areas are stable or follow-up techniques such 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 the proximity of agents to the treated area and their abundance in such areas, the size of the area treated, the level of bitou bush recruitment following control, and the impact of the biocontrol agent on seedlings and adult plants. The timing of the use of fire as a control technique varies from site to site. Control burns are most effective in autumn on the south coast of New South Wales, and in spring on the north coast. The full implications of a biocontrol–spray–burn–spray strategy to control bitou bush in coastal vegetation communities have not been determined. The use of fire should be approached with caution and planned carefully, as fire will not be suitable in all instances.

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

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

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 to biodiversity, as native species, populations and ecological communities in these areas will remain unaffected by bitou bush invasions. This however, is outside the scope of this plan (as outlined previously) and should be addressed through more appropriate strategies e.g. the national WONS strategy 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. forest communities) is rudimentary however. Anecdotal evidence suggests that open coastal forests lacking a true shrub layer, on both clay and sandy soils, are more susceptible to invasion than closed ones. Bitou bush also poses a threat to the outer margins of closed forests (e.g. littoral rainforests). Dry heath may also be susceptible, especially where disturbance reduces plant competition near bitou bush infestations. Boneseed poses a similar threat, but to communities further 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 there is a range of bitou bush control programs in place to conserve native flora and limit bitou bush spread, at various sites throughout New South Wales. These control programs involve many agencies (e.g. Parks and Wildlife Division of DEC, Department of Lands, NSW State Forests and local 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 prioritise bitou bush management. There is however a need for an overall strategy for bitou bush control for threatened species, because: < some control programs do not have conservation objectives, apart for the assumption that control alone will result in biodiversity outcomes (see Downey 2003a, b, submitted for further discussion). < the objectives of some control programs are unclear. In particular, the species that are expected to benefit from bitou bush control are not always identified (Downey submitted). < where species are identified, an objective basis for predicting that the species is susceptible to bitou bush invasion is not always provided. In particular, there may be no information that species targeted by bitou bush control will benefit other than the observation that they are present or absent from their ‘preferred’ habitat. < some programs are likely to be ineffective because control is not targeted at priority species and follow-up programs are inadequate, or control occurs over too small an area or too short a timeframe to prevent re-infestation. < there is no consistent plan applying across all land tenures. Greater collaboration between landholders is fundamental to the success of control programs. < measures of effectiveness for these programs are often inadequate and, in particular, do not measure the response of targeted species to bitou bush control. Thus, no measure is available on the effectiveness of control programs, or whether target species recover

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

following removal of bitou bush therefore indicating they were limited by bitou bush invasion. < years of bitou bush control have not provided information on which species are affected by bitou bush invasions. An integrated approach to broad-scale weed management that incorporates plant conservation is long overdue. Such an approach is needed in order to deliver conservation outcomes from weed management (Downey 2003a, b, submitted). Thus, the ‘no change in current management’ control option 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 be assessed using the estimated cost of losing a species due to weed invasion, being $86,700 per species 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 are threatened far outweighs the economic benefits of controlling new or isolated infestations. Arguments have also been made that control for biodiversity should also address potential or future impacts. Again, given the scale of the problem, the limited nature of resources, and the aims of a threat abatement plan, the current impacts to biodiversity are so great and immediate that they outweigh any potential or future impacts to un-infested areas. Such control programs 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 land managers to control bitou bush (a list of all the local control authorities in New South Wales, in which bitou bush or boneseed is declared noxious, is presented in Appendix 1). In addition, the control 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 for species, populations and ecological communities at risk and their locations where control will have the greatest biodiversity outcomes (see Chapters 4 and 6 and Appendices 3, 5 and 8). While the TAP aims to address the highest priorities, lower priorities (both threatened biodiversity and sites) should be used to establish regional and local priorities for bitou bush control. The priority lists are not definitive and other species and ecological communities in New South Wales threatened by bitou bush invasion may be identified in the future. The control of bitou bush other than for the priorities established here is outside the scope of this TAP, except for the species that co-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 bitou bush strategies. Other funding sources should be maintained to combat bitou bush where programs are already in place or in other important areas.

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

8 Monitoring the recovery of priority biodiversity and the 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 be developed and implemented. Monitoring programs must take measures from both controlled and uncontrolled 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 to those entities identified as being at risk. Many variables can be measured and a number of monitoring techniques can be used. The following measures must be addressed at control category 1 sites described in the TAP: < the response of bitou bush (adults and seedlings) to the control program, measured by detailed and frequent assessments of plant abundance and vigour, as well as through regular observations from photo points both prior to and post control < the response of the high priority plant species, populations and ecological communities to the control program, measured by a similar range of measures as described for bitou bush above < the response of other weed species to the control program, measured by regular surveys of the other weed species along with their relative abundance. More detailed measures can be obtained using similar response variables as described for measuring the response of bitou bush above (e.g. plant vigour).

Additional measures can help to determine the effectiveness of control programs with respect to the 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 similar range of measures as described for other weed species above < the response of biocontrol agents following the control program, measured by the rate of 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 is required to account for seed dormancy < differences between controlled areas and non-controlled areas, or before and after control 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 is presented below, followed by a proposed monitoring system for this plan.

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

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 of bitou bush. For example, through plant survival and recruitment following control. While the exact techniques for collecting such information have not been finalised with regards to the monitoring 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 of plants 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 that germinate following the same control treatment. Hence, plants that survive initial treatments will require earlier follow-up treatment if the input of fresh seed is to be limited. In order to control weed seed banks, a measure of bitou bush plants that survive control treatments (e.g. missed totally, treated but re-sprouting, or unaffected) needs to be determined for each method used. This can be measured using quadrat counts or photopoints.

Measuring recruitment Recruitment from the seed bank will have important implications for the long-term success of any bitou 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 seed population dynamics will allow more effective control programs to be developed, in part from better predictions of the follow-up control period. Secondly, some control measures will reduce bitou bush seed bank densities more than others. For example, fire stimulates seeds to germinate as well as killing others (as examined for a range of weed species, see Downey 1999). Thus, a combination of fire and herbicide is likely to reduce soil seed banks to a lower level than either method would if used alone.

The probability of a seed becoming a reproductive adult is unknown. Therefore, the optimal period in terms of maximum impact on bitou bush between the initial control and any follow-up treatment 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. If seedling mortality in bitou bush is similarly high, follow-up treatments should target older seedlings 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 miss many seeds that have not yet emerged. Lastly, the location of bitou bush seedlings may suggest invasion patterns (i.e. under roosting trees). This information can be used to target specific areas in 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 can indicate their ability to recover/regenerate following bitou bush control programs. A lack of seedlings may require additional recovery techniques like revegetation, but such techniques are outside the scope of this TAP. The number of other weed seedlings will indicate the need for

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

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

Recruitment can be measured in a number of different ways depending on the aim of the monitoring 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 with stakeholders 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 the response of biodiversity (i.e. species, populations and ecological communities) to the control technique 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 the weed species. The main issue is choosing the native species to monitor and finding a suitable monitoring technique for those selected. With respect to this plan, the native species or biodiversity has been identified in Appendices 3 and 5. The ecology literature and textbooks cover monitoring in detail, so the specifics are not presented here. Note that factors which confound the response of biodiversity to bitou bush control can include bitou bush recruitment levels from the seed bank; re-invasion rates of bitou bush post-control; the percentage of the overall bitou bush infestation treated; and the percentage of plants that persist after control actions. These confounding factors can be accounted for during any monitoring program with an appropriate experimental 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 by another weed species. Sometimes this secondary invader can be more difficult to control than the original weed species, for example, glory lily following bitou bush control along the north coast of New South Wales. Hence, it is important to monitor the response of any such weed species during and after the control of bitou bush. This can be done using similar monitoring techniques to 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 site identified in this plan. Thus, a monitoring system is needed. While the mechanics of which methods to use for which biodiversity at which sites is still to be developed, an overview of the approach 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 priority species or the size of priority populations/ecological communities are such that it is impossible to undertake monitoring.

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

Where populations of priority species or the size of priority populations/ecological communities are not sufficiently robust the following protocol should be followed (first tier): < before and after measurements of bitou bush, priority species, populations and ecological communities and other weed species continued over time. Where populations of priority species or the size of priority populations/ecological communities are 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 sites will be developed in consultation with site-managers in the first year of this plan. These protocols are also likely to outline the monitoring required for other sites so that land managers can assess the effectiveness of their control programs. Again, this will occur in consultation with land managers. 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 bitou bush at control category 1 sites, that are aimed at increasing our understanding of the impacts of bitou bush to biodiversity, and therefore developing more effective management strategies to reduce such impacts. A summary of the monitoring programs required for such actions is outlined below.

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 some instances this requires further investigation. For example, the herbicide application used for bitou bush 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 this plan is limited. The following discussion refers primarily to assessment of the impact of herbicides used to control bitou bush on the priority plant species, populations and the species within those ecological communities listed in this TAP. The impacts on all non-target species should also be determined during any such assessment.

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

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

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

the TAP should include some measure to assess herbicide damage/tolerance. The best practice guidelines suggest that as a starting point, data be collected in the manner used to date (i.e. visual observations at 8 weeks and 6 months after application), with records being forwarded to John Toth 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 research associated with herbicide impacts (see Action 2.2 in Chapter 9). Potential research projects could focus 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 the impacts on priority biodiversity is extremely important to the outcomes of this TAP. As many have small population sizes and the effect of herbicide is relatively unknown, in situ testing is not recommended. Monitoring programs must assess the impacts of herbicide use on both seedlings and adults of each priority species, and also on a range of non-target species. Where a priority species exhibits signs of herbicide damage, action must be taken immediately to prevent further damage, 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 and the misidentification of natives as weeds was a threat to eight. Other studies have also shown negative effects of weed control on native species. For example, some native species in South Australia were negatively affected by boneseed control that involved high levels of soil disturbance (Thomas et al. 2000). Thus, the effects of any control technique on native species should be assessed in order to reduce any adverse effects of that technique on biodiversity. This is especially so for those species outlined here as being at risk when implementing control of bitou 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 over a sufficient period to show change. Given the dramatic increase (i.e. 36%) observed between the last two surveys (i.e. Love 1984 and Thomas 2002), an interval of around 20 years appears to be too 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 be undertaken 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 final year of this TAP, the NSW coastline should be re-surveyed (see Love 1984; Thomas 2002) to determine the status of both bitou bush and boneseed. Information on the distribution can be used to determine future initiatives and control programs, as well as to help determine the overall success 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 better understand the impacts of bitou bush and boneseed invasions. The monitoring and research programs outlined below would be of great benefit to the broader control of bitou bush and

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

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

Monitoring should be undertaken regularly (e.g. annually) to identify new infestations/populations of bitou bush and boneseed as well as to identify those existing populations that are re-invading coastal and surrounding regions of New South Wales. Such populations should be treated soon after detection to prevent further spread. This is best done prior to first flowering. While the impact 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 great importance, as most of the species identified as being at risk from bitou bush invasion in this TAP were selected using anecdotal evidence (i.e. derived through the WINS assessment process) and not quantitative studies. Such studies are desperately needed, along with studies concerning the broader ecology of bitou bush and boneseed such as seed dormancy, germination rates, seedling survivorship and establishment rates. In addition, long-term studies are needed to determine the likely 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 manner as those for flora, in part due to a lack of information (see Chapter 5), monitoring the impacts of both invasion and control on fauna should be considered during any monitoring program associated with any bitou bush control program. Such monitoring could be focused on generic groups of fauna (i.e. birds) or more specifically on individual groups (e.g. shorebirds), depending on the resources available (time and dollars), skill/knowledge level of the observer and level of understanding required. As outlined in Section 8.1.4, more detailed information on monitoring techniques will be developed within the first year of the TAP, this will include investigations into monitoring requirements for determining the impacts on fauna. Monitoring of fauna will also help to meet Actions 6.1 and 7.1 and the shortcomings outlined in Chapter 5.

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

9 A strategy to minimise the impact of Chrysanthemoides monilifera on priority biodiversity in New South Wales

9.1 Background

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

Bitou bush control programs have been undertaken across coastal New South Wales for several decades. While some local infestations have been successfully controlled and the containment lines are being moved, control programs have not prevented the spread of bitou bush, in part due to 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 it occurs. In order to utilise resources effectively, control and management efforts need to be focused on the areas where the benefits of control will be greatest. This TAP focuses on identifying those species, populations or ecological communities that are at the greatest risk from bitou bush invasion. The identification of such biodiversity is then used to establish priority sites for control programs. It is important to remember that control is still needed for reasons other than biodiversity conservation (e.g. around access roads, for public use of beaches and the prevention of new infestations).

The distribution of boneseed in New South Wales is such that it currently poses limited threats to biodiversity and most of the remainder of this chapter deals with bitou bush only, unless boneseed is 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 of such controls are most beneficial to native biodiversity, particularly but not exclusively, threatened flora (species, populations and ecological communities). The effectiveness of the control programs will be measured through comprehensive monitoring programs.

A core component of this TAP is the coordination of control programs across different land tenures and land management organisations throughout New South Wales. The Bitou TAP does not aim to replace or reduce existing priority control programs identified in the national, NSW and 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 and should continue.

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

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. Therefore intensive recovery efforts are not outlined in this plan other than control. Such recovery efforts are best addressed by recovery plan actions and/or Priority Action Statement (PAS) actions, and implemented by the individual land manager.

The Bitou TAP has eight objectives, listed in Table 9.1, and the following sections outline strategies to address each of these objectives. A summarised list of actions for each of the eight objectives 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. Objective 1 Ensure that bitou bush (and boneseed) control is undertaken in areas where the benefits to threatened species, populations and ecological communities are greatest 2 Evaluate the effectiveness of control programs with respect to the response of priority species, populations and ecological communities 3 Evaluate the ways in which bitou bush causes the decline of native plant species 4 Ensure that all stakeholders are involved/participate at each of the priority sites 5 Ensure implementation and administration of the Bitou TAP is undertaken 6 Determine the effects of bitou bush invasions on fauna 7 Determine the effects of bitou bush control on fauna 8 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 the benefits to species, populations and ecological communities are greatest.

In developing the actions and setting priorities for this objective, the key assumptions underlying effective control programs for bitou bush (and boneseed) include: < no single management strategy is recommended. Thus, site-specific management plans need 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, all control programs must be long-term and account for more than an initial control area in year one (i.e. a staged approach for control: see Section 7.4). Sources for re-infestation should also be identified where possible. The need for follow-up controls is outlined in Chapter 7 (above). < other threats are present at many of the priority sites. Managing these additional threats is beyond the scope of the Bitou TAP. The mechanism to address these other threats is through recovery plans as specified under the TSC Act and EPBC Act, and more

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

recently the draft Priority Action Statement (PAS) as specified under the TSC Act. The exception is where the threat comes from another weed species which may either increase or replace bitou bush following control. At such sites, control programs must address these weed species as well. < resources are limited and must be directed to species, populations and ecological communities and sites where the benefits will be greatest. < commitment to the priority species, populations and ecological communities and sites outlined 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 considered at all sites.

9.3.1 Action 1.1

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

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

Although control is already occurring at some of these high priority sites, the objectives of many of these programs are different from those outlined in this TAP. For example, many programs simply aim to control bitou bush over the entire site rather than focusing on the protection of the biodiversity at threat. Thus, site-specific management plans will be used to help re-align such control 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 be controlled 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) sites within 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 5 sites) and in other areas where threatened species, populations and/or ecological communities occur will continue.

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

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 available best practice guidelines. DEC will work with councils and 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.

Site-specific management plans (Action 1.2) Site-specific management plans are required for all control category 1 sites. Each plan will follow the framework established in Chapter 7, and should be completed using the proforma presented in Appendix 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 the development 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 from control.

Performance criteria for Actions 1.2 and 1.3 < Site-specific management plans to control bitou bush will be developed for 75% (127 sites) of the 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 containment zones in NSW.

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

Commitment to these containment zones is crucial in limiting future impacts to biodiversity not just in New South Wales. However, what is needed to formalise the process is to: i) define and map the current northern and southern containment zones; ii) outline a strategy with all relevant stakeholders to move each containment zone during the course of this plan; iii) ensure that control undertaken in these areas follows best practice; iv) maintain controlled areas and prevent recruiting plants from seeding; and iv) determine the success of the program by assessing the level of recruitment within the ‘contained’ area.

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

Performance criteria for Action 1.4 < The density of bitou bush at both the northern and southern containment zones is reduced and the zones receded within five years of the publication date of this TAP.

9.4 Objective 2: Monitor the effectiveness of bitou bush control programs

Objective 2 Evaluate the effectiveness of control programs at control category 1 sites with respect 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 at control 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 will need to be reduced. Although control programs may result in visible or obvious reductions in the density 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 evaluations must 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 the control 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 protocol will be developed in the near future.

Performance criteria for Action 2.1 < 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 the tier one or tier two monitoring program (discussed in Chapter 8), within 18 months of the publication date of this TAP. < Maintain commitment to undertaking the monitoring programs established over the course of this TAP. < Publish and report on the results as part of the review of the TAP (including incorporation of results into best practice guidelines) to land managers and researchers. Results from both tiers of monitoring to be presented.

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

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. The species listed in Appendix 10B were examined and their tolerance to herbicides was noted. These herbicide lists contain some of the priority species listed in Appendix 3 of the TAP, however the effect of herbicides on other priority species is unknown (see Section 8.2.1). This requires investigation so that high priority species are not threatened by the application of bitou bush control techniques using herbicides.

Performance criteria for Action 2.2 < 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 3 and 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 too long to establish effective management strategies to reduce the problem. By re-mapping the distribution of bitou bush and boneseed in the final year of this plan, the information collected can be used to revise the plan and thus ensure it is addressed effectively. In addition, the interval between 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 South Wales and develop a containment/eradication strategy.

Information on the distribution of boneseed is critical given that it is not yet widespread in New South Wales, but has the potential to become a serious environmental weed as evident in Tasmania, South Australia and Victoria. Once such information is collected/mapped (Action 2.3 above), 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 bitou bush 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.

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

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 bush invasions.

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

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

Performance criteria for Action 3.1 < Establish experiments to determine the ways in which bitou bush causes a decline in native plant 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 control category 1 sites.

9.6.1 Action 4.1

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

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

Community groups and bitou bush control There is strong community support for bitou bush management in New South Wales. Hundreds of volunteers along the coast have contributed significantly to its control over the past several decades. These efforts require external support due to the scale of the problem. A further discussion 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, not all of them are undertaking work associated with bitou bush management. It is important from the perspective of this TAP to know which groups are undertaking bitou bush control, for several reasons. First, to raise awareness of the TAP and its objectives. Second, to provide training and guidance where needed to achieve wider implementation of the TAP. Last, to identify the high priority sites requiring the support of additional volunteers and/or other resources. Evaluation of the 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 in Australia 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 support from 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 TAP encourages community involvement at all sites, not just those in control category 1. Some members of the community and stakeholders may however require training before they can undertake some control actions to: < limit damage associated with implementing control techniques, especially where specific techniques are required (e.g. P. spicata). < prevent inadvertent damage to conservation values through incorrect identification of plant species (e.g. the need to distinguish between juveniles/seedlings of bitou bush and Scaevola calendulacea which are both common on fore-dunes). < ensure that threatened species, populations and ecological communities are adequately protected under the TSC Act (see Section 2.2.2). < comply with regulations relating to undertaking work on threatened species, as per the TSC Act. < comply with regulations under the Pesticides Act. Accreditation may require some stakeholders/community members to gain specific skills. Similar training for volunteers and stakeholders is also a priority in both the NSW bitou bush strategy (see NPWS 2001a) and the North Coast strategy (see Scanlon 2001).

Performance criteria for Action 4.1 < 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.

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

9.6.2 Action 4.2

Action 4.2 DEC and other agencies will undertake public awareness programs on the impacts of bitou 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 recent years through initiatives like Weed Buster Week and Australia’s 20 Worst Weeds (or the Weeds Of National Significance). It is extremely important that public awareness of weeds and their impacts 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 threat abatement plans. As the Bitou TAP is the first TAP for a weed species in Australia, it is paramount that it receives positive public support. A public awareness campaign will also help to maintain volunteer commitment over the five year period of the TAP and seek valuable support for the TAP from the wider community. The public will be kept informed on the progress of the TAP’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 statewide coordination and implementation of the Bitou TAP. Full implementation will require the establishment of bitou bush control programs at 169 control category 1 sites across a range of land tenures throughout New South Wales. Once established, coordination of these sites will be needed for five years to maintain the integrity of the TAP. The design, implementation and analysis of experiments to measure the responses of priority plant species, populations and ecological communities to bitou bush control at these sites will need to be undertaken. Given the scale of these 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:

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

< 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 sites for the five years of the plan. < establish and implement a protocol for monitoring the effectiveness of control programs at control category 1 sites (including best practice management). < liaise with research organisations to establish herbicide trials on nominated non-target species. < liaise with research organisations to establish sites where the impact and control of bitou bush on fauna is studied (including supervision of postgraduate students and development 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 a KTP 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 onto breeding/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 of native 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 species are lacking (see Chapter 5). For example, the host plant Viola betonicifolia of the endangered butterfly Argyreus hyperbius subsp. inconstans appears to be threatened by bitou bush invasion in

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

northern New South Wales, from Port Macquarie to the NSW/Qld border (Moss pers. comm.), but no data are available to determine the impacts. If data shows that V. betonicifolia is threatened by bitou bush then any reduction in bitou bush should have positive outcomes for this species as well as 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 (see review in Gosper 2004b), especially when the weed has become dominant and may have been so for many years or decades. Weed infestations may change the density and/or abundance of fauna as well as how they interact with their ‘new’ environment containing these weeds, and as such they may be seriously affected if these weeds are suddenly removed. Some weeds may play an important 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 disturbance involved in removing weeds may also affect many fauna species long after the actual control event has taken place (e.g. from increased light, soil disturbance, trampling of the ground and/or the effects of management techniques like fire). Also, some native species may take many years to recover following control (i.e. Turner and Virtue in press). The vast majority of bitou bush control programs, like those for most other weed species, have operated on the assumption that the removal of the weed and restoration of native vegetation will result in improved habitats for native species (see Downey submitted).

The techniques used to control bitou bush may also impact on fauna. For example, as has already been discussed in Chapter 7, the surfactants used with some herbicides may have adverse effects on some frog species. Information on such impacts is scarce. A preliminary list of the species likely to be affected is presented in Appendix 10A. Some frog species (e.g. green and gold bell frogs) are known to utilise bitou bush in their habitat, and the removal of bitou bush may therefore have 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 bush with herbicide could pose a real threat to the species and warrants further investigation (NPWS 2003b).

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

While some studies on the effects of herbicide on litter invertebrates were inconclusive (see Lindsay and French 2004b), other studies showed that herbicide did have an effect on invertebrates (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 future control/management strategies and best practice guidelines for bitou bush. Action 8.2 DEC and other stakeholders will examine new data and establish future priorities for bitou 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 becomes available. Also, the concept of focusing weed control on biodiversity outcomes as presented in this TAP is a new approach in weed management (see Downey 2003a, b, submitted), and therefore the outcomes of this TAP should determine future management and research objectives for 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 (monitoring of control programs) and 2.2 (herbicide impacts), as well as any other data available, during the final 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 control programs) and 2.2 (herbicide impacts), as well as any other data available, during the final year of 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 Actions 2.2, 3.1, 6.1 and 7.1. These have not been identified at this time.

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

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 (control category 1) sites on their estate. In addition, the DEC and DoL will seek agreement from councils to ensure bitou bush control programs are undertaken at high priority sites on council administered land. The DoL will liaise and encourage Trust managers 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 at high priority sites on private lands. To measure 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 plans for bitou bush control programs, based on currently available best practice guidelines. DEC will work with councils and 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 a containment/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 to participate 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 on biodiversity, 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 and best practice guidelines for bitou bush. Action 8.2 DEC and other stakeholders will examine new data and establish future priorities for bitou bush research.

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

10 Social and economic impacts of the Bitou TAP

The implementation of the Bitou TAP will have positive social benefits. As a major environmental weed infesting 80% of the NSW coastline and threatening many plant communities, any reduction in the distribution of bitou bush will result in enhanced protection of beaches and a reduction in impacts on coastal biodiversity in New South Wales. The reductions proposed in this TAP are for specific areas, rather than general reductions in distribution, the latter being outside the scope of this TAP.

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

There is widespread public appreciation that bitou bush is a threat to native flora and that it impacts upon coastal environments. There is also widespread public expectation that bitou bush should be controlled on all public lands. The prioritisation of bitou bush control to specific sites may be unpopular where such priorities do not match existing programs (e.g. control in more conspicuous areas, such as in urban reserves, along roadsides, popular beaches and coastal recreation areas). However, it must be noted that this TAP is solely directed at reducing the threat to biodiversity and not control per se. This TAP aims to address this issue through a public education program – Action (4.2). Given that bitou bush occupies 80% of the NSW coastline and potentially threatens all terrestrial coastal plant communities, it is expected that the community will generally support a plan that prioritises and directs control programs to areas which are at the greatest 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 many existing collaborative programs outside the scope of this TAP, which have broader conservation objectives, public support or address priorities identified in the national, state and regional bitou bush management strategies.

An economic analysis of the cost of bitou bush and boneseed control has not been undertaken, as is the case for the vast majority of environmental weeds in Australia. However, information derived from a model used for Scotch broom shows that for small infestations, control provides significant long-term economic benefits. Biological control programs can provide economic benefits, however the cost of such programs is beyond the reach of individual control programs and the bitou bush and boneseed program has almost exhausted the list of potential agents (see Downey et al. submitted). In addition, control strategies that targeted both weed and seed bank densities 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 difficulty of developing an accurate estimate of the cost of environmental weeds, let alone the economic benefit of reducing threats to specific species, populations or ecological communities. Investigations are currently under way to establish if an economic analysis can be undertaken of the TAP with the University of New England.

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

The main economic benefit of the Bitou TAP is that it provides a consistent framework for control measures 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 the completion of a control strategy, any successes of that control program may be quickly lost as bitou bush can re-invade rapidly. In these cases, continuity of funds would most likely have resulted in greater long-term control of bitou bush. Where funds cease and re-invasion occurs there are also likely to be negative social impacts, for example, disillusionment of volunteer groups. The Bitou TAP seeks to ensure that funding is maintained at control category 1 sites for the duration of the TAP, and thus prevent such failures. It is also anticipated that by identifying sites 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 health issues related to the implementation of the plan. Actions 2.2 (research into herbicides and threatened species), 2.3 (monitoring of control programs), 6.1 (bitou bush impacts on fauna) and 7.1 (bitou bush control and fauna) aim to obtain further data on bitou bush control methods with respect to native plants and animals. Thus, identifying any potential effects of the TAP on flora and fauna, combined with Action 8.1 (re-evaluated new control programs), will lessen any such impacts 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 ecological communities may limit the use of some coastal areas during the TAP. The plan will not significantly affect development applications or other activities that require approval under the EP&A Act (Section 2.2.6), except where a condition of consent refers to the removal of all bitou bush 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 significant sites. It is anticipated that indigenous people will make such social impacts known during the development 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 implementing this plan. Bitou bush is a major threat to the biodiversity identified in this plan (see Appendices 3 and 5). These entities will continue to be threatened in the absence of such a plan. The continued threat posed by bitou bush will add to the cost of recovering these entities, and this cost will increase with time. The longer the threat is imposed the greater the risk of additional entities becoming threatened and those entities that are threatened becoming extinct. Any such extinction is likely to have major social implications, especially if a plan to prevent such extinctions was prepared but not adopted.

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

11 Costs and implementation of this TAP

It is a requirement of the TSC Act that a TAP outlines the cost of implementing the proposed actions. As a number of actions, or parts thereof, outlined in Chapter 9 were implemented in the 2005–06 financial year, the actual costs associated with each of these actions is presented here as a reflection of the estimated cost of implementing each action in this TAP. This assumes that these stakeholders will maintain a similar level of commitment in the future and that there is minimal 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 are discussed below. These actions are predominantly associated with future research objectives aimed at filling the knowledge gaps identified during the preparation of this TAP. These are crucial for the longer-term management of bitou bush and to understand better the impact on biodiversity.

Implementing this TAP in the future will depend on similar levels of commitment from government authorities, private industry and the community. Where possible, additional funds will 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 with proposed actions outlined in this TAP

During the 2005–06 financial year, several of the actions proposed in this plan, or parts thereof were undertaken. The cost of implementing these actions in 2005–06 (hereafter referred to as the current 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 coastal councils and the University of Wollongong. It must also be noted that the current cost is not a reflection of any commitment to this plan in the future, however it is anticipated that these bodies 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 various agencies/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.

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

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

Expenditure in 2005–06 ($) b Total across Cash External all funding Responsibility/ expenditure In-kind contribution TOTAL sources Action Description Priority a funding source c ($ 000) d ($ 000) e ($ 000) f ($ 000) ($ 000) DEC 300 344 354 998 DoL 72 0 - 72 1.1 bitou bush control 1 Councils 110 132 71 313 2,176 Coastal CMAs - - 460 460 Other* 27 204 102 333 DEC 46 38 2 86 1.2 site-specific management plans 1 104 Councils 1 16 1 18 include indigenous values in site 1.3 management plans 1 DEC 0.6 - - 0.6 0.6 strategy containment of bitou bush 1.4 (i.e. northern and southern 1 Councils 20 16 32 68 68 containment zones) DEC 3 5 15 23 2.1 monitoring of priority sites 1 45 Councils 15 - 7 22 research into herbicide impacts to 2.2 native plants 2 DEC 2.1 0 0 2.1 2.1 DEC 1 0.3 - 1.3 2.3 survey bitou bush 3 Councils 0.5 - 3 3.5 17.8 Other* - 2 11 13 survey boneseed in NSW and 2.4 develop a containment and 3 DEC - - - - - eradication strategy understanding native plant species 3.1 decline in bitou bush invaded areas 1 Other** 253 - 62 315 315 training of volunteers to work with DEC 8 1 - 9 4.1 1 15 bitou bush Councils 2 2 2 6 public awareness of the TAP and the 4.2 impacts of bitou bush 2 Councils - - 0.3 0.3 0.3 DEC 91 0.4 - 91.4 5.1 TAP coordination 1 96.4 Councils - 1 4 5 determine impact on fauna from 6.1 2 - - - - - bitou bush 7.1 impacts of bitou bush control on 2 - - - - - fauna 8.1 review data and develop guidelines 3 Councils - 1.3 0 1.3 1.3 DEC - 0.2 - 0.2 8.2 establish future priorities 3 Councils - - 0.6 0.6 4 Other - 3.2 - 3.2 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 not essential for the implementation of this TAP b The funds spent on each action by various agencies in the 2005–06 financial year c 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, Bellingen Council, 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 Shire Council). 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 laboratory equipment e In-kind contribution represents the salary component of permanent staff and volunteer time f 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 sites identified in this plan (see Appendix 7), on a range of land tenures. Expenditure on bitou bush control programs at these sites (Action 1.1) in the 2005–06 financial year totalled $2,176,000 (see

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

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

In addition, bitou bush control occurred at a large number of the other sites identified in Appendix 7 (i.e. control categories 2, 3, 4, 5) during 2005–06. Expenditure on control programs at these lower 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 for the control of bitou bush at priority sites (Action 1.2) was $104,000. This amount is likely to increase during the implementation of the TAP, as site-specific management plans will need to be developed and updated for additional sites. The development of site-specific management plans is imperative to ensure control is effective and that the impact to priority plant species, populations or ecological communities is minimal at each priority site.

There has been limited consultation to date with indigenous people during the development of site-specific management plans (Action 1.3), as reflected in only $600 being spent during the 2005–06 financial year for this action (see Table 9.1). It is expected that this amount will increase as 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 the northern containment zone was not available at the time of writing. It is expected that the amount of control undertaken in the northern containment zone was similar to, but probably more than in the southern containment zone, hence a realistic total estimate for Action 1.4 in 2005–06 would be approximately $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 bush control programs and the recovery of species at risk. The total expenditure on monitoring bitou bush control programs and the response of biodiversity at risk at some of the control category 1 sites in 2005–06 was $45,260 (see Table 11.1). The cost of monitoring at priority sites varied widely 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 the objectives of this TAP. These include: i) the aims and objectives of existing monitoring programs differ; ii) the level of monitoring and the methods used varies at different sites; iii) numerous managers ‘own’ the data, making compilation difficult; and iv) such variation makes analysis across sites and species virtually impossible. Thus, future monitoring programs must be uniform if comparable 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

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

on the impact of herbicide on threatened species, or more generally native species is limited, and most of it is anecdotal. Such information is necessary to manage and protect threatened biodiversity better and hence has been given a priority rating of 2 (contributing to the plan objectives). Rigorous examination needs to be undertaken by researchers into the effects of herbicides 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 statewide survey like that carried out in 2001 (see Thomas 2002; Thomas and Leys 2002). However, it is proposed to re-survey the distribution and abundance of bitou bush and boneseed in years 4 and 5 of this TAP. Changes prior to this are unlikely to be significant. Thus, this action was given a priority 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 eradication strategy for boneseed in 2005–06. As outlined in Chapter 9 and elsewhere in this text, boneseed is not currently a major problem in New South Wales, however it has the potential to be, given its distribution in Tasmania, South Australia and Victoria. Thus it is important that we have information on the distribution of boneseed, from which effective management strategies can be developed to contain or eradicate it. Given that boneseed is currently not posing a significant threat to biodiversity and is unlikely to do so in the next five years, this action was given a priority rating 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 species decline was $315,261. This represents the stipend of several Ph.D. students, an external grant, and the 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 community groups in delivering the objectives of this TAP is substantial. Coordination and training of such volunteers and community groups is essential if the objectives of this TAP are to be achieved. In addition, 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 as insurance issues. In 2005–06, the expenditure associated with coordinating and training volunteers with respect to the actions outlined in this TAP for control category 1 sites, was $14,955 (Table 11.1). There is an on-going need for coordination and training of volunteers, which needs to be standardised 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 sites in 2005–06 was $320 (Table 11.1). The implementation of this TAP will require continual support

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

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

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 on fauna (Action 6.1) or the impacts of bitou bush control on fauna (Action 7.1). Data on the impact of bitou bush and its control on fauna are limited. Such information is necessary to manage and better 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 address the impacts of bitou bush invasion on fauna when the TAP is revised (i.e. five-years from the release of this plan). Rigorous examination needs to be undertaken by researchers into the effects of 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) in 2005–06 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 native species (Action 2.2); ii) reasons for native species decline (Action 3.1); and iii) interaction between bitou bush and fauna (Actions 6.1 and 7.1) should be collated and incorporated into best practice guidelines (Action 8.1) and assessment of future priorities (Action 8.2). This action is proposed for the final year of the TAP and thus is given a priority rating of 3 (being desirable, but not essential for the implementation of this TAP).

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

12 References

Adair, R.J. and Edwards, P.B. (1996). An attack strategy against Chrysanthemoides monilifera, a weed of native vegetation in Australia. 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 the Endangered Flora Network, Environment Australia, Canberra. ARMCANZ (Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand), ANZECC (Australian and New Zealand Environmental and Conservation Council) and Forestry Ministers (1997). The National Weeds Strategy: A strategic approach to weed problems of national significance. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. ARMCANZ (Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand), ANZECC (Australian and New Zealand Environmental and Conservation Council) and Forestry Ministers (2000). Weeds of National Significance Bitou Bush and Boneseed (Chrysanthemoides monilifera ssp. rotundata and monilifera) Strategic Plan. National Weeds Strategy Executive Committee, Launceston. AVH (Australia’s Virtual Herbarium) (2006) Australia’s Virtual Herbarium. Council of Heads of Australian Herbaria. (Available at http://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 South Wales, Sydney. Bidwell, J.R. and Gorrie, J.R. (1995). Acute toxicity of a herbicide to selected frog species. Technical series 79, Western Australian Department 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).

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

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 Wildlife Service 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) Plant Conservation: approaches and techniques from an Australian perspective. Module 4 (pages unnumbered). Australian Network for Plant Conservation, Environment Australia, Canberra. Downey, P.O. (2003b). Threat Abatement Plans: weeds and plant conservation. In: The Proceedings of the 12th Biennial Noxious Weeds 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, Weeds Society 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 (Asparagus asparagoides (L.) Druce) and ground asparagus (Asparagus aethiopicus L.) in southern New South Wales. Plant Protection Quarterly 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, a Weed 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 monilifera biological 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 (Berberis thunbergii 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, September 2004. 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 National Parks 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 their environmental 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.

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

Hogbin, P.M. and Crisp, M.D. (2003). The evolution of the coastal neospecies Zieria prostrata and its relationship to the Zieria smithii species 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, 12–16 September 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 and Guymer). 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 invasive species. 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 report to 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 Environment and Conservation, Hurstville. Lane, B.A. (1992). Impact of Spartina on international migratory waders: In: Fraser-Quick, G. and Phillips, A. (eds) The Sea Has Weeds Too! Proceedings of a conference on the problem of Spartina, May 1991. pp. 14–20. Bird Observers Club, Marine Education Society of Australasia, Australasian Wader Studies Group, Department of Conservation and Environment, South Gippsland 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. and Moore, 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 areas of 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 a Conference on Chrysanthemoides monilifera, Port Macquarie, pp. 53–64. NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service and NSW Department 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 Society of 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, Australian National 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. Biological Conservation 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.

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

NRM (2005). About Natural Resource Management (NRM) Regions. Natural Resource Management, Canberra (Available at http://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, Hurstville NSW 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 Scientific Committee, Hurstville Odom, D., Cacho, O., Sinden, J.A. and Griffith, G.R. (2002). Policies for the Management of Weeds in Natural Ecosystems: a dynamic programming approach. In: Proceedings of the 46th Annual Conference of the Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, 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 in native 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), an invasive 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, pp 253–266. 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. Technical Series 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 Protection Quarterly 15 (3), 102–108. Stanley, R., Dodkin, M., Love, A. and Dyason, R. (1989). Bitou Bush Control Handbook. NSW Agriculture and Fisheries, Soil Conservation 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 September 2002, 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 woodlands infested 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 Executive Committee, Launceston. Toth, J. (2002). Reporting of Toxicity of Roundup® to Native and Some Introduced Plants: a compilation of results from 1989 to 2002 for the spraying of 2 L of Roundup® in 30 L of water ha-1 from a helicopter during winter (1 June to 31 August). Unpublished report, 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 bush in 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 (Asparagus asparagoides (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 of New South Wales, R.G. and F.J. Richardson, Melbourne. Vranjic. J. (2000). Best Practice Management Guide 3: Bitou bush Chrysanthemoides monilifera subsp. rotundata. Cooperative Research Centre for Weed Management Systems, Adelaide. Vranjic, J. and Groves, R. (1999). ‘Best-practice’ management strategies for the South African weed, bitou bush (Chrysanthemoides monilifera subsp. rotundata). In: Bishop, A.C., Boersma, M. and Barnes C.D. (eds) Twelfth Australian Weeds Conference: papers

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

and proceedings, 12–16 September 1999, Hobart, Tas, pp. 288–293. Tasmanian Weeds Society Incorporated, Devonport Tasmania. Vranjic, J.A., Woods, M.J. and Barnard, J. (2000). Soil-mediated effects on germination and seedling growth of coastal wattle (Acacia sophorae) 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 Nederlandse Akademie 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 Journal of 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. and Shepherd, 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 japonica Thunb. Plant Protection Quarterly 16 (3), 90–100.

13 List of personal communications cited

Person Organisation

Bower, H. Byron Shire Council Dodkin, M. DEC Flower, P. DEC Groves, R.H. CSIRO Plant Industry Hoefer, A. PhD student, ANU Holtkamp, R. NSW Department of Agriculture Hunter, J. DEC Jack, W. Sydney Bush Regeneration Company Johnson, S. DIPNR Jones, D.L. Centre for Plant Biodiversity Research, CSIRO McDougall, K. DEC Melland, R. CRC for Weeds/University of SA Moss, J.T. Butterfly expert Murphy, M. DEC Pomery, D. Illawarra Noxious Weeds Authority Ross, J. DEC Shepherd, C. DEC Thomas, J. DEC Toth, J. Consultant for Management of Environmental Weeds Pty Ltd. Wellington, R. DEC Weston, P. NSW Royal Botanic Gardens White, E. Botanist Wilkie, L. Australian Museum

85 Threat Abatement Plan – Invasion of native plant communities by Chrysanthemoides monilifera

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

Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) Parks and Wildlife Division Pest Management Unit 43 Bridge Street PO Box 1967 Hurstville NSW 2220 Telephone: 1300 361 967 Website: http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/index.htm

For further information regarding this plan contact: Bitou bush threat abatement plan coordinator Pest Management Unit Parks and Wildlife Division Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) PO Box 1967 Hurstville 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 Threat Abatement Plan – Invasion of native plant communities by Chrysanthemoides monilifera

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

Table A1 The weed control class for each local control authority in which bitou bush or boneseed is declared noxious under the Noxious Weeds Act 1993, at 1 March 2006.

Control Control Council/control area class Council/control area class

Ashfield Municipality 4 Leichhardt Municipality 4 Auburn 4 Liverpool City 3 Bankstown City 3 Lord Howe Island 2 Bega Valley Shire 3 Manly 4 Bellingen Shire 4 Marrickville 3 Blue Mountains City 4 Mosman Municipality 4 Botany Bay City 4 Nambucca Shire 4 Burwood 3 Newcastle City 4 Canada Bay City 4 North Sydney 4 Canterbury City 3 Parramatta City 3 Clarence Valley a 4 Pittwater 4 Coffs Harbour City 4 Port Macquarie–Hastings 4 Eurobodalla Shire 4 Port Stephens 4 Fairfield City 3 Randwick City 4 Far North Coast County b 4 Rockdale City 3 Gosford City 4 Ryde City 4 Great Lakes 4 Shellharbour City 4 Greater Taree City 4 Shoalhaven City 4 Holroyd City 3 Strathfield Municipality 3 Hornsby Shire 3 Sutherland Shire 4 Hunters Hill Municipality 4 Sydney City c 4 Hurstville City 3 Warringah 4 Kempsey Shire 4 Waverley 4 Kiama Municipality 4 Willoughby City 4 Kogarah Municipality 3 Wollongong City 4 Ku-ring-gai 3 Woollahra Municipality 4 Lake Macquarie City 4 Wyong Shire 4 Lane 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 distributed throughout New South Wales.

86 Threat Abatement Plan – Invasion of native plant communities by Chrysanthemoides monilifera

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 management requires planned use of limited resources. Establishing priorities is an important part of the planning process. Priorities for the Bitou TAP (i.e. this plan) include the determination of plant species, populations and ecological communities threatened by bitou bush and sites where the actions of the Bitou TAP can be achieved for each taxa (or biological entity).

Prior to the development of the draft (see DEC 2004), determination of the species, populations and ecological communities most at risk from bitou bush and boneseed invasion was a difficult task (Downey 2004). This was mostly because information that quantifies the impacts was absent across a broad range of native taxa (see Downey 2004; Downey submitted), especially with respect to fauna (see Chapter 5). For example, prior to the development of the draft only six native plants and two birds were deemed to be at risk from bitou bush and boneseed. In order to determine the species at risk the Weed Impacts to Native Species (WINS) assessment process was developed (see Downey in press). The WINS assessment process involves four systematic stages: 1) a review of the literature; 2) collation and assessment of knowledge from land managers, botanists and scientists with specific involvement, either in managing bitou bush, or the native species in bitou bush infested areas; 3) rigorous evaluation and examination of an interim list of native species identified as potentially at risk; and 4) ranking the revised list using a model. Information from stages 1–3 is not presented here, with the exception of the final list of species at risk. The model used for 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 were not 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 total to 158. This revised list of species at risk was then run through the model described below. The full list of the species modelled along with their score for each attribute and their final ranking is presented in Appendix 3, Table A3.1. In addition, there were several species that were not modelled due to insufficient information, 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 boneseed invasion in New South Wales were examined during the WINS selection process, not just those formally listed as threatened (i.e. under the TSC Act). Of the 158 species identified through the WINS assessment process as being at risk, 55 were listed as threatened under the TSC Act (see Table A3.3 in Appendix 3); 30 of which were also listed as threatened nationally (i.e. under the EPBC Act), highlighting the 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 weed invasion in Australia. The model outlined below is a revision of the one presented in the draft TAP (see DEC 2004). The main changes to the species model are: < The Threatened status attribute (C) was removed, as it was not an independent attribute. For example, a species with a limited distribution is more likely to be listed as threatened than a widespread species, therefore species with limited distributions could be artificially elevated in the ranking when their Distribution and Threatened status attributes were combined. < The Shade tolerance attribute (D) (a measure of susceptibility) was revised to Susceptibility of the species to invasion, as this encompasses all of the species at risk equally, not just those at risk through shade tolerance. < Weightings were applied to several of the attributes to ensure that no one factor was overriding the model predictions (see below for further details).

87 Threat Abatement Plan – Invasion of native plant communities by Chrysanthemoides monilifera

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 becomes available, 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 to bitou bush invasion; (B) native species distribution; (C) susceptibility of the native species to bitou bush invasion; and (D) native species persistence (sub-divided into (D1) seed bank and (D2) dispersal). Each attribute 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 1 2 ((species susceptibility [C] + (persistence [D + D ]/2))/3)

Attribute A in the model was weighted (by 1.25) to account for its importance in determining the overall risk from invasion. If the habitat is not susceptible to invasion the susceptibility of the species that occur in that 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 combined values overriding the model. The weighting therefore standardised the combined values for C and D with the individual values of A and B. Lastly, the persistence sub-attributes (D1 and D2) were averaged in order to maintain a consistent set of values for each attribute, again limiting these values from overriding the model.

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 may provide limited competition to bitou bush, such as tussock grasslands with inter-tussock spaces. Also, a particular disturbance regime may favour invasion (e.g. fire and soil disturbance). The density of bitou bush present is not necessarily a reflection (or measure) of the invasibility of that habitat, as many invasive plants exhibit a distinct lag period between initial occurrence and dominance (even at a site level). Therefore, a site with a light infestation of bitou bush may either present a barrier to invasion, or the invasion process is in the early stages and heavier infestations may occur in the future if untreated.

Score Habitat invasibility 0 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 invasion 1 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 margins 3 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 is disturbed such that there is no or patchy vegetation

88 Threat Abatement Plan – Invasion of native plant communities by Chrysanthemoides monilifera

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 species based on the degree of overlap between the distribution of bitou bush and the native species. For example, a species that occurs both within and outside the distribution of bitou bush is less likely to experience population level impacts than a species which is confined to areas occupied by bitou bush.

Score Distribution of native species 0 Not known from coastal habitats 1 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 habitats 4 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 species examined 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 by shade, but were susceptible to invasion as a result of other processes). Thus, a broader measure was used here to encompass and assess the general level of susceptibility of individual plant species to bitou bush invasion.

Score Species susceptibility 1 Species persists or grows in invaded areas 2 Information about susceptibility to invasion is unknown 3 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 ability to survive, reproduce and disperse (immigrate and emigrate). In order to capture this information, the attribute 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 seed dispersal ability of each species is extremely important for the longer term survival of that species, as well as for the ability of a species to respond once bitou bush has been removed. Species with no or poor seed banks may not be able to re-establish, or will have minimal recruitment following the removal of bitou bush, while those species with large seed banks are more likely to persist.

89 Threat Abatement Plan – Invasion of native plant communities by Chrysanthemoides monilifera

Persistence sub-attribute D1 – seed bank: Score Seed banks 1 Long-lived seed bank and/or effective seed storage ability present 2 Information about seed dormancy/storage is unknown 3 The species has a short-lived seed bank or seed storage capability, or is primarily a-sexual or reproduction is vegetative 4 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 their propagules to sites free of bitou bush, or to areas where bitou bush control has occurred are more likely to persist 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 unknown 3 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 have limited seed storage or dispersal capability, because they may actually possess seed storage or seed dispersal mechanisms. For many of the species examined this information is poorly known.

90 Threat Abatement Plan – Invasion of native plant communities by Chrysanthemoides monilifera

Appendix 3 Species considered in the TAP

Table A3.1 Species considered and their rank in the model.

attribute in the model a model A B C D1 D2 (A*1.25)*B* 0–3 0–4 1–4 1–4 1–4 ((C+((D1+D2)/2))/3)

habitat species max score species b species name family name invasibility distribution susceptibility seed bank dispersal (40) rank

high priority species Plectranthus cremnus Lamiaceae 3 4 4 3 2 32.5 1 Zieria prostrata Rutaceae 3 4 2 3 4 27.5 2 Chamaesyce psammogeton Euphorbiaceae 3 3 4 3 3 26.3 3 Senecio spathulatus Asteraceae 3 3 3 3 3 22.5 4 Acianthus exiguus Orchidaceae 3 3 4 2 2 22.5 4 Calystegia soldanella Convolvulaceae 3 3 4 2 2 22.5 4 Chamaecrista maritima Caesalpiniaceae 3 3 4 2 2 22.5 4 Sophora tomentosa Fabaceae 3 3 3 3 3 22.5 4 Lepturus repens Poaceae 3 3 4 2 2 22.5 4 Pultenaea maritima Fabaceae 3 3 4 2 2 22.5 4 Stackhousia spathulata Stackhousiaceae 3 3 3 3 3 22.5 4 Ischaemum triticeum Poaceae 3 3 4 2 2 22.5 4 Vigna marina Fabaceae 3 3 4 2 2 22.5 4 Gleichenia mendellii Gleicheniaceae 3 3 3 2 3 20.6 14 Actites megalocarpa Asteraceae 3 3 4 2 1 20.6 14 Poa poiformis Poaceae 3 3 4 2 1 20.6 14 Fontainea oraria Euphorbiaceae 2 4 2 4 4 20 17 Diuris praecox Orchidaceae 2 4 3 3 3 20 17 Westringia fruticosa Lamiaceae 3 3 3 2 2 18.8 19 medium priority species Asplenium difforme Aspleniaceae 3 3 3 2 1 16.9 20 Pandanus tectorius var. australianus Pandanaceae 3 3 3 2 1 16.9 20 Acronychia littoralis Rutaceae 2 4 3 3 1 16.7 22 Pterostylis no 15. (botany bay orchid) Orchidaceae 2 4 3 2 2 16.7 22 Viminaria juncea (prostrate form) Fabaceae 2 4 3 2 2 16.7 22 Pterostylis woollsii Orchidaceae 2 4 3 2 2 16.7 22 Acalypha nemorum (prostrate form) Euphorbiaceae 3 3 2 2 2 15 26 Pimelea spicata Thymelaeaceae 3 2 3 3 3 15 26 Macarthuria neocambrica Aizoaceae 3 3 2 2 2 15 26 Acacia terminalis subsp. terminalis Mimosaceae 2 3 3 1 4 13.8 29 Caladenia porphyrea Orchidaceae 2 4 2 2 2 13.3 30 Diuris superba Orchidaceae 2 4 2 2 2 13.3 30 Diuris curta Orchidaceae 2 4 2 2 2 13.3 30 Abildgaardia ovata Cyperaceae 3 3 2 2 1 13.1 33 Bossiaea stephensonii Fabaceae 3 3 2 1 2 13.1 33 Dianella crinoides Phormiaceae 3 3 2 2 1 13.1 33 Dianella congesta Phormiaceae 3 3 2 2 1 13.1 33 Cryptocarya foetida Lauraceae 2 3 2 3 3 12.5 37 Syzygium paniculatum Myrtaceae 2 3 3 3 1 12.5 37 Geodorum densiflorum Orchidaceae 2 3 3 2 2 12.5 37 Tricoryne simplex Anthericaceae 2 3 3 2 2 12.5 37 Wilsonia rotundifolia Convolvulaceae 3 2 3 2 2 12.5 37 Casuarina equisetifolia Casuarinaceae 2 3 3 2 2 12.5 37 Persoonia katerae Proteaceae 2 4 2 2 1 11.7 43 Thesium australe Santalaceae 3 2 2 3 2 11.3 44 Acronychia imperforata Rutaceae 2 3 3 2 1 11.3 44 Senna acclinis Caesalpiniaceae 2 2 4 1 4 10.8 46 Zieria granulata Rutaceae 2 2 3 3 4 10.8 46 Rulingia hermaniifolia Sterculiaceae 2 2 4 3 2 10.8 46 Eucalyptus camfieldii Myrtaceae 2 2 3 3 3 10 49 Tetratheca juncea Tremandraceae 2 2 3 3 3 10 49 Vitex trifolia var. trifolia Verbenaceae 2 3 2 2 2 10 49 Diuris arenaria Orchidaceae 2 3 2 2 2 10 49 Hibiscus tiliaceus Malvaceae 2 3 2 2 2 10 49 Liparis habenarina Orchidaceae 2 3 2 2 2 10 49 Pterostylis nigricans Orchidaceae 2 3 2 2 2 10 49 Spyridium cinereum Rhamnaceae 2 3 2 2 2 10 49 Tylophora benthamii Asclepiadaceae 2 3 2 2 2 10 49 Xylosma terra-reginae Flacourtiaceae 2 3 2 2 2 10 49 Elyonurus citreus Poaceae 3 2 2 2 2 10 49 Grevillea humilis subsp. maritima Proteaceae 3 2 2 2 2 10 49 low priority species Cynanchum carnosum Asclepiadaceae 2 3 2 2 1 8.8 61 Cyperus scaber Cyperaceae 2 3 2 2 1 8.8 61 Myoporum bateae Myoporaceae 2 3 2 2 1 8.8 61 Persoonia conjuncta Proteaceae 2 3 2 2 1 8.8 61 Wilsonia backhousei Convolvulaceae 2 2 3 2 2 8.3 65 Cynanchum elegans Asclepiadaceae 2 2 2 3 3 8.3 65 Cordyline congesta Asteliaceae 2 2 3 3 1 8.3 65 Desmodium heterocarpon var. Fabaceae 2 2 3 2 2 8.3 65 heterocarpon Typhonium eliosurum Araceae 2 2 3 2 2 8.3 65 Acacia georgensis Mimosaceae 2 2 2 1 4 7.5 70 Phaius tancarvillae Orchidaceae 1 3 3 3 3 7.5 70 Sarcostemma brunonianum Asclepiadaceae 3 1 4 2 2 7.5 70 Thozetia racemosa Asclepiadaceae 2 3 1 2 2 7.5 70 Wahlenbergia littoricola Campanulaceae 2 2 3 2 1 7.5 70 Diuris byronensis Orchidaceae 1 4 2 2 2 6.7 75 Correa baeuerlenii Rutaceae 2 2 2 2 2 6.7 75 [ continued on next page ]

91 Threat Abatement Plan – Invasion of native plant communities by Chrysanthemoides monilifera

attribute in the model a model A B C D1 D2 (A*1.25)*B* 0–3 0–4 1–4 1–4 1–4 ((C+((D1+D2)/2))/3)

habitat species max score species b species name family name invasibility distribution susceptibility seed bank dispersal (40) rank

low priority species Geniostoma huttonii Loganiaceae 2 2 2 2 2 6.7 75 Haemodorum austroqueenslandicum Haemodoraceae 2 2 2 2 2 6.7 75 Scaevola aemula Goodeniaceae 2 2 2 2 2 6.7 75 Zieria tuberculata Rutaceae 2 2 2 2 2 6.7 75 Phaius australis Orchidaceae 1 3 3 2 2 6.3 81 Gonocarpus salsoloides Haloragaceae 1 3 3 2 2 6.3 81 Polyalthia nitidissima Annonaceae 2 3 1 2 1 6.3 81 Comesperma sphaerocarpum Polygalaceae 2 2 2 2 1 5.8 84 Cyperus subulatus Cyperaceae 2 2 2 2 1 5.8 84 Galactia tenuiflora var. villlosa Fabaceae 2 2 2 1 2 5.8 84 Logania pusilla Loganiaceae 2 2 2 2 1 5.8 84 Olax angulata Olacaceae 1 3 2 3 2 5.6 88 Caladenia tessellata Orchidaceae 2 1 3 3 3 5 89 Eucalyptus paniculata subsp. matutina Myrtaceae 1 3 2 2 2 5 89 Macrozamia flexuosa Zamiaceae 2 2 1 2 2 5 89 Calystegia affinis Convolvulaceae 1 3 2 2 2 5 89 Carmichaelia exsul Fabaceae 1 3 2 2 2 5 89 Cupaniopsis anarcardiodes Sapindaceae 1 3 2 2 2 5 89 Glochidion sumatranum Euphorbiaceae 1 3 2 2 2 5 89 Haemodorum corymbosum Haemodoraceae 3 1 2 2 2 5 89 Prostanthera densa Lamiaceae 1 2 2 3 4 4.6 97 Acrostichum speciosum Pteridaceae 1 3 2 2 1 4.4 98 Celtis paniculata Ulmaceae 1 3 2 2 1 4.4 98 Cyperus stradbrokensis Cyperaceae 1 3 2 2 1 4.4 98 Fimbristylis polytrichoides Cyperaceae 1 3 2 2 1 4.4 98 Hypserpa decumbens Menispermaceae 1 3 2 2 1 4.4 98 Pelargonium australe Geraniaceae 3 1 2 2 1 4.4 98 Pisonia umbellifera Nyctaginaceae 1 3 2 2 1 4.4 98 Planchonella laurifolia Sapotaceae 1 3 2 2 1 4.4 98 Planchonella myrsiniodes Sapotaceae 1 3 2 2 1 4.4 98 Melaleuca groveana Myrtaceae 2 1 2 3 3 4.2 107 Acianthus amplexicaulis Orchidaceae 1 2 3 2 2 4.2 107 Pterostylis ophioglossa Orchidaceae 2 1 3 2 2 4.2 107 Thysanotus juncifolius Anthericaceae 1 2 3 2 2 4.2 107 Viola betonicifolia Violaceae 2 1 3 2 2 4.2 107 Arthraxon hispidis Poaceae 2 1 3 2 2 4.2 107 Acmena hemilampra Myrtaceae 1 3 1 3 1 3.8 113 Bridelia exaltata Euphorbiaceae 1 3 1 3 1 3.8 113 Caesalpinia bonduc Caesalpiniaceae 1 2 2 2 3 3.8 113 Grevillea hilliana Proteaceae 1 2 2 2 2 3.3 116 Ailanthus triphysa Simaroubaceae 1 2 2 2 2 3.3 116 Marsdenia liisae Asclepiadaceae 1 2 2 2 2 3.3 116 Callistemon acuminatus Myrtaceae 1 2 2 2 2 3.3 116 Coprosma inopinata Rubiaceae 1 2 2 2 2 3.3 116 Cryptandra propinqua Rhamnaceae 2 1 2 2 2 3.3 116 Cryptandra scortechinii Rhamnaceae 2 1 2 2 2 3.3 116 Cryptocarya triplinervis var. triplinervis Lauraceae 1 2 2 2 2 3.3 116 Cryptocarya triplinervis var. pubens Lauraceae 1 2 2 2 2 3.3 116 Darwinia leptantha Myrtaceae 1 2 2 2 2 3.3 116 Gleichenia rupestris Gleicheniaceae 2 1 2 2 2 3.3 116 Melicope vitiflora Rutaceae 1 2 2 2 2 3.3 116 Endiandra globosa Lauraceae 1 2 1 3 2 2.9 128 Abildgaardia vaginata Cyperaceae 1 2 2 2 1 2.9 128 Coelospermum paniculatum Rubiaceae 1 2 2 2 1 2.9 128 Euphrasia collina subsp. paludosa Scrophulariaceae 2 1 2 2 1 2.9 128 Haloragis exalata subsp. exalata Haloragaceae 1 2 2 2 1 2.9 128 Leucopogon esquamatus Epacridaceae 1 2 2 2 1 2.9 128 Lindsaea fraseri Lindsaeaceae 1 2 2 2 1 2.9 128 Lygodium microphyllum Schizaeaceae 1 2 2 2 1 2.9 128 Niemeyera chartacea Sapotaceae 1 2 2 2 1 2.9 128 Pelargonium inodorum Geraniaceae 2 1 2 2 1 2.9 128 Persoonia linearis Proteaceae 2 1 2 2 1 2.9 128 Streptothamnus moorei Flacourtiaceae 1 2 2 2 1 2.9 128 Cryptostylis hunteriana Orchidaceae 1 1 3 3 3 2.5 140 Linum marginale Linaceae 1.5 1 2 2 2 2.5 140 Pultenaea villifera Fabaceae 2 1 1 2 2 2.5 140 Allocasuarina defungens Casuarinaceae 1 2 1 1 2 2.1 143 Allocasuarina simulans Casuarinaceae 1 2 1 1 2 2.1 143 Syzygium moorei Myrtaceae 1 2 1 2 1 2.1 143 Corybas undulatus Orchidaceae 1 1 2 2 2 1.7 146 Aldrovanda vesiculosa Droseraceae 1 1 2 2 2 1.7 146 Caesia parviflora var. minor Liliaceae 1 1 2 2 2 1.7 146 Caladenia quadrifaria Orchidaceae 1 1 2 2 2 1.7 146 Oldenlandia galioides Rubiaceae 1 1 2 2 2 1.7 146 Isopogon anemonifolius Proteaceae 1 2 1 1 1 1.7 146 Syzygium hodgkinsoniae Myrtaceae 1 1 2 2 2 1.7 146 Acacia bakeri Mimosaceae 1 1 2 1 2 1.5 153 Acacia kydrensis Mimosaceae 1 1 2 1 2 1.5 153 Archidendron hendersonii Mimosaceae 1 1 2 1 2 1.5 153 Carex brownii Cyperaceae 1 1 2 2 1 1.5 153 Hoya australis subsp. australis Asclepiadaceae 1 1 2 2 1 1.5 153 Lipocarpha 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).

92 Threat Abatement Plan – Invasion of native plant communities by Chrysanthemoides monilifera

Table A3.2 Native plant species thought to be at risk from bitou bush invasion for which there was insufficient information available to model the threat posed to them (i.e. using the species model, see Appendix 2).

species family name threatened status a justification

Acacia longifolia subsp. sophorae Mimosoideae not listed species identified at risk too late to model Banksia serrata Proteaceae not listed species identified at risk too late to model Carpobrotus glaucescens Aizoaceae not listed species identified at risk too late to model Cynodon dactylon Poaceae not listed species identified at risk too late to model Dianella caerulea Phormiaceae not listed species identified at risk too late to model Eucalyptus parramattensis subsp. Myrtaceae Vulnerable (TSC Act and EPBC Act), ROTAP (2V) species identified at risk too late to model decadens Gonocarpus teucrioides Haloragaceae not listed species identified at risk too late to model Hakea teretifola subsp. teretifolia Proteaceae not listed insufficient information available to model Hibbertia obtusifolia Dillenaceae not listed species identified at risk too late to model Leionema carruthersii Rutaceae ROTAP (3RC)b insufficient information available to model Leucopogon parviflorus Ericaceae not listed species identified at risk too late to model Livistona australis Arecaceae not listed species identified at risk too late to model Lomandra longifolia Lomandraceae not listed species identified at risk too late to model Macadamia tetraphylla Proteaceae Vulnerable (TSC Act and EPBC Act), ROTAP (2VC-) species identified at risk too late to model Monotoca elliptica Ericaceae not listed species identified at risk too late to model Oxalis rubens Oxalidaceae not listed species identified at risk too late to model Persoonia pulchella Proteaceae not listed insufficient information available to model Picris angustifolia subsp. carolorum- Asteraceae not listed insufficient information available to model hericorum Pratia purpurascens Lobeliaceae not listed species identified at risk too late to model Rhagodia candolleana Chenopodiaceae not listed species identified at risk too late to model Ricinocarpos pinifolius Euphorbiaceae not listed species identified at risk too late to model Scaevola calendulacea Goodeniaceae not listed species identified at risk too late to model Senecio lautus subsp. maritimus Asteraceae not listed species identified at risk too late to model Solanum prinophyllum Solanaceae not listed species identified at risk too late to model Spinifex sericeus Poaceae not listed species identified at risk too late to model Tinospora tinosporoides Menispermaceae Vulnerable (TSC Act and EPBC Act), ROTAP (3RC-) species identified at risk too late to model Viola hederacea forma G Violaceae not listed species identified at risk too late to model Xylosma 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 Environment Protection 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 Endangered Ecological Communities in which the d species name TSC Act a,b EPBC Act a,b ROTAP c species also occurs

high priority species Plectranthus cremnus 3K Themeda grasslands Zieria prostrata E E 2E Themeda grasslands Chamaesyce psammogeton E Senecio spathulatus E Acianthus exiguus 3RC- Calystegia soldanella Chamaecrista maritima Themeda grasslands Sophora tomentosa E Littoral rainforest Lepturus repens Pultenaea maritima V Stackhousia spathulata Themeda grasslands Ischaemum triticeum Vigna marina Gleichenia mendellii Actites megalocarpa Poa poiformis Themeda grasslands Fontainea oraria E E 2E Diuris praecox V V 2VC- Westringia fruticosa Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub, Themeda grasslands medium priority species Asplenium difforme Pandanus tectorius var. australianus Acronychia littoralis E E 3ECi Pterostylis no 15. (botany bay orchid) E E 2ECit Viminaria juncea (prostrate form) Pterostylis woollsii 3RC- Acalypha nemorum (prostrate form) Pimelea spicata E E 3ECi Macarthuria neocambrica Acacia terminalis subsp. terminalis E E Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub Caladenia porphyrea E Diuris superba Diuris curta Abildgaardia ovata Bossiaea stephensonii Dianella crinoides Bangalay Sand Forest [ continued on next page ]

93 Threat Abatement Plan – Invasion of native plant communities by Chrysanthemoides monilifera

Threatened status a Endangered Ecological Communities in which the d species name TSC Act a,b EPBC Act a,b ROTAP c species also occurs

medium priority species (continued) Dianella congesta Cryptocarya foetida V V 3VCi Syzygium paniculatum V V 3VCi Littoral Rainforest Geodorum densiflorum E Tricoryne simplex Wilsonia rotundifolia Coastal saltmarsh Casuarina equisetifolia Persoonia katerae Thesium australe V V 3VCi+ Acronychia imperforata Littoral Rainforest Senna acclinis E 3RC- Zieria granulata E 2VCi Rulingia hermaniifolia 3RCa Eucalyptus camfieldii V V 2VCi Tetratheca juncea V V 3VCa Vitex trifolia var. trifolia Diuris arenaria E Hibiscus tiliaceus Liparis habenarina Pterostylis nigricans V 3V Spyridium cinereum 3RCa Tylophora benthamii Xylosma terra-reginae E Elyonurus citreus E Grevillea humilis subsp. maritima low priority species Cynanchum carnosum Cyperus scaber Myoporum bateae 3RC- Persoonia conjuncta Wilsonia backhousei V Coastal Saltmarsh Cynanchum elegans E E 3ECi Dry rainforest, Littoral rainforest Cordyline congesta 2RC- Littoral Rainforest Desmodium heterocarpon var. heterocarpon Typhonium eliosurum 3RC- Acacia georgensis V V 2VCi Phaius tancarvillae E E 3VC-+ Sarcostemma brunonianum Thozetia racemosa Wahlenbergia littoricola Diuris byronensis E Themeda grasslands Correa baeuerlenii V V 3VCi Geniostoma huttonii E Haemodorum austroqueenslandicum Scaevola aemula Zieria tuberculata V V 2VCi Phaius australis E E 3VCa Gonocarpus salsoloides 3RCa Polyalthia nitidissima Comesperma sphaerocarpum Cyperus subulatus Galactia tenuiflora var. villlosa Logania pusilla Olax angulata V V 2VCi Caladenia tessellata E V 3V Eucalyptus paniculata subsp. matutina 2K Pittwater spotted gum forest Macrozamia flexuosa 2K Calystegia affinis E CE Carmichaelia exsul E Cupaniopsis anarcardiodes Littoral Rainforest, Kurnell Dune Forest, Swamp Oak floodplain Glochidion sumatranum Swamp Oak floodplain Haemodorum corymbosum Prostanthera densa V V 3VC- Acrostichum speciosum Celtis paniculata Littoral Rainforest Cyperus stradbrokensis Fimbristylis polytrichoides Hypserpa decumbens Pelargonium australe Pisonia umbellifera Littoral Rainforest Planchonella laurifolia Planchonella myrsiniodes Melaleuca groveana V 3RC- Acianthus amplexicaulis 3RC- Pterostylis ophioglossa Thysanotus juncifolius Viola betonicifolia Arthraxon hispidis V V 3VC-+ Acmena hemilampra Littoral Rainforest Bridelia exaltata Littoral Rainforest Caesalpinia bonduc E Grevillea hilliana E Ailanthus triphysa Marsdenia liisae 3RC- Callistemon acuminatus 3RC- Coprosma inopinata E Cryptandra propinqua Cryptandra scortechinii Cryptocarya triplinervis var. triplinervis Littoral Rainforest Cryptocarya triplinervis var. pubens Littoral Rainforest Darwinia leptantha Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub Gleichenia rupestris [ continued on next page ]

94 Threat Abatement Plan – Invasion of native plant communities by Chrysanthemoides monilifera

Threatened status a Endangered Ecological Communities in which the d species name TSC Act a,b EPBC Act a,b ROTAP c species also occurs low priority species (continued) Melicope vitiflora E Endiandra globosa 2RC- Abildgaardia vaginata Coelospermum paniculatum Euphrasia collina subsp. paludosa Haloragis exalata subsp. exalata V V 3VCa Leucopogon esquamatus Lindsaea fraseri E Lygodium microphyllum Niemeyera chartacea E Pelargonium inodorum Persoonia linearis Dry Rainforest Streptothamnus moorei Cryptostylis hunteriana V V 3VC- Linum marginale Pultenaea villifera EP V 3RC- Allocasuarina defungens E E 2E Allocasuarina simulans V V 2VCa Syzygium moorei V V 2VCi Corybas undulatus 3KC- Aldrovanda vesiculosa Caesia parviflora var. minor E Caladenia quadrifaria Oldenlandia galioides Isopogon anemonifolius Syzygium hodgkinsoniae V V 3VC- Acacia bakeri V Acacia kydrensis 2RCa Archidendron hendersonii V Carex brownii Hoya australis subsp. australis Lipocarpha 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 Environment Protection 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 Population c 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.

95 Threat Abatement Plan – Invasion of native plant communities by Chrysanthemoides monilifera

Appendix 4 Development of a model to rank plant populations and ecological communities threatened 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 or ecological plant communities at risk. This is in part because of the difficulties of condensing information for multiple species (i.e. for ecological communities) into a single value for each attribute (e.g. for the Persistence attribute, see Appendix 2), or assuming that the attributes of a species are the same for all populations (i.e. many of the threatened populations listed are unique forms such as the broad leaf form of Glycine clandestina, and thus may possess different characteristics). An abridged version of the species model was therefore developed to rank plant populations and ecological plant communities at risk. This was not done in the draft TAP (see DEC 2004). By using this abridged model greater transparency for selecting priorities can be achieved.

The ranking of priority plant populations and ecological plant communities in the model uses three attributes: (S) susceptibility of the habitat to bitou bush invasion; (D) distribution of the population or ecological community relative to that of bitou bush; and (I) the susceptibility of the native species of each population or ecological community to bitou bush invasion. Each attribute is scored with the highest score implying 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] x susceptibility to invasion [I]

Attribute S in the model was weighted [by 1.25] to account for its importance in determining the overall risk from invasion. If the habitat is not susceptible to invasion the susceptibility of the species of each plant population or ecological plant community is of little importance. The populations and ecological communities that were modelled are listed and ranked in Appendix 5 (Tables A5.1 and A 5.2). Ecological communities that were considered to be potentially at risk from bitou invasion, but were unable to be modelled 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 attribute changes then the rankings within the models could be adjusted accordingly. For example, if a fire alters the susceptibility of a habitat to invasion its ranking can be adjusted to ensure that the biodiversity at risk is protected.

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 habitat in 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 that habitat, 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 the invasion process is in the early stages and heavier infestations may occur in the future if untreated.

96 Threat Abatement Plan – Invasion of native plant communities by Chrysanthemoides monilifera

Score Habitat invasibility 0 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 invasion 1 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 the interior (i.e. littoral rainforest) 3 High habitat invasibility – habitats with no or low vegetation (e.g. sand dunes), or habitats with a limited shrub layer, or sites where the native vegetation is disturbed such that there is no 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 an ecological community based on its distribution relative to that of the threatened population or ecological community. For ecological communities the distribution refers to the entire distribution of all patches, not that of an individual patch (e.g. littoral rainforests are distributed throughout coastal New South Wales).

Score Distribution of the population or ecological community 0 Not known from coastal habitats 1 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 habitats 4 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 to bitou bush invasion

As described in Appendix 2, the same broad measure was also used here to encompass the general susceptibility of plant populations and ecological plant communities to bitou bush invasion.

Score Susceptibility of biodiversity to invasion 1 Population or ecological community persists or grows in invaded areas with limited or no sign of susceptibility to invasion 2 Information about susceptibility to invasion is unknown 3 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).

97 Threat Abatement Plan – Invasion of native plant communities by Chrysanthemoides monilifera

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 model 0–3 0–4 1–4 (S*1.25)*D*I

habitat susceptibility to max score species b b c populations family threatened status invasibility distribution invasion (60) rank

high priority populations Glycine clandestina (broad leaf form) Fabaceae Endangered (TSC Act) 3 4 4 60 1 Zieria smithii (low growing form) Rutaceae Endangered (TSC Act) 3 4 4 60 1 low priority populations Chorizema parviflorum (Wollongong / Fabaceae Endangered (TSC Act) 2 3 2 15 3 Shellharbour)

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 model 0–3 0–4 1–4 (S*1.25)*D*I

threatened habitat susceptibility to max score species b c, d e ecological communities status invasibility distribution invasion (60) rank

high priority communities Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub EEC f 3 4 4 60 1 Littoral Rainforest g EEC, SEPP 26 3 4 4 60 1 Kurnell Dune Forest EEC 3 4 4 60 1 Coastal Banksia Woodlands (Banksia integrifolia) 3 4 3 45 4 Themeda (Themeda triandra) grassland on sea cliffs and coastal EEC 3 3 4 45 4 headlands in the NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner bioregions Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub equivalent communities (i.e. Coastal 3 4 3 45 4 Sand Wallum Heath) Frontal Dune Vegetation Complex 3 3 4 45 4 Coastal Sand Dune complex (Acacia longifolia var. sophorae) 3 3 4 45 4 medium priority communities Byron Bay Dwarf Gramminoid Clay Heath EEC 2 4 3 30 9 Bangalay sand forest EEC 2 4 3 30 9 Low Woodland with Heathland (Norah Head) EEC 2 4 3 30 9 Coastal Scrub (Leptospermum laevigatum / Acacia longifolia var. 2 3 3 22.5 12 sophorae) Coastal Scrub (Drypetes australiscia / Elaedendron australe) 2 3 3 22.5 12 Headland Heath 2 3 3 22.5 12 Headland Woodland 2 3 3 22.5 12 Dune Grasslands (Spinifex hirsutus) 3 3 2 22.5 12 low priority communities Coastal Wetlands SEPP 14 1 4 3 15 17 Sydney Coastal Estuary Swamp Forest Complex 1 4 3 15 17 Sydney Freshwater Wetlands EEC 1 4 3 15 17 Pittwater Spotted Gum and equivalent communities (i.e. Wagstaff EEC 2 2 3 15 17 Spotted Gum forest) Swamp oak floodplain EEC 2 3 2 15 17 Coastal Saltmarsh EEC 1 3 2 7.5 22 Fresh water wetlands EEC 1 2 3 7.5 22 Swamp Sclerophyll forest on coastal floodplains EEC 1 3 2 7.5 22 River Flat Eucalypt Forest EEC 1 2 2 5 25 Dry 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).

98 Threat Abatement Plan – Invasion of native plant communities by Chrysanthemoides monilifera

Table A5.3 Threatened populations and ecological communities thought to be at risk from bitou bush invasion for which there was insufficient information available to model the threat posed to 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 model Coastal sand dune vegetation communities potentially at risk b insufficient information available to model Dune dry heath (Acacia longifolia var. sophorae / Leucopogan parviflorus / Scaevola potentially at risk b insufficient information available to model calendulacea) Gramminoid Clay Heath (Hibbertia vestita / Pimelea linifolia / Pultenaea villosa plus potentially at risk b insufficient information available to model Themeda triandra) Kurri Sand Swamp Woodland in the Sydney Basin Bioregion EEC (TSC Act) EEC identified at risk too late to model Sclerophyll forest (Banksia integrifolia / Allocasuarina littoralis) potentially at risk b insufficient information available to model Sclerophyll forest (Eucalyptus pilularis / E. gummifera / E. intermedia / Angophora costata) potentially at risk b insufficient information available to model Sclerophyll mallee (Eucalyptus planchoriana or E. intermedia) potentially at risk b insufficient information available to model Umina 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).

99 Threat Abatement Plan – Invasion of native plant communities by Chrysanthemoides monilifera

Appendix 6 Selecting priority sites for bitou bush control

Determining the species, populations and ecological communities at risk from bitou bush invasion is only the first stage in the process of abating the impact of bitou bush on biodiversity. The second stage requires an 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 DEC 2004), the processes for determining and selecting priority sites for implementing the TAP have been changed. Also, an additional 95 species, one population and 17 ecological communities have been incorporated into the TAP, and thus additional site information for these entities is included here. Many of the 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 or within 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 and ecological communities considered to be at risk from bitou bush invasion (i.e. as identified in Appendices 3 and 5) were examined here (hereafter referred to as entity locations). The assessment of entity locations in the 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 each location.

It should be noted that in this initial assessment stage, entity locations were modelled. The second assessment stage outlined below in Section A6.2 accounts for sites that encompass multiple entities within close 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 is based 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 a numerical value shown in Table A6.1.

Table A6.1 Numerical value of each of the subjective assessment scores given to each of the three location attributes (i.e. E, AI and C - see text for more details).

subjective assessment values given to each of numerical value the three location attribute (i.e. E, AI and C)

Low 1 Low – Medium 2 Medium 3 Medium – High 4 High 5

100 Threat Abatement Plan – Invasion of native plant communities by Chrysanthemoides monilifera

The scores for each attribute were added to give a total score (maximum of 15) that was converted to a priority 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 bitou bush present, and the feasibility of undertaking bitou bush control, particularly with respect to protecting the entities at risk. Locations with high densities of bitou bush where the feasibility of control is relatively high were given a high value. In contrast, locations with low densities of bitou bush where the feasibility of control is low (i.e. logistically difficult and/or expensive) were assessed as low. These are the extreme scenarios, 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 impact posed by bitou bush (and associated weeds - as outlined/specified in Section 7.2). The level of infestation of bitou bush and its proximity to the threatened entity were also considered here. Locations at which bitou bush and associated weed species were well established and in close proximity to the threatened entity were assessed as high.

C Condition

This attribute was separated into two components: the condition of the entity and the physical condition of the 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 entity locations included the size of the population (i.e. few or many individuals) in relation to the its natural occurrence (e.g. some species only occur in small populations, which are common), the area occupied or distribution of the population at the location, whether it occurred on the edge of the entity’s range, and the overall health of the population present (i.e. individuals in poor health or where there are limited seedlings present, 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 of threats other than bitou bush which may reduce the success of the control program). While the control of other weed species, particularly those that will replace bitou bush following control, must occur within the confines 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 assessed as low.

Locations where the entity condition was high and the physical condition was high (i.e. limited other threats were present), were assessed as high.

101 Threat Abatement Plan – Invasion of native plant communities by Chrysanthemoides monilifera

The assessment of condition was determined in consultation with relevant threatened species recovery teams, 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, the majority of locations could be grouped into larger sites based on their geographic locations or their relative proximity. Thus a second assessment stage is needed to amalgamate the entity location information into a single 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 entity location priority (H, M or L as determined in stage one, Section A6.1 above) and the entity 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 the matrix iii) sites were divided into five control categories iv) 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 summed for 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 the site model can be presented as a matrix, in which every combination is expressed from a high priority species at a high priority location to a low priority species at a low priority location (Figure A6.1). For example, 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 location priority H M L H X entity M priority 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 thus not 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 in the matrix. When entity locations were grouped into multi-species sites, the highest value matrix cell for all entity locations was assigned as the overall matrix cell for the site. For example, the Broken Head Nature Reserve site encompasses 17 entity locations, representing six cells in the matrix: 2 x HH, 3 x HM, 2 x MH,

102 Threat Abatement Plan – Invasion of native plant communities by Chrysanthemoides monilifera

3 x MM, 3 x LH, 4 x LM. Thus, Broken Head Nature Reserve site is assigned a matrix cell of HH, being the highest 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 New South Wales. This process enables priorities for control to be determined for all sites from the matrix by assigning 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 was assigned a matrix cell of HH in step iii) – see above. Every site was assigned to a control category.

entity location priority H M L

H HH HM HL C1 C2 C3 entity M MH MM ML translates C2 C3 C4 priority to Î L LH LM LL 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 matrix value 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 of 5. This process is illustrated below in Figure A6.3.

entity location priority entity location priority H M L H M L H HH HM HL H 5 4 3 entity translates entity M MH MM ML M 4 3 2 priority to Î priority L LH LM LL L 3 2 1

Figure A6.3 The entity matrix value (from 5 to 1) given to each entity location according to the matrix cell assigned in step i).

For multi-species sites, the entity matrix values for each entity location were added to give a total site matrix score. For example, the Broken Head Nature Reserve site encompassed 17 entity locations, which were 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.

103 Threat Abatement Plan – Invasion of native plant communities by Chrysanthemoides monilifera

v ranking sites within each control category

Given that each of the five control categories contain numerous sites, a process is needed to prioritise sites for implementation. In order to establish priorities for bitou bush control, the sites within each category were 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 that contain the largest number of other entities at risk the greatest priority for control. A full list of the sites within each of the five categories ranked according to the process described above is presented in Appendix 7.

104 Threat Abatement Plan – Invasion of native plant communities by Chrysanthemoides monilifera

Appendix 7 Sites for bitou bush control considered in the TAP

Table A7.1 Category 1 sites for implementing control (n = 169 sites).

site attributes e model (E+AI+C) site site priority entities occurring entity max score matrix site a b c d f g h no. site name at site priority E AI C (15) score rank NR133 Arakoon SCA / Hat Head NP Chamaecrista maritima High M H M 11 (H) 66 1 Actites 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 Cape Byron SCA (including SEPP26 no. Plectranthus cremnus High M M-H M 10 (M) 57 2 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 Broken Head NR (including SEPP26 no. Pandanus tectorius var. australianus Medium M H M-H 12 (H) 56 3 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 Sandon backtrack, Sandon bluffs and Chamaesyce psammogeton High H H H 15 (H) 53 4 Sandon 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 5 Viminaria 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) [ continued on next page ]

105 Threat Abatement Plan – Invasion of native plant communities by Chrysanthemoides monilifera

site attributes e model (E+AI+C) site site priority entities occurring entity max score matrix site a b c d f g h no. site name at site priority E AI C (15) score rank SM40 Towra Point NR Westringia fruticosa High H H L 11 (H) 50 5 Viminaria 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 7 Westringia 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 High H L H 11 (H) integrifolia) Coastal Sand Dune complex (Acacia longifolia High H L H 11 (H) var. sophorae) 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 7 Senecio 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 7 Diuris 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 High ? ? ? 0 (A) var. sophorae) 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 Low ? ? ? 0 (A) Floodplains NR148 Sea Acres NR / Tacking Point Sophora tomentosa High H H M 13 (H) 48 10 Vigna 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 Brunswick Heads NR (including SEPP26 Pandanus tectorius var. australianus Medium H M M-H 12 (H) 45 11 no. 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 Tweed Coastal Reserve (including SEPP26 Pandanus tectorius var. australianus Medium H M M 11 (H) 41 12 no. 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) [ continued on next page ]

106 Threat Abatement Plan – Invasion of native plant communities by Chrysanthemoides monilifera

site attributes e model (E+AI+C) site site priority entities occurring entity max score matrix site a b c d f g h no. site name at site priority E AI C (15) score rank NR3 Tweed Coastal Reserve (including SEPP26 Glochidion sumatranum Low H M M 11 (H) no. 2A – Fingal Head) – continued Celtis paniculata Low H M M 11 (H) 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 Seven Mile Beach NP (including SEPP 26 Chamaesyce psammogeton High L L M 5 (L) 40 13 no. 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 High M H M 11 (H) var. sophorae) Coastal Banksia Woodlands (Banksia High M H M 11 (H) integrifolia) Bangalay Sand Forest Medium M H M 11 (H) HCR76 Glenrock SCA (various locations Diuris praecox High M M H 11 (H) 40 13 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 High M H M 11 (H) var. sophorae) 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 16 Poa 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 16 Stackhousia 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 18 Pandanus 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 19 Westringia 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 High L-M H M 10 (M) integrifolia) 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 Wyrrabalong NP and Council Rd Reserve Acianthus exiguus High M M H 11 (H) 35 19 Syzygium 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 High H M-H M-H 13 (H) var. sophorae) Coastal Wetlands (SEPP14) Low H H H 15 (H) Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal Low H L H 11 (H) Floodplains [ continued on next page ]

107 Threat Abatement Plan – Invasion of native plant communities by Chrysanthemoides monilifera

site attributes e model (E+AI+C) site site priority entities occurring entity max score matrix site a b c d f g h no. site name at site priority E AI C (15) score rank HCR95 Wallarah NP Pultenaea maritima High H M H 13 (H) 34 21 Diuris 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 High M M L-M 8 (M) var. sophorae) 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 / Medium M M M-H 10 (M) Acacia longifolia var. sophorae) NR110 Look at me now headland, Moonee Beach Plectranthus cremnus High H M H 13 (H) 29 22 NR 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 Woody Head (including SEPP 26 no. 52, Acianthus exiguus High M L L 5 (L) 29 22 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 22 Poa 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 Comerong Island NP, and Crown land to Stackhousia spathulata High M-H H M 12 (H) 28 25 the north Littoral Rainforest High M-H M M 10 (M) Coastal Banksia Woodlands (Banksia High M-H M M 10 (M) integrifolia) Coastal Sand Dune Complex (Acacia longifolia High M-H M M 10 (M) var. sophorae) 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 Low M-H M M 10 (M) Floodplains HCR107 Wyrrabalong NP South (Bateau Bay to Diuris praecox High H H M 13 (H) 28 25 Wamberal 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 High H H M-H 14 (H) var. sophorae) Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub equivalent High H L H 11 (H) communities (Coastal Sand Wallum Heath) HCR48 Yacaaba Peninsula Stackhousia spathulata High M-H H L-M 11 (H) 28 25 Senecio 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 High M-H H L-M 11 (H) var. sophorae) Coastal Scrub (Leptospermum laevigatum / Medium M-H H L-M 11 (H) Acacia longifolia var. sophorae) 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 High H L H 11 (H) communities (Coastal Sand Wallum Heath) Grassy Headlands (Themeda triandra) High M M M-H 10 (M) Pittwater Spotted Gum and equivalent Low M-H M M-H 11 (H) communities (i.e. Wagstaff Spotted Gum Forest) Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal Low L H L 7 (M) Floodplains SR26 Haven, Alamin, and Farnham Headland Stackhousia spathulata High H L M-H 10 (M) 26 29 (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 High H L H 11 (H) integrifolia) Frontal Dune Vegetation Complex High H L M-H 10 (M) Coastal Sand Dune Complex (Acacia longifolia High H L M-H 10 (M) var. sophorae) 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 High H M H 13 (H) var. sophorae) Coastal Banksia Woodlands (Banksia High H M H 13 (H) integrifolia) [ continued on next page ]

108 Threat Abatement Plan – Invasion of native plant communities by Chrysanthemoides monilifera

site attributes e model (E+AI+C) site site priority entities occurring entity max score matrix site a b c d f g h no. site name at site priority E AI C (15) score rank NR32 Arakwal NP Chamaesyce psammogeton High H M ? 8 (M) 25 31 Geodorum 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 Medium M H H 13 (H) Community 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 33 Cryptocarya 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 33 Coastal Sand Dune Complex (Acacia longifolia High M-H M-H M 11 (H) var. sophorae) Frontal Dune Vegetation Complex High M-H M-H M 11 (H) Coastal Banksia Woodlands (Banksia High M-H M-H M 11 (H) integrifolia) 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 High M H M 11 (H) var. sophorae) Headland Heath Medium M H M 11 (H) HCR42 Coastline from Big Gibber to Banksia Chamaesyce psammogeton High M H M 11 (H) 24 33 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 High M H M 11 (H) var. sophorae) 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 Bare Point–Wilsons Headland Yuraygir NP Plectranthus cremnus High L M H 9 (M) 24 33 Chamaecrista 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 39 Westringia fruticosa High H L H 11 (H) Grassy Headlands (Themeda triandra) High H M M 11 (H) Coastal Banksia Woodlands (Banksia High H M L 9 (M) integrifolia) Coastal Scrub (Leptospermum laevigatum / Medium H M H 13 (H) Acacia longifolia var. sophorae) NR61 Broadwater NP Gleichenia mendellii High M-H M-H ? 8 (M) 23 39 Pandanus 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 41 Cryptostylis hunteriana Low H L H 11 (H) Coastal Sand Dune Complex (Acacia longifolia High H L H 11 (H) var. sophorae) Coastal Banksia Woodlands (Banksia High H L H 11 (H) integrifolia) 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 41 Coastal Banksia Woodlands (Banksia High M-H M-H M 11 (H) integrifolia) Frontal Dune Vegetation Complex High M-H M-H L 9 (M) Coastal Sand Dune complex (Acacia longifolia High M-H M-H M 11 (H) var. sophorae) Coastal Scrub (Leptospermum laevigatum / Medium M-H M-H M 11 (H) Acacia longifolia var. sophorae) NR150 Lord Howe Island Chamaesyce psammogeton High H L H 11 (H) 22 41 Geniostoma huttonii Low L L H 7 (M) Calystegia affinis Low H L M 9 (M) [ continued on next page ]

109 Threat Abatement Plan – Invasion of native plant communities by Chrysanthemoides monilifera

site attributes e model (E+AI+C) site site priority entities occurring entity max score matrix site a b c d f g h no. site name at site priority E AI C (15) score rank 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 41 Gleichenia 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 High H H M 13 (H) integrifolia) Coastal Wetlands (SEPP14) Low H M H 13 (H) NR47 Boulder Beach, Ballina (including SEPP26 Plectranthus cremnus High H H M-H 14 (H) 22 41 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 Low H H M 13 (H) Floodplains SR19 Beecroft Head, Jervis Bay Westringia fruticosa High H L H 11 (H) 21 47 Syzygium 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 47 Littoral 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 / Medium M-H M-H M 11 (H) Acacia longifolia var. sophorae) Dune Grasslands (Spinifex hirsutus) Medium M-H M-H M 11 (H) NR18 Wooyung NR (including SEPP26 no. 11 – Pandanus tectorius var. australianus Medium H M H 13 (H) 20 49 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 South of Lennox Head (including SEPP 26 Fontainea oraria High H M H 13 (H) 20 49 no. 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 Tiona (including SEPP26 no. 155B – Seven Littoral Rainforest High M H M-H 12 (H) 19 51 Mile Beach Tiona) Coastal Banksia Woodlands (Banksia High M H M-H 12 (H) integrifolia) Frontal Dune Vegetation Complex High M H M-H 12 (H) Coastal Scrub (Leptospermum laevigatum / Medium M H M-H 12 (H) Acacia longifolia var. sophorae) HCR17 Forster Breakwall / Pilot Hill Coastal Banksia Woodlands (Banksia High H M M 11 (H) 19 51 integrifolia) Frontal Dune Vegetation Complex High H M M 11 (H) Coastal Sand Dune complex (Acacia longifolia High H M M 11 (H) var. sophorae) 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 Low 0 (A) Floodplains SM26 La Perouse (Jennifer St sites 1 and 2 and Rulingia hermanniifolia Medium L L M 5 (L) 18 54 Botany 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 Diamond Head, Red Head, Black Head, Stackhousia spathulata High L L ? 2 (L) 18 54 Hallidays Point (including SEPP 26 no. Senna acclinis Medium L L ? 2 (L) 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 54 Vigna 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 54 Zieria 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 58 Pimelea 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 58 Coastal Banksia Woodlands (Banksia High M H H 13 (H) integrifolia) Coastal Scrub (Leptospermum laevigatum / Medium M H H 13 (H) Acacia longifolia var. sophorae) Headland Heath Medium M H H 13 (H) [ continued on next page ]

110 Threat Abatement Plan – Invasion of native plant communities by Chrysanthemoides monilifera

site attributes e model (E+AI+C) site site priority entities occurring entity max score matrix site a b c d f g h no. site name at site priority E AI C (15) score rank NR121 Bongil Bongil NP (including SEPP26 no. Chamaesyce psammogeton High M H L 9 (M) 17 58 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 58 Pultenaea 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 58 Bridelia 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 63 Cryptocarya foetida Medium H L M 9 (M) Littoral Rainforest High H M M 11 (H) Littoral Rainforest High H M M 11 (H) SR9 Bass Point (including SEPP26 no. 173A) Pimelea spicata Medium H H M 13 (H) 16 63 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 63 Diuris 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 63 Syzygium 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 63 Pultenaea 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 68 Littoral Rainforest High H H M 13 (H) Freshwater Wetlands Low H H M 13 (H) Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal Low H M H 13 (H) Floodplains NR88 Sandon north & Sandon North beach, Chamaesyce psammogeton High H H H 15 (H) 15 68 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 68 Calystegia soldanella High M H H 13 (H) Grassy Headlands (Themeda triandra) High H H L 11 (H) NR63 Bundjalung NP – Ten Mile Beach and Ischaemum triticeum High H H H 15 (H) 15 68 Bombing 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 72 Senna 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 72 Coastal Sand Dune Complex (Acacia longifolia High H L H 11 (H) var. sophorae) Coastal Scrub (Leptospermum laevigatum / Medium H L H 11 (H) Acacia longifolia var. sophorae) NR114 Diggers Head Plectranthus cremnus High H M M 11 (H) 14 72 Thesium 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 72 Zieria 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 72 Vigna 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 72 Littoral 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 72 Stackhousia spathulata High H M M 11 (H) Gleichenia mendellii High M L H 9 (M) NR46 Lennox Head, inland from Boulder Beach Fontainea oraria High H M M 11 (H) 14 72 (including SEPP26 no. 37, 37A, 37B, Acronychia littoralis Medium M H H 13 (H) 37C) Littoral Rainforest High H H M 13 (H) NR21 Billinudgel NR (including SEPP26 no. Pandanus tectorius var. australianus Medium H M-H M 12 (H) 13 81 13A, 13B, 13C – Billinudgel NR – Endiandra globosa Low M M M 9 (M) 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) [ continued on next page ]

111 Threat Abatement Plan – Invasion of native plant communities by Chrysanthemoides monilifera

site attributes e model (E+AI+C) site site priority entities occurring entity max score matrix site a b c d f g h no. site name at site priority E AI C (15) score rank HCR50 Yacaaba Head, Myall Lakes NP Syzygium paniculatum Medium H H L 11 (H) 13 81 Cynanchum 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 81 Vigna marina High H L L 7 (M) Littoral Rainforest High H L H 11 (H) HCR35 Blueys Beach (including SEPP 26 no. 157, Littoral Rainforest High M M H 11 (H) 13 81 158) Frontal Dune Vegetation Complex High L-M H M 10 (M) Coastal Sand Dune Complex (Acacia longifolia High L-M H M 10 (M) var. sophorae) NR34 Clarkes Beach Caravan Park Acmena hemilampra Low M-H M-H M-H 12 (H) 12 86 Littoral Rainforest High H M M 11 (H) Byron Bay Dwarf Gramminoid Clay Heath Medium M-H M-H M-H 12 (H) Community SR24 Cudmirrah Beach Stackhousia spathulata High H M M-H 12 (H) 12 86 Bangalay Sand Forest Medium H M M-H 12 (H) Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal Low H M M-H 12 (H) Floodplains SR25 Berrara Beach, Monument Beach Stackhousia spathulata High H L H 11 (H) 12 86 Bangalay Sand Forest Medium H L H 11 (H) Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal Low H L H 11 (H) Floodplains NR156 Crowdy Bay NP – Diamond Head Thesium australe Medium H L H 11 (H) 12 86 Gonocarpus salsoloides Low H L H 11 (H) Zieria smithii (lgf)i High H L H 11 (H) NR105 Woolgoolga Beach and headland, Coffs Sophora tomentosa High L L M 5 (L) 12 86 Coast 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 86 Pandanus 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 High H H M 13 (H) integrifolia) Coastal Sand Dune Complex (Acacia longifolia High ? ? ? 0 (A) var. sophorae) 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 Seven Mile Beach North – 1km south of Cryptocarya foetida Medium M-H L-M M 9 (M) 10 93 Jews 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 Charlotte Breen Reserve (and south-east of Kurnell Dune Forest High M H H 13 (H) 10 93 reserve) Kurnell Dune Forest High M H H 13 (H) SM3 Long reef Grassy Headlands (Themeda triandra) High M M H 11 (H) 10 93 Coastal Banksia Woodlands (Banksia High M M H 11 (H) integrifolia) HCR11 Saltwater and Khappinghat NP – Wallabi Pt Westringia fruticosa High H L H 11 (H) 10 93 Headland (SEPP26 no. 147, 148, 148A, Littoral Rainforest High H L-M H 12 (H) 149) NR147 Port Macquarie, Flynn's Beach and Shelly Sophora tomentosa High H H H 15 (H) 10 93 Beach Sophora tomentosa High H M-H H 14 (H) NR83 Shelley Headland Yuragir NP Pultenaea maritima High M M H 11 (H) 10 93 Grassy 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 93 Grassy Headlands (Themeda triandra) High H H M 13 (H) HCR32 Boomerang Beach Frontal Dune Vegetation Complex High H H M 13 (H) 10 93 Coastal Sand Dune Complex (Acacia longifolia High H H M 13 (H) var. sophorae) SR27 Narrawallee Creek NR and Conjola Beach Coastal Banksia Woodlands (Banksia High M-H M H 12 (H) 9 102 integrifolia) Bangalay Sand Forest Medium M-H M H 12 (H) SM38 Yena, Muru, Cape Sol, Tabbigai, Kurnell Coastal Sand Dune Complex (Acacia longifolia High H H H 15 (H) 9 102 Botany Bay NP var. sophorae) Coastal Scrub (Leptospermum laevigatum / Medium H H H 15 (H) Acacia longifolia var. sophorae) SM39 Kurnell, Boat Harbour area, Botany Bay Kurnell Dune Forest High H M M 11 (H) 9 102 NP Sydney Freshwater Wetlands Low H H M 13 (H) Sydney Freshwater Wetlands Low L M L 5 (L) SM20 Bunnerong Rd, Chifley (including Wassell Acacia terminalis subsp. terminalis Medium M H H 13 (H) 9 102 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 Hat Head NP – east of town and headland Plectranthus cremnus High H M H 13 (H) 9 102 near camping ground Thesium australe Medium H M M 11 (H) [ continued on next page ]

112 Threat Abatement Plan – Invasion of native plant communities by Chrysanthemoides monilifera

site attributes e model (E+AI+C) site site priority entities occurring entity max score matrix site a b c d f g h no. site name at site priority E AI C (15) score rank NR137 Hat Head NP, O'Connors Beach Diuris superba Medium H H H 15 (H) 9 102 Zieria smithii (lgf)i High H H H 15 (H) NR115 Macauleys Headland Plectranthus cremnus High M H M 11 (H) 9 102 Thesium australe Medium M H M 11 (H) NR109 Moonee Beach NR Pultenaea maritima High L L H 7 (M) 9 102 Littoral Rainforest High M H M 11 (H) NR99 Station Creek Beach Yuraygir NP Actites megalocarpa High M M H 11 (H) 9 102 Geodorum densiflorum Medium M M H 11 (H) HCR69 Fingal Spit Senecio spathulatus High H H L 11 (H) 8 115 Headland Heath Medium L M M 7 (M) NR131 Smoky Cape (Macleay River) Chamaesyce psammogeton High H M M 11 (H) 8 115 Corybas undulatus Low H M H 13 (H) NR67 Bundjalung NP – many locations Pandanus tectorius var. australianus Medium ? ? ? 0 (A) 8 115 Pandanus 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 High ? ? ? 0 (A) var. sophorae) 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 Ukerabagh NR including Tweed Heads Littoral Rainforest High M H M-H 12 (H) 7 119 Historic Site Coastal Wetlands (SEPP14) Low ? M M 6 (M) NR5 Fingal Southwest – Shallow Bay (SEPP26 Acronychia littoralis Medium ? L L 2 (L) 7 119 no. 2C) Littoral Rainforest High H M M 11 (H) HCR53 John Goulds NR / Cabbage Tree Island Pisonia umbellifera Low L L H 7 (M) 7 119 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 Littoral Rainforest High M M H 11 (H) 5 123 (SEPP26 no. 159, 160 – 2 large patches) HCR54 Shoal Bay Beach Chamaesyce psammogeton High H M H 13 (H) 5 123 NR4 Fingal West – Golf Course (SEPP26 no. Littoral Rainforest High H M M 11 (H) 5 123 2B) NR16 Wooyung NR North (SEPP26 no. 10) Littoral Rainforest High M-H M-H H 13 (H) 5 123 NR19 Wooyung Rd junction, near Caravan park Littoral Rainforest High H M M 11 (H) 5 123 Wooyung beach (SEPP26 no. 12) SR30 Manyanah Beach Chamaesyce psammogeton High ? ? ? 0 (A) 5 123 Stackhousia spathulata High H L H 11 (H) SR31 Cunjurong Beach / Point Stackhousia spathulata High H L H 11 (H) 5 123 Littoral Rainforest High ? ? ? (A) SR32 Bannister Headland Mollymook (SEPP26 Littoral Rainforest High H M-H H 14 (H) 5 123 no. 184A) SR39 Tomakin Littoral Rainforest High M H H 13 (H) 5 123 SR55 Fuller's Beach Wagonga Frontal Dune Vegetation Complex High H M-H M 12 (H) 5 123 SM27 NSW Golf Club / Botany Bay NP (Cape Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub High M M H 11 (H) 5 123 Banks area) SM29 Potter Point, Kurnell, Botany Bay NP Frontal Dune Vegetation Complex High H H L 11 (H) 5 123 SM30 Pott Pt, Cooks Knoll, Kurnell Coastal Banksia Woodlands (Banksia High H H L 11 (H) 5 123 integrifolia) SM25 St Michaels Golf Course, Little Bay Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub High M H H 13 (H) 5 123 HN1 Lion Island (north east face) Grassy Headlands (Themeda triandra) High H M-H M 12 (H) 5 123 HN2 Barrenjoey (northern and eastern slopes of Grassy Headlands (Themeda triandra) High M-H H M 12 (H) 5 123 headland) HN8 Mona Vale cliff Grassy Headlands (Themeda triandra) High H L-M M-H 11 (H) 5 123 HN9 Turrimetta headland Grassy Headlands (Themeda triandra) High H L-M M-H 11 (H) 5 123 SM1 Narrabeen Headland Grassy Headlands (Themeda triandra) High H L-M M-H 11 (H) 5 123 SM2 Warriewood beach / cliff Grassy Headlands (Themeda triandra) High H L-M M-H 11 (H) 5 123 HCR60 Anna Bay; Jessie Rd to Rd 1074 Diuris praecox High H H M 13 (H) 5 123 HCR29 Booti Booti (west of Flat Rock) in Booti Littoral Rainforest High H H H 15 (H) 5 123 Booti NP (SEPP26 no. 155) HCR2 The Gap – southern end of Crowdy Bay NP Littoral Rainforest High H M-H H 14 (H) 5 123 (SEPP26 no. 125 126) HCR3 Harrington – Crowdy Head Rd – part Littoral Rainforest High H M-H H 14 (H) 5 123 Crowdy Bay NP (SEPP26 no. 131) HCR5 North Harrington (SEPP26 no. 132) Littoral Rainforest High H M-H H 14 (H) 5 123 HCR6 Manning Pt, Manning River (SEPP26 no. Littoral Rainforest High H M-H H 14 (H) 5 123 134A, 135) HCR8 Farquhar park (SEPP26 no. 142) Littoral Rainforest High H M M 11 (H) 5 123 HCR9 Old Bar North (SEPP26 no. 144) Littoral Rainforest High H M M 11 (H) 5 123 HCR10 Old Bar South (SEPP26 no. 145) Littoral Rainforest High H M M 11 (H) 5 123 NR149 Miner's Beach, South of Sea Acres NR – Littoral Rainforest High H L H 11 (H) 5 123 near Tacking Pt (SEPP26 no. 113) NR144 Delicate Nobby Headland – 1.5km N of Littoral Rainforest High H M-H H 14 (H) 5 123 Limeburner's Creek NR (SEPP26 no. 105B) NR140 Hat Head NP (Crescent head) Littoral Rainforest High H M H 13 (H) 5 123 NR141 South Hat Head Zieria smithii (lgf)i High H H H 15 (H) 5 123 NR130 Clybucca Historic Site – northern section Littoral Rainforest High H M-H H 14 (H) 5 123 (SEPP26 no. 101B) NR127 Scotts Head Vigna marina High 0 (A) 5 123 Acronychia 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. Littoral Rainforest High H M H 13 (H) 5 123 96) [ continued on next page ]

113 Threat Abatement Plan – Invasion of native plant communities by Chrysanthemoides monilifera

site attributes e model (E+AI+C) site site priority entities occurring entity max score matrix site a b c d f g h no. site name at site priority E AI C (15) score rank NR113 Sapphire Gardens, Coffs Harbour Sophora tomentosa High 0 (A) 5 123 (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) 5 123 NR98 Dirrangan Lookout track Yuraygir NP Grassy Headlands (Themeda triandra) High M M H 11 (H) 5 123 NR96 Wooli River Sophora tomentosa High H M M 11 (H) 5 123 NR80 Angourie Reserve Gleichenia mendellii High M H M 11 (H) 5 123 NR81 Angourie Back Beach, Yuraygir NP Gleichenia mendellii High M H M 11 (H) 5 123 NR84 Plumbago Headland, Yuraygir NP Grassy Headlands (Themeda triandra) High H M M 11 (H) 5 123 NR87 Pebbly-Freshwater Yuraygir NP Ischaemum triticeum High H H M 13 (H) 5 123 NR89 Sandon River, Yuraygir NP Sophora tomentosa High H H H 15 (H) 5 123 NR55 Lighthouse Beach Ballina Littoral Rainforest High H H M 13 (H) 5 123 NR45 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 the numbers 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 an individual 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 form j Broad leaf form

Table A7.2 Category 2 sites for implementing control (n = 71 sites).

e site attributes model (E+AI+C) site priority biodiversity occurring max score matrix site a b c d f g h no. site name at site priority E AI C (15) value rank NR152 Grants Head Pandanus tectorius var. australianus Medium H M M 11 (H) 31 170 Casuarina 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 Marshalls Creek NR (including SEPP26 Pandanus tectorius var. australianus Medium H L-M M-H 11 (H) 19 171 no. 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) 19 171 Littoral Rainforest High M L H 9 (M) Frontal Dune Vegetation Complex High M L M 7 (M) Coastal Sand Dune Complex (Acacia longifolia High M L M 7 (M) var. sophorae) Coastal Scrub (Leptospermum laevigatum / Medium M L M 7 (M) Acacia longifolia var. sophorae) NR43 North Creek, Lennox Head (including Acronychia littoralis Medium M L M-H 8 (M) SEPP26 no. 39, 38A, 36) Cryptocarya foetida Medium M L M 7 (M) Littoral Rainforest High M L H 9 (M) 18 173 Littoral 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) 17 174 Cordyline 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 (Banksia High M M M 9 (M) 15 175 integrifolia) Coastal Sand Dune Complex (Acacia longifolia High M M M 9 (M) var. sophorae) 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) 15 175 Frontal Dune Vegetation Complex High M M M 9 (M) Coastal Sand Dune Complex (Acacia longifolia High M M M 9 (M) var. sophorae) Coastal Scrub (Leptospermum laevigatum / Medium M M M 9 (M) Acacia longifolia var. sophorae) [ continued on next page ]

114 Threat Abatement Plan – Invasion of native plant communities by Chrysanthemoides monilifera

e site attributes model (E+AI+C) site priority biodiversity occurring max score matrix site a b c d f g h no. site name at site priority E AI C (15) value rank HCR100 Curtis Parade (The Entrance) to Karagi Littoral Rainforest High L H L-M 8 (M) 15 175 Point Frontal Dune Vegetation Complex High L H L-M 8 (M) Coastal Sand Dune Complex (Acacia longifolia High L H L-M 8 (M) var. sophorae) Coastal Scrub (Leptospermum laevigatum / Medium L H L-M 8 (M) Acacia longifolia var. sophorae) HCR101 Toowomb Bay to Shelley Beach NPWS Littoral Rainforest High L H L-M 8 (M) 15 175 boundary Frontal Dune Vegetation Complex High L H L-M 8 (M) Coastal Sand Dune Complex (Acacia longifolia High L H L-M 8 (M) var. sophorae) Coastal Scrub (Leptospermum laevigatum / Medium L H L-M 8 (M) Acacia longifolia var. sophorae) NR10 Bogangar South (SEPP26 no. 5A) Acronychia littoralis Medium H L M 9 (M) 14 179 Hibiscus 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) 14 179 Coastal Scrub (Leptospermum laevigatum / Medium M-H M M 10 (M) Acacia longifolia var. sophorae) 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) 14 179 Coastal Banksia Woodlands (Banksia High M M M 9 (M) integrifolia) 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) 13 182 Tetratheca 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 Low H L-M M 10 (M) Floodplains NR117 Coffs Harbour Pultenaea maritima High L L H 7 (M) 12 183 Vitex 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) 11 184 Grassy 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) 11 184 Cynanchum 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) 11 184 Tetratheca 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) 10 187 Tetratheca 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) 10 187 Caladenia 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) 9 189 Cordyline 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) 9 189 Rulingia hermanniifolia Medium L M L 5 (L) Headland Heath Medium L M H 9 (M) NR146 Pelican Point (including SEPP 26 no. 107) Chamaesyce psammogeton High M-H M ? 7 (M) 8 191 Littoral Rainforest High M M M 9 (M) SM28 Inscription Point, Kurnell, Botany Bay NP Headland Heath Medium H H M 13 (H) 8 191 Headland Woodland Medium H H H 15 (H) SR12 Minnamurra Headland Pimelea spicata Medium H M M 11 (H) 8 191 Zieria granulata Medium H L H 11 (H) SR28 Swan Lake Poa poiformis High M-H L M-H 9 (M) 8 191 Coastal 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) 7 195 Littoral Rainforest High L M L 5 (L) NR143 Racecourse Headland (including SEPP26 Marsdenia liisae Low H M H 13 (H) 7 195 no. 104A, 105, 105A, 106) Littoral Rainforest High M M M 9 (M) HCR18 Second Head / Pebbly Beach, Forster Coastal Banksia Woodlands (Banksia High M H L 9 (M) 7 195 integrifolia) Headland Heath Medium M H L 9 (M) HCR25 Burgess Beach (including SEPP 26 152A) Littoral Rainforest High M-H L M-H 9 (M) 7 195 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 High L H L 7 (M) 7 195 integrifolia) Coastal Scrub (Leptospermum laevigatum / Medium L H L 7 (M) Acacia longifolia var. sophorae) HCR66 Tomaree NP, Stephens Peak, South Gan Melaleuca groveana Low H M H 13 (H) 7 195 Gan Headland Heath Medium H M H 13 (H) [ continued on next page ]

115 Threat Abatement Plan – Invasion of native plant communities by Chrysanthemoides monilifera

e site attributes model (E+AI+C) site priority biodiversity occurring max score matrix site a b c d f g h no. site name at site priority E AI C (15) value rank HCR73 Anna Bay Headland, Tomaree NP Grassy Headlands (Themeda triandra) High M H L 9 (M) 7 195 Headland Heath Medium M H L 9 (M) HCR103 Cantong Beach Syzygium paniculatum Medium M-H M-H H 13 (H) 7 195 Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal Low M-H M-H H 13 (H) Floodplains SR35 Square Head, Cullendulla Creek NR and Littoral Rainforest High M M M 9 (M) 7 195 Long Beach Swamp Oak Floodplain Low H M H 13 (H) NR92 Minnie Water Back beach and Foreshore Gleichenia mendellii High M L M 7 (M) 6 206 Reserve Olax angulata Low L L H 7 (M) NR58 Richmond River NR Pandanus tectorius var. australianus Medium M H M-H 12 (H) 5 207 Coastal 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) 4 208 NR28 Crown lands – Byron Shire Council Byron Bay Dwarf Gramminoid Clay Heath Medium H L-M M-H 11 (H) 4 208 Community NR31 Upslope of Arakwal NP adjoining water Byron Bay Dwarf Gramminoid Clay Heath Medium H L-M M-H 11 (H) 4 208 tower (Crown lands) Community NR40 Seven Mile Beach – north of Newrybar Littoral Rainforest High H L-M L-M 9 (M) 4 208 Swamp (SEPP26 no. 34B) NR69 Bundjalung NP (Shark Bay) Sophora tomentosa High M M L 7 (M) 4 208 NR101 Coffs Coast Regional Park (400m NW of Littoral Rainforest High M M M 9 (M) 4 208 Arrawarra) (SEPP26 no. 62) NR104 Cabins Beach, Mullaway. Coffs Harbour Sophora tomentosa High M M M 9 (M) 4 208 Regional Park NR108 Diggers Point, Moonee Beach NR Zieria prostrata High M M M 9 (M) 4 208 NR139 Hat Head NP – Third Beach, Hungry Hill Diuris curta Medium H H H 15 (H) 4 208 NR151 South of Lake Cathie (SEPP26 no. 116) Littoral Rainforest High M M M 9 (M) 4 208 NR153 Googleys Lagoon – Camden Head – West Littoral Rainforest High H M L 9 (M) 4 208 of Kattang NR (SEPP26 no. 122) HCR4 Crowdy Head Grassy Headlands (Themeda triandra) High M M M 9 (M) 4 208 HCR7 Beach Rd, Mitchell's Island (SEPP26 no. Littoral Rainforest High M M L 7 (M) 4 208 138) HCR19 Bennetts Head, Forster Grassy Headlands (Themeda triandra) High L M M 7 (M) 4 208 HCR21 Reservoir Hill, Forster Littoral Rainforest High M L M 7 (M) 4 208 HCR22 Royal Palm / Zamia Place Reserve, Forster Littoral Rainforest High H L M 9 (M) 4 208 HCR34 Reserve behind Boomerang Beach shops Littoral Rainforest High H L M 9 (M) 4 208 HCR55 Anzac Park Diuris arenaria Medium H L H 11 (H) 4 208 HCR61 Bobs Farm–Salt Ash; Rd 1074 to Boyces Diuris arenaria Medium H M M 11 (H) 4 208 Trail / Janet Pde HCR63 One Mile Beach Coastal Scrub (Leptospermum laevigatum / Medium H M H 13 (H) 4 208 Acacia longifolia var. sophorae) HCR65 Nelson Bay Anna Bay / Shoal Bay Diuris arenaria Medium H L H 11 (H) 4 208 Boreline, Nbay Rd HN3 Barrenjoey High School Coastal Sand Dune Complex (Acacia longifolia High M-H M M 10 (M) 4 208 var. sophorae) HN4 Governor Phillip Park dunes Coastal Sand Dune Complex (Acacia longifolia High L-M H L 8 (M) 4 208 var. sophorae) HN5 Careel Head Grassy Headlands (Themeda triandra) High H L-M M 10 (M) 4 208 HN6 Bangallay headland Grassy Headlands (Themeda triandra) High H L-M M 10 (M) 4 208 HN7 Bilgola headland Grassy Headlands (Themeda triandra) High H L-M L-M 9 (M) 4 208 SM10 Nielsen Park, and Gap Bluff, Sydney Acacia terminalis subsp. terminalis Medium H L H 11 (H) 4 208 Harbour NP SM11 HMAS Watson – Watsons Bay Acacia terminalis subsp. terminalis Medium H L H 11 (H) 4 208 SM21 Bunnerong Sub-station, Matraville Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub High ? H M 8 (M) 4 208 SM36 Towra Pt Syzygium paniculatum Medium H M M 11 (H) 4 208 SR6 Windang Island Shellharbour Pimelea spicata Medium H H L 11 (H) 4 208 SR37 Tollgate Islands NR Westringia fruticosa High M M M 9 (M) 4 208 SR59 Potato Point Thesium australe Medium M H H 13 (H) 4 208

a-h see Table A7.1 for details.

Table A7.3 Category 3 sites for implementing control (n = 67 sites).

e site attributes model (E+AI+C) site priority biodiversity occurring max score matrix site a b c d f g h no. site name at site priority E AI C (15) value rank NR126 Warrells Creek area (SEPP26 no. 90, 91, Littoral Rainforest High L L M 5 (L) 15 241 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) 14 242 Tetratheca 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 Low H L M-H 10 (M) Floodplains HCR86 Pulbah Island NR, Lake Macquarie Syzygium paniculatum Medium M M M 9 (M) 12 243 Macrozamia flexuosa Low H H H 15 (H) Swamp Oak Floodplain Low H H H 15 (H) Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal Low H H H 15 (H) Floodplains [ continued on next page ]

116 Threat Abatement Plan – Invasion of native plant communities by Chrysanthemoides monilifera

e site attributes model (E+AI+C) site priority biodiversity occurring max score matrix site a b c d f g h no. site name at site priority E AI C (15) value rank NR13 Hastings Point (SEPP26 no. 6) Pandanus tectorius var. australianus Medium L M L 5 (L) 9 244 Glochidion 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) 9 244 Freshwater Wetlands Low M H H 13 (H) River Flat Eucalypt Forest Low M H H 13 (H) SR21 Moona Moona Creek, Vincentia at the Cryptostylis hunteriana Low H L M 9 (M) 9 244 "coathanger" Bangalay Sand Forest Medium H L M 9 (M) Swamp Oak Floodplain Low H L M 9 (M) Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal Low H L M 9 (M) Floodplains HCR110 Riley's Island NR (north of St Hubert's Swamp Oak Floodplain Low H M M 11 (H) 9 244 Island) Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal Low H M M 11 (H) Floodplains 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) 8 248 Swamp 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) 6 250 Cordyline congesta Low M H M 11 (H) SR57 Blackfellows Point Correa baeuerlenii Low M H M 11 (H) 6 250 Swamp Oak Floodplain Low M H H 13 (H) SR44 Williga swamp Swamp Oak Floodplain Low M H H 13 (H) 6 250 Freshwater Wetlands Low M H H 13 (H) SR45 Moruya Heads including Toragy Headland, Thesium australe Medium M M ? 6 (M) 6 250 Eurobodalla NP Swamp Oak Floodplain Low M H H 13 (H) SR42 Waldrons Swamp Swamp Oak Floodplain Low H H H 15 (H) 6 250 Freshwater Wetlands Low M H H 13 (H) HCR102 Jenny Dickson Beach and Werribee Street, Syzygium paniculatum Medium L H L-M 8 (M) 6 250 Noraville Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal Low H L H 11 (H) Floodplains HCR84 Pt Wollstonecraft, Lake Macquarie SCA Swamp Oak Floodplain Low M H M 11 (H) 6 250 Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal Low M H M 11 (H) Floodplains HCR56 Fingal Cycleway / Firetrail Coastal Banksia Woodlands (Banksia High L L M 5 (L) 6 250 integrifolia) Coastal Scrub (Leptospermum laevigatum / Medium M M M 9 (M) Acacia longifolia var. sophorae) NR37 Broken Head Ailanthus triphysa Low M M M 9 (M) 5 258 Acianthus amplexicaulis Low M H M 11 (H) SR53 Bingi / Meringo Swamp Oak Floodplain Low M H H 13 (H) 5 258 River Flat Eucalypt Forest Low M M M 9 (M) SR38 Tomaga River Estuary Swamp Oak Floodplain Low H M H 13 (H) 5 258 River Flat Eucalypt Forest Low M M M 9 (M) SM17 Bundock Rd Army Base / Randwick Acacia terminalis subsp. terminalis Medium L L M 5 (L) 5 258 Environmental 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) 5 258 Eucalyptus camfieldii Medium M-H L L 2 (L) HCR106 Wyrrabalong NP, Terilbah and Pelican Syzygium paniculatum Medium M L M 7 (M) 5 258 Island & Nth Entrance Road Reserve Coastal Saltmarsh Low M L-M M 8 (M) HCR87 Jewells Swamp Tetratheca juncea Medium H L M 9 (M) 5 258 Sydney 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) 5 258 Cryptostylis hunteriana Low H M L 9 (M) NR79 Angourie Pterostylis woollsii Medium M M L 7 (M) 4 266 Grevillea 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) 3 267 NR20 Wooyung Field Studies Centre Acronychia littoralis Medium M L H 9 (M) 3 267 SR66 Cape Howe Senecio spathulatus High L L ? 2 (L) 3 267 SR60 Coila Lake Swamp Oak Floodplain Low M H H 13 (H) 3 267 SR58 South Tuross Swamp Oak Floodplain Low M H H 13 (H) 3 267 SR54 Kellys Beach Swamp Oak Floodplain Low M H H 13 (H) 3 267 SR50 Meringo Creek Swamp Oak Floodplain Low M H H 13 (H) 3 267 SR51 Ryans Creek Swamp Oak Floodplain Low M H H 13 (H) 3 267 SR52 Malabar Lagoon Swamp Oak Floodplain Low M H H 13 (H) 3 267 SR46 Quandolo Island Swamp Oak Floodplain Low M H H 13 (H) 3 267 SR47 Pedros Swamp Freshwater Wetlands Low M H H 13 (H) 3 267 SR48 Congo Creek Swamp Oak Floodplain Low M H H 13 (H) 3 267 SR41 Illawong NR Freshwater Wetlands Low H M M 11 (H) 3 267 SR36 Quiriga Beach / Reef Point–Three Islet Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal Low H L H 11 (H) 3 267 Point (Murramarang NP) Floodplains SR22 Sanctuary Point (edge of St Georges basin, Syzygium paniculatum Medium H L L-M 8 (M) 3 267 south of Wright beach in Booderee NP) SR23 St Georges Basin, Jervis Bay Syzygium paniculatum Medium H L L-M 8 (M) 3 267 SR7 Mt Warrigul Pimelea spicata Medium H L M 9 (M) 3 267 SR3 Coomaditchie Lagoon Sydney Freshwater Wetlands Low H M M 11 (H) 3 267 SR4 Korrungalla Swamp Sydney Coastal Estuary Swamp Forest Complex Low H H M 13 (H) 3 267 SM41 Bass and Flinders Point, near Cronulla Prostanthera densa Low H L H 11 (H) 3 267 SR1 Belambi Dunes Sydney Coastal Estuary Swamp Forest Complex Low H M H 13 (H) 3 267 SR2 Puckeys Estate Sydney Coastal Estuary Swamp Forest Complex Low M H M 11 (H) 3 267 SM23 Botany Bay NP Pterostylis no 15. (Botany Bay orchid) Medium H L L 7 (M) 3 267 [ continued on next page ]

117 Threat Abatement Plan – Invasion of native plant communities by Chrysanthemoides monilifera

e site attributes model (E+AI+C) site priority biodiversity occurring max score matrix site a b c d f g h no. site name at site priority E AI C (15) value rank SM24 Prince Henry Hospital, Little Bay North Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub High L L M 5 (L) 3 267 SM18 Eastlakes & The Lakes Golf Course, Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub High L L M 5 (L) 3 267 Eastlakes SM19 Banksmeadow Primary School Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub High M L L 5 (L) 3 267 SM15 Centennial Park Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub High L L M 5 (L) 3 267 SM16 Australian Golf Course, Kensington Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub High L L L 3 (L) 3 267 SM9 Gap Park, Watsons Bay Acacia terminalis subsp. terminalis Medium H L M 9 (M) 3 267 HCR58 Taylors Beach Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal Low H M H 13 (H) 3 267 Floodplains NR116 Park Beach, Coffs Harbour Sophora tomentosa High L L M 5 (L) 3 267 Acianthus amplexicaulis Low 0 (A) NR76 Carrs road boat ramp, Maclean Calystegia soldanella High L L L 3 (L) 3 267 NR77 Aboriginal land south of Yamba Phaius australis / Phaius tankervillae Low M M H 11 (H) 3 267 NR78 Joss Island, Oyster Channel – Wooloweyah Calystegia soldanella High L L L 3 (L) 3 267 Lagoon NR75 Yamba Beach Ischaemum triticeum High L L M 5 (L) 3 267 NR72 Bundjalung NP (Iluka Bluff) Vigna marina High L L L 3 (L) 3 267 NR59 South of Pimlico (SEPP26 no. 44) Littoral Rainforest High L L ? 2 (L) 3 267 NR60 Little Pimlico Island NR (SEPP26 no. 45) Littoral Rainforest High L L ? 2 (L) 3 267 NR44 Lennox Head Freshwater Wetlands Low H H L-M 12 (H) 3 267 NR86 Plover Island, Yuraygir NP Viminaria juncea (prostrate form) Medium L L H 7 (M) 3 267 NR57 Stokers Park, East Ballina Acronychia littoralis Medium H L-M L 8 (M) 3 267

a-h see Table A7.1 for details.

Table A7.4 Category 4 sites for implementing control (n = 37 sites).

e site attributes model (E+AI+C) site priority biodiversity occurring max score matrix site a b c d f g h no. site name at site priority E AI C (15) value rank HCR30 Foreshore Reserve, Coomba Park Coastal Wetlands (SEPP14) Low M-H M M 10 (M) 8 308 Swamp Oak Floodplain Low M-H M M 10 (M) Coastal Saltmarsh Low M-H M M 10 (M) Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal Low M-H M M 10 (M) Floodplains HCR45 Myall River / Swan Bay / Witts Island Coastal Wetlands (SEPP14) Low L M M-H 8 (M) 8 308 Swamp Oak Floodplain Low L M M-H 8 (M) Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal Low L M M-H 8 (M) Floodplains Coastal Saltmarsh Low L M M-H 8 (M) NR8 Casuarina Beach, north of Cudgen NR Sophora tomentosa High M M L 7 (M) 6 310 Geodorum densiflorum Medium L L M 5 (L) HCR15 Darawakh Creek / Frogalla Swamp Swamp Oak Floodplain Low M L M 7 (M) 6 310 Wetland Freshwater Wetland Low M L M 7 (M) Coastal Wetlands (SEPP14) Low M L M 7 (M) HCR31 Foreshore Reserve, Green Point Swamp Oak Floodplain Low M-H M L 8 (M) 6 310 Coastal Saltmarsh Low M-H M L 8 (M) Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal Low M-H M L 8 (M) Floodplains NR33 Cumbebin Swamp NR Phaius tankervilliae Low L-M L M 6 (M) 4 313 Coastal Wetlands (SEPP14) Low L H L 7 (M) HCR16 Charlotte Ohma Reserve, Tuncurry Swamp Oak Floodplain Low H L M 7 (M) 4 313 Coastal Wetlands (SEPP14) Low H L M 7 (M) HCR27 Green Point, Booti Booti NP Allocasuarina simulans Low M L H 9 (M) 4 313 Allocasuarina defungens Low L L H 7 (M) HCR38 Foreshore Reserve, Smiths Lake Swamp Oak Floodplain Low M-H M L 8 (M) 4 313 Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal Low M-H M L 8 (M) Floodplains HCR49 Limekilns Road Wetland, Tea Gardens Coastal Wetlands (SEPP14) Low H L M 9 (M) 4 313 Coastal Saltmarsh Low H L M 9 (M) HCR82 Wanji, Lake Macquarie SCA Swamp Oak Floodplain Low M M M 9 (M) 4 313 Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal Low M M M 9 (M) Floodplains HCR94 Morrisset Swamp Oak Floodplain Low M M M-H 10 (M) 4 313 Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal Low M M M-H 10 (M) Floodplains SR11 Minnamurra Spit and Beach Cynanchum elegans Low M L H 9 (M) 4 313 Typhonium eliosurum Low H M ? 8 (M) NR6 Tweed Estuary NR Coastal Wetlands (SEPP14) Low ? M M 6 (M) 2 321 NR24 New Brighton Archidendron hendersonii Low L H L 7 (M) 2 321 NR42 Ballina NR Coastal Wetlands (SEPP14) Low M L L-M 6 (M) 2 321 NR95 Wooli, Yuraygir NP Olax angulata Low L L H 7 (M) 2 321 HCR23 Golden Ponds Reserve, Forster Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal Low M L M 7 (M) 2 321 Floodplains HCR68 Tomaree NP, Sth Gan Gan Fire Trail Euphrasia collina subsp. paludosa Low L L H 7 (M) 2 321 HCR74 Adamstown Heights, Defence Reserve Tetratheca juncea Medium L L ? 2 (L) 2 321 HCR90 Pelican Flat, Council Reserve Tetratheca juncea Medium ? M-H ? 4 (L) 2 321 HCR91 Blacknet's Bay, Swansea Coastal Saltmarsh Low L-M M-H M 9 (M) 2 321 HCR98 Budgewoi, Mackenzie Reserve Syzygium paniculatum Medium M L L 5 (L) 2 321 SM6 Middle Head Acacia terminalis subsp. terminalis Medium L-M L L-M 3 (L) 2 321 SM7 Ashton Park, Bradleys Head (Mosman) Acacia terminalis subsp. terminalis Medium L-M L M 4 (L) 2 321 Sydney Harbour NP [ continued on next page ]

118 Threat Abatement Plan – Invasion of native plant communities by Chrysanthemoides monilifera

e site attributes model (E+AI+C) site priority biodiversity occurring max score matrix site a b c d f g h no. site name at site priority E AI C (15) value rank SM8 Chowder Head Acacia terminalis subsp. terminalis Medium L-M L L-M 3 (L) 2 321 SM12 Onslow St, Rose Bay Acacia terminalis subsp. terminalis Medium ? L M 4 (L) 2 321 SM13 Dover Rd, Rose Bay Acacia terminalis subsp. terminalis Medium ? L L 2 (L) 2 321 SM14 Loombah Rd, Dover Heights Acacia terminalis subsp. terminalis Medium ? L L 2 (L) 2 321 SR8 Blackbutt Reserve Pimelea spicata Medium L L M 5 (L) 2 321 SR33 Burrill Lake Cryptostylis hunteriana Low H M ? 8 (M) 2 321 SR34 Clear Point Swamp Oak Floodplain Low H L M 9 (M) 2 321 SR43 Nth Moruya Aldrovanda vesiculosa Low M M M 9 (M) 2 321 SR61 Kianga Swamp Oak Floodplain Low M L H 9 (M) 2 321 SR62 Tilba Lake Coastal Saltmarsh Low M M M 9 (M) 2 321 SR63 Tathra Reserve Acacia georgensis Low H L M 9 (M) 2 321 SR65 Pambula Beach, Ben Boyd NP Cryptostylis hunteriana Low H L M 9 (M) 2 321

a-h see Table A7.1 for details.

Table A7.5 Category 5 sites for implementing control (n = 5 sites).

e site attributes model (E+AI+C) site priority biodiversity occurring max score matrix site a b c d f g h no. site name at site priority E AI C (15) value rank NR35 Suffolk Park Acmena hemilampra Low L-M M ? 5 (L) 1 345 NR93 Diggers Camp Olax angulata Low L L M 5 (L) 1 345 HCR83 Myana, Lake Macquarie SCA Swamp Oak Floodplain Low L L M 5 (L) 1 345 SM32 Botany Bay NP (Cape Baily area) Sydney Freshwater Wetlands Low L M L 5 (L) 1 345 SR64 Kianinny Bay, Bournda NP Acacia georgensis Low L L M 5 (L) 1 345

a-h see Table A7.1 for details.

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 A NR11 Bogangar Beach Chamaesyce psammogeton High A NR12 Norries Head Plectranthus cremnus High A Grassy Headlands (Themeda triandra) High A Pandanus tectorius var. australianus Medium A NR14 Hastings Point Grassy Headlands (Themeda triandra) High A NR17 Wooyung far north (SEPP26 no. 10A) Littoral Rainforest High A NR74 Clarence Estuary NR (SEPP26 no. 54A) Littoral Rainforest High A NR100 Red Rock, Woolgoolga (including SEPP 26 no. 60A) Acronychia littoralis Medium A Acianthus amplexicaulis Low A Littoral Rainforest High A NR102 Arrawarra Headland Plectranthus cremnus High A NR103 Halfway btwn Woolgoolga and Sandy Beach (SEPP26 no. Littoral Rainforest High A 64B) NR112 1.3 km NE of Korora (SEPP26 no. 68C) Littoral Rainforest High A NR118 North of Sawtell (SEPP26 no. 70, 70A) Littoral Rainforest High A Littoral Rainforest High A NR119 Sawtell Headland Plectranthus cremnus High A Zieria prostrata High A Pterostylis ophioglossa Low A NR120 South-East of Sawtell (SEPP26 no. 71A, 71B) Littoral Rainforest High A NR122 Urunga Lagoon Syzygium paniculatum Medium A Coastal Wetlands (SEPP14) Low A NR123 South-East of Urunga, Hungry Head (SEPP26 no. 81, 82) Littoral Rainforest High A NR124 Valla Headland and Beach (including SEPP26 no. 86) Zieria smithii (lgf)i High A Littoral Rainforest High A NR125 Nambucca Heads (including Shelley Beach) Chamaesyce psammogeton High A Casuarina equisetifolia Medium A NR129 North-East of Clybucca Historic Site (Near Sth West Rocks) Littoral Rainforest High A (SEPP26 no. 100, 101 – 4 patches) HCR89 9 mile beach, Belmont Chamaesyce psammogeton High A HCR93 1km SW of Valentine near Lake Macquarie (SEPP26 no. Littoral Rainforest High A 170) SM31 North of Continental Carbon Kurnell Dune Forest High A SM33 Kurnell Rulingia hermanniifolia Medium A SM34 Connell Hill, Kurnell Senecio spathulatus High A SR5 Windang, Port Kembla Calystegia soldanella High A Dianella crinoides Medium A SR56 Tuross Head (SEPP26 no. 188D, 188E, 188G, 188H, 188I) Littoral Rainforest High A

a-h see Table A7.1 for details.

119 Threat Abatement Plan – Invasion of native plant communities by Chrysanthemoides monilifera

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

species Dianella congesta Medium 33 Liparis habenarina Medium 49 Persoonia katerae Medium 43 Pterostylis nigricans Medium 49 Spyridium cinereum Medium 49 Tylophora benthamii Medium 49 Wilsonia rotundifolia Medium 37 Abildgaardia vaginata Low 128 Acacia bakeri Low 153 Acacia kydrensis Low 153 Caesia parviflora var. minor Low 146 Caladenia quadrifaria Low 146 Callistemon acuminatus Low 116 Carex brownii Low 153 Cryptocarya triplinervis var. pubens Low 116 Cyperus scaber Low 61 Cyperus subulatus Low 84 Desmodium heterocarpon var. heterocarpon Low 65 Haloragis exalata subsp. exalata Low 128 Hoya australis subsp. australis Low 153 Hypserpa decumbens Low 98 Lindsaea fraseri Low 128 Lipocarpha microcephala Low 153 Lygodium microphyllum Low 128 Myoporum bateae Low 61 Oldenlandia galioides Low 146 Planchonella laurifolia Low 98 Planchonella myrsiniodes Low 98 Pultenaea villifera Low 140 Streptothamnus moorei Low 128 Thozetia racemosa Low 70 Viola betonicifolia Low 107 Wahlenbergia littoricola Low 70 Zieria tuberculata Low 75 ecological communities

Coastal Scrub (Drypetes australiscia / Elaedendron australe) Medium EC 12 Dry 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 rank order. b Priorities as per Appendices 3 and 5. c Rank order as per Appendices 3 and 5.

120 Threat Abatement Plan – Invasion of native plant communities by Chrysanthemoides monilifera

Appendix 8 Category 1 sites for each of the high priority species, populations and ecological communities

Table A8.1 Category 1 sites for each of the high priority species. Some of these sites contain more than one high priority entity and thus are listed under each.

no. of site entities site species b rank b no. c Category 1 – site name a, d present e tenure f rankg Plectranthus cremnus 1 NR29 Cape Byron SCA (including SEPP26 no. 27, 27A, 27B) 13 DEC 2 NR110 Look at me now headland, Moonee Beach NR 6 DEC 22 NR94 Bare Point–Wilsons Headland Yuraygir NP 6 DEC 33 NR47 Boulder Beach, Ballina (including SEPP26 no. 38 – south end) 6 BaSC 41 NR107 Dammerels Head, Moonee Beach NR 4 DEC 54 NR114 Diggers Head 3 DEC 72 NR106 Bare Bluff, Moonee Beach NR 3 DEC 72 NR50 Sharps Beach Ballina (White's Head) 2 BaSC 93 NR135 Hat Head NP – Connors-Hat Head 2 DEC 102 NR136 Hat Head NP – east of town and headland near camping ground 2 DEC 102 NR115 Macauleys Headland 2 DEC 102 NR155 Dooragan NP 2 DEC 119 NR45 Lennox Head (Headland) 1 BaSC 123 Zieria prostrata 2 NR110 Look at me now headland, Moonee Beach NR 6 DEC 22 NR107 Dammerels Head, Moonee Beach NR 4 DEC 54 NR106 Bare Bluff, Moonee Beach NR 3 DEC 72 Chamaesyce 3 NR90 Sandon backtrack, Sandon bluffs and Sandon south (Yuraygir NP) 8 DEC 4 psammogeton SR16 Warrain Beach / Currarong Beach 12 ShoalCC, DEC, FH 7 HCR108 Wamberal Lagoon NR 12 DEC 7 SR13 Seven Mile Beach NP (including SEPP26 no. 175, 175A) 7 DEC 13 HCR43 Mungo Brush, Myall Lakes NP 7 DEC 13 NR110 Look at me now headland, Moonee Beach NR 6 DEC 22 NR32 Arakwal NP 8 DEC 31 SR15 Culburra beach, Crookhaven Heads 5 DoL, AL 33 HCR44 Banksia Green, Myall Lakes NP 5 DEC 33 HCR42 Coastline from Big Gibber to Banksia Green, Myall Lakes NP 5 DEC 33 HCR46 Bennetts Beach 5 GLC 41 NR150 Lord Howe Island 6 LHIB 41 NR121 Bongil Bongil NP (including SEPP26 no. 75, 76, 77, 78) 4 DEC 58 NR82 Angourie Point, Yuraygir NP 5 DEC 58 HCR97 Budgewoi 4 DEC, DoL, WySC 63 NR88 Sandon north and Sandon North beach, Yuraygir NP 4 DEC 68 NR71 Middle Bluff Bundjalung NP 3 DEC 68 HCR41 Yagon Gibber, Myall Lakes NP 3 DEC 72 NR131 Smoky Cape (Macleay River) 2 DoL 115 HCR54 Shoal Bay Beach 1 PSC 123 SR30 Manyanah Beach 2 ShoalCC 123 Senecio spathulatus 4 HCR108 Wamberal Lagoon NR 12 DEC 7 HCR43 Mungo Brush, Myall Lakes NP 7 DEC 13 SM37 Kurnell, Botany Bay 8 DEC 22 HCR48 Yacaaba Peninsula 6 DoL 25 HCR44 Banksia Green, Myall Lakes NP 5 DEC 33 HCR42 Coastline from Big Gibber to Banksia Green, Myall Lakes NP 5 DEC 33 HCR69 Fingal Spit 2 DEC 115 Acianthus exiguus 4 NR90 Sandon backtrack, Sandon bluffs and Sandon south (Yuraygir NP) 8 DEC 4 HCR105 Wyrrabalong NP and Council Rd Reserve 9 DEC, WySC 19 NR70 Woody Head (including SEPP 26 no. 52, 52A) 8 DEC 22 NR88 Sandon north and Sandon North beach, Yuraygir NP 4 DEC 68 Calystegia soldanella 4 NR71 Middle Bluff Bundjalung NP 3 DEC 68 Chamaecrista maritima 4 NR133 Arakoon SCA / Hat Head NP 19 DEC 1 NR94 Bare Point–Wilsons Headland Yuraygir NP 6 DEC 33 Sophora tomentosa 4 NR90 Sandon backtrack, Sandon bluffs and Sandon south (Yuraygir NP) 8 DEC 4 NR148 Sea Acres NR / Tacking Point 10 DEC 10 NR70 Woody Head (including SEPP 26 no. 52, 52A) 8 DEC 22 NR85 Redcliff, Yuraygir NP 4 DEC 63 NR65 Bundjalung NP (Iluka Bluff) 3 DEC 72 NR105 Woolgoolga Beach and headland, Coffs Coast Regional Park 2 DEC, CHC 86 NR147 Port Macquarie, Flynn's Beach and Shelly Beach 1 HC 93 NR113 Sapphire Gardens, Coffs Harbour (including SEPP26 no. 69) 2 DEC 123 NR96 Wooli River 1 DoL, CVC 123 NR89 Sandon River, Yuraygir NP 1 DEC 123 Lepturus repens 4 NR110 Look at me now Headland, Moonee Beach NR 6 DEC 22 Pultenaea maritima 4 HCR96 Munmorah SCA 16 DEC 7 NR142 Crescent Head 10 ? 16 HCR95 Wallarah NP 8 DEC 21 NR66 Snapper Rock, Bundjalung NP 6 DEC 31 NR94 Bare Point–Wilsons Headland Yuraygir NP 6 DEC 33 HCR59 Boat Harbour 5 PSC 39 NR82 Angourie Point, Yuraygir NP 5 DEC 58 NR85 Redcliff, Yuraygir NP 4 DEC 63 NR91 Rocky Pt, Yuraygir NP 3 DEC 72 NR62 Dirrawong Reserve 3 DoL, Community trust 72 NR83 Shelley Headland Yuragir NP 2 DEC 93 NR109 Moonee Beach NR 2 DEC 102 Stackhousia spathulata 4 NR90 Sandon backtrack, Sandon bluffs and Sandon south (Yuraygir NP) 8 DEC 4 HCR108 Wamberal Lagoon NR 12 DEC 7 SR13 Seven Mile Beach NP (including SEPP26 no. 175, 175A) 7 DEC 13 HCR43 Mungo Brush, Myall Lakes NP 7 DEC 13 [ continued over page ]

121 Threat Abatement Plan – Invasion of native plant communities by Chrysanthemoides monilifera

no. of site entities site species b rank b no. c Category 1 – site name a, d present e tenure f rankg Stackhousia spathulata – 4 NR142 Crescent Head 10 ? 16 continued SR20 Bherwerre Peninsula Booderee NP 10 DEH 19 SR14 Comerong Island NP and Crown land to the north 8 DEC 25 HCR48 Yacaaba Peninsula 6 DoL 25 SR26 Haven, Alamin and Farnham Headland (Conjola NP) 8 DEC, DoL 29 NR66 Snapper Rock, Bundjalung NP 6 DEC 31 HCR44 Banksia Green, Myall Lakes NP 5 DEC 33 HCR42 Coastline from Big Gibber to Banksia Green, Myall Lakes NP 5 DEC 33 HCR1 Crowdy Bay NP (south) 6 DEC 33 NR64 Bundjalung NP (north) 6 DEC 41 Diamond Head, Red Head, Black Head, Hallidays Point (including HCR12 4 DoL, GTCC 54 SEPP26 no. 150, 152C) HCR26 Booti Booti NP 5 DEC 63 NR88 Sandon north and Sandon North beach, Yuraygir NP 4 DEC 68 HCR41 Yagon Gibber, Myall Lakes NP 3 DEC 72 NR62 Dirrawong Reserve 3 DoL, Community trust 72 SR24 Cudmirrah Beach 3 ShoalCC, DEC 86 SR25 Berrara Beach, Monument Beach 3 ShoalCC, DEC 86 SR29 Inyadda Beach 3 ShoalCC 93 SR30 Manyanah Beach 2 ShoalCC 123 SR31 Cunjurong Beach / Point 2 ShoalCC, DoL 123 Ischaemum triticeum 4 NR148 Sea Acres NR / Tacking Point 10 DEC 10 NR154 Kattang NR 11 DEC 16 NR66 Snapper Rock, Bundjalung NP 6 DEC 31 HCR1 Crowdy Bay NP (south) 6 DEC 33 NR94 Bare Point–Wilsons Headland Yuraygir NP 6 DEC 33 NR138 Hat Head NP 4 DEC 54 NR82 Angourie Point, Yuraygir NP 5 DEC 58 NR63 Bundjalung NP – Ten Mile Beach and Bombing Range 3 DEC 68 NR132 Arakoon SCA 3 DEC 81 NR87 Pebbly-Freshwater Yuraygir NP 1 DEC 123 Vigna marina 4 NR90 Sandon backtrack, Sandon bluffs and Sandon south (Yuraygir NP) 8 DEC 4 NR148 Sea Acres NR / Tacking Point 10 DEC 10 NR145 Limeburners Creek NR 10 DEC 18 NR138 Hat Head NP 4 DEC 54 NR63 Bundjalung NP – Ten Mile Beach and Bombing Range 3 DEC 68 NR91 Rocky Pt, Yuraygir NP 3 DEC 72 NR132 Arakoon SCA 3 DEC 81 NR127 Scotts Head 4 DoL, NaSC 123 Gleichenia mendellii 14 NR90 Sandon backtrack, Sandon bluffs and Sandon south (Yuraygir NP) 8 DEC 4 NR66 Snapper Rock, Bundjalung NP 6 DEC 31 NR61 Broadwater NP 6 DEC 39 NR64 Bundjalung NP (north) 6 DEC 41 NR91 Rocky Pt, Yuraygir NP 3 DEC 72 NR62 Dirrawong Reserve 3 DoL, Community trust 72 NR80 Angourie Reserve 1 CVC 123 NR81 Angourie Back Beach, Yuraygir NP 1 DEC 123 Actites megalocarpa 14 NR133 Arakoon SCA / Hat Head NP 19 DEC 1 NR157 Crowdy Bay NP (north) 15 DEC 5 NR99 Station Creek Beach Yuraygir NP 2 DEC 102 Poa poiformis 14 NR154 Kattang NR 11 DEC 16 SM37 Kurnell, Botany Bay 8 DEC 22 Fontainea oraria 17 NR56 South of Lennox Head 3 P 49 Lennox Head, inland from Boulder Beach (including SEPP26 no. 37, NR46 3 P, BaSC 72 37A, 37B, 37C – 4 patches) Diuris praecox 17 HCR96 Munmorah SCA 16 DEC 7 HCR76 Glenrock SCA (various locations throughout park) 6 DEC 13 HCR95 Wallarah NP 8 DEC 21 HCR107 Wyrrabalong NP South (Bateau Bay to Wamberal North) 6 DEC 25 HCR97 Budgewoi 4 DEC, DoL, WySC 63 HCR60 Anna Bay; Jessie Rd to Rd 1074 1 EA, DoL 123 Westringia fruticosa 19 SM40 Towra Point NR 11 DEC 5 SR16 Warrain Beach / Currarong Beach 12 ShoalCC, DEC, FH 7 HCR108 Wamberal Lagoon NR 12 DEC 7 HCR96 Munmorah SCA 16 DEC 7 SR20 Bherwerre Peninsula Booderee NP 10 DEH 19 HCR95 Wallarah NP 8 DEC 21 SM37 Kurnell, Botany Bay 8 DEC 22 HCR107 Wyrrabalong NP South (Bateau Bay to Wamberal North) 6 DEC 25 HCR109 Bouddi NP 7 DEC 28 HCR59 Boat Harbour 5 PSC 39 SR17 Callala Bay and Beach (Miola Peninsula) 5 ShoalCC, DoL 41 SR19 Beecroft Head, Jervis Bay 3 DoD, P 47 HCR57 Fingal Beach / Barry Park 4 PSC 58 Saltwater and Khappinghat NP – Wallabi Pt Headland (SEPP26 no. HCR11 2 DEC 93 147, 148, 148A, 149) 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 south order 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 and Heritage; DoD = Department of Defence; DoFA = Department of Finance and Admin; DoL = Department of Lands; DoP = Department of Planning; EA = Energy Australia; 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) were given the next actual rank (e.g. 7th instead of 6th).

122 Threat Abatement Plan – Invasion of native plant communities by Chrysanthemoides monilifera

Table A8.2 Category 1 sites for each of the high priority populations.

no. of site entities site population b rank b no. c Category 1 – site name a, d present e tenure f rankg

Glycine clandestina 1 SM40 Towra Point NR 11 DEC 5 (broad leaf form) SM37 Kurnell, Botany Bay 8 DEC 22 NR127 Scott's Head 4 DoL, NaSC 123 Zieria smithii (low 1 NR148 Sea Acres NR / Tacking Point 10 DEC 10 growing form) NR154 Kattang NR 11 DEC 16 NR145 Limeburners Creek NR 10 DEC 18 NR121 Bongil Bongil NP (including SEPP26 sites 75, 76, 77, 78) 4 DEC 58 NR114 Diggers Head 3 DEC 72 NR156 Crowdy Bay NP – Diamond Head 3 DEC 86 NR137 Hat Head NP, O'Connors Beach 2 DEC 102 NR141 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. of site entities site species b rank b no. c Category 1 – site name a, d present e tenure f rankg Eastern Suburbs Banksia 1 SM26 La Perouse (Jennifer St sites 1 and 2 plus Botany Bay NP) 3 DEC, Telstra, ALC 54 Scrub SM22 Malabar Headland 2 DoFA, RC 81 SM20 Bunnerong Rd, Chifley (including Wassell St) 2 DoL, RC 102 SM27 NSW Golf Club / Botany Bay NP (Cape Banks area) 1 DoL 123 SM25 St Michaels Golf Course, Little Bay 1 DoL 123 Littoral Rainforest 1 NR29 Cape Byron SCA (including SEPP26 no. 27, 27A, 27B) 13 DEC 2 (including SEPP 26 and NR36 Broken Head NR (including SEPP26 no. 32, 33B, 34A) 12 DoL, DEC, P 3 Sutherland Shire SM40 Towra Point NR 11 DEC 5 Littoral Rainforest) SR16 Warrain Beach / Currarong Beach 12 ShoalCC, DEC, FH 7 HCR108 Wamberal Lagoon NR 12 DEC 7 HCR96 Munmorah SCA 16 DEC 7 NR148 Sea Acres NR / Tacking Point 10 DEC 10 NR25 Brunswick Heads NR (including SEPP26 no. 18) 14 DEC 11 NR3 Fingal Head, Tweed Coastal Reserve (SEPP26 no. 2A) 12 TSC 12 SR13 Seven Mile Beach NP (including SEPP 26 no. 175, 175A) 7 DEC, DoL 13 HCR43 Mungo Brush, Myall Lakes NP 7 DEC 13 NR154 Kattang NR 11 DEC 16 NR145 Limeburners Creek NR 10 DEC 18 SR20 Bherwerre Peninsula Booderee NP 10 DEH 19 HCR105 Wyrrabalong NP and Council Rd Reserve 9 DEC, WySC 19 NR70 Woody Head (including SEPP 26 no. 52, 52A) 8 DEC 22 SR14 Comerong Island NP and Crown land to the north 8 DEC 25 HCR109 Bouddi NP 7 DEC 28 HCR20 One Mile Beach, Forster 6 GLC 29 NR32 Arakwal NP 8 DEC 31 NR9 Cudgen NR (SEPP26 no. 4) 7 DEC 33 HCR1 Crowdy Bay NP (south) 6 DEC 33 NR61 Broadwater NP 6 DEC 39 SR18 Beecroft Peninsula Jervis Bay 6 DoD 41 Boulder Beach, Ballina (including SEPP26 no. 38 – Boulder Beach NR47 6 BaSC 41 south) SR19 Beecroft Head, Jervis Bay 6 DoD, P 47 HCR37 South of Bald Head 5 DoL 47 NR18 Wooyung NR (including SEPP26 no. 11 – South) 5 DEC, P 49 NR56 South of Lennox Head (including SEPP 26 no. 37) 3 P 49 HCR28 Tiona (including SEPP26 no. 155B – Seven Mile Beach) 4 P 51 NR52 Angels Beach, Ballina 6 BaSC 51 Diamond Head, Red Head, Black Head, Hallidays Point (including HCR12 4 DoL, DEC, GTCC 54 SEPP 26 no. 150, 152C) SR10 Killalea State Park 3 DoL, KT, ShellCC 58 NR121 Bongil Bongil NP (including SEPP26 no. 75, 76, 77, 78) 4 DEC 58 NR73 Iluka NR 5 DEC 58 NR22 Fern Beach – South Golden Beach 3 BySC, DoL 63 SR9 Bass Point (including SEPP26 no. 173A) 5 DoP, ShellCC 63 HCR97 Budgewoi 4 DEC, DoL, WySC 63 HCR26 Booti Booti NP 5 DEC 63 NR51 Sharps Beach, Ballina 4 BaSC 68 NR63 Bundjalung NP – Ten Mile Beach and Bombing Range 3 DEC 68 HCR39 Seal Rocks, Myall Lakes NP 4 DEC 72 NR65 Bundjalung NP (Iluka Bluff) 3 DEC 72 Lennox Head, inland from Boulder Beach (including SEPP26 no. 37, NR46 3 BaSC, Private 72 37A, 37B, 37C – 4 patches) Billinudgel NR (including SEPP26 no. 13A, 13B, 13 C – Crabbes NR21 4 DEC 81 Creek Beach north) HCR50 Yacaaba Head, Myall Lakes NP 4 DEC 81 NR132 Arakoon SCA 3 DEC 81 HCR35 Blueys Beach (including SEPP 26 no. 157–158) 3 DoL, P 81 NR34 Clarkes Beach Caravan Park 3 DoL 86 NR97 Yuraygir NP 9 DEC 86 NR54 Shaws Bay Ballina 3 BaSC, P 86 [ continued over page ]

123 Threat Abatement Plan – Invasion of native plant communities by Chrysanthemoides monilifera

no. of site entities site species b rank b no. c Category 1 – site name a, d present e tenure f rankg Littoral Rainforest NR39 Seven Mile Beach North – 1km south of Jews Point (SEPP26 no. 34) 3 P 93 (including SEPP 26 and Saltwater and Khappinghat NP – Wallabi Pt Headland (SEPP26 no. HCR11 2 DEC 93 Sutherland Shire 147, 148, 148A, 149) Littoral Rainforest) – HCR85 Lake Macquarie SCA 2 DEC 102 continued NR134 Hat Head NP – Big Smoky section 2 DEC 102 NR109 Moonee Beach NR 2 DEC 102 NR67 Bundjalung NP – many locations 8 DEC 115 NR53 Shelley Beach Ballina 2 BaSC 115 NR2 Ukerabagh NR including Tweed Heads Historic Site 2 DEC 119 NR5 Fingal Southwest – Shallow Bay (SEPP26 no. 2C) 2 119 HCR53 John Goulds NR / Cabbage Tree Island 2 DEC 119 Between Blueys head & Bald Head (SEPP26 no. 159, 160 – 2 large HCR36 1 DoL 123 patches) NR4 Fingal West – Golf Course (SEPP26 no. 2B) 1 P 123 NR16 SEPP26 (10 – Wooyung NR North) 1 DEC 123 SEPP26 (12 – at Wooyung Rd junction, near Caravan park Wooyung NR19 1 P 123 beach) SR31 Cunjurong Beach / Point 2 ShoalCC, DoL 123 SR32 Bannister Headland Mollymook (SEPP26 no. 184A) 1 ShoalCC 123 SR39 Tomakin 1 EuSC 123 HCR29 Booti Booti (west of Flat Rock) in Booti Booti NP (SEPP26 no. 155) 1 DEC 123 HCR2 The Gap – southern end of Crowdy Bay NP (SEPP26 no. 125, 126) 1 DEC 123 Harrington – Crowdy Head Rd – part Crowdy Bay NP (SEPP26 no. HCR3 1 DEC, GTCC 123 131) HCR5 North Harrington (SEPP26 no. 132) 1 GTCC 123 HCR6 Manning Pt, Manning River (SEPP26 no. 134A, 135) 1 GTCC 123 HCR8 Farquhar Park (SEPP26 no. 142) 1 GTCC 123 HCR9 Old Bar North (SEPP26 no. 144) 1 GTCC 123 HCR10 Old Bar South (SEPP26 no. 145) 1 GTCC 123 Miner's Beach, South of Sea Acres NR – near Tacking Pt (SEPP26 no. NR149 1 DoL 123 113) Delicate Nobby Headland – 1.5km N of Limeburner's Creek NR NR144 1 FH 123 (SEPP26 no. 105B) NR140 Hat Head NP (Crescent head) 1 DEC 123 NR130 Clybucca HS – northern section (SEPP26 no. 101B) 1 DEC 123 NR128 1km North of Grassy Head (SEPP26 no. 96) 1 FH 123 NR113 Sapphire Gardens, Coffs Harbour (including SEPP26 no. 69) 2 DEC 123 NR111 East of Crystal Waters (SEPP26 no. 68B) 1 DEC 123 NR55 Lighthouse Beach Ballina 1 BaSC 123 Kurnell Dune Forest 1 SM40 Towra Point NR 11 DEC 5 SM35 Charlotte Breen Reserve (and south-east of the reserve) 1 SW, SuthSC 93 SM39 Boat Harbour Reserve 2 DoL, SuthSC 102 Coastal Banksia 4 SR16 Warrain Beach / Currarong Beach 12 ShoalCC, DEC, FH 7 Woodlands (Banksia SR13 Seven Mile Beach NP (including SEPP 26 no. 175, 175A) 7 DEC, DoL 13 integrifolia) SR20 Bherwerre Peninsula Booderee NP 10 DEH 19 SR14 Comerong Island NP and Crown land to the north 8 DEC, DoL 22 SR26 Haven, Alamin & Farnham Headland (Conjola NP) 8 DEC, DoL 29 HCR20 One Mile Beach, Forster 6 GLC 29 SR15 Culburra beach, Crookhaven Heads 5 DoL, PSC, AL 33 HCR59 Boat Harbour 5 PSC 39 SR17 Callala Bay & Beach (Miola Peninsula) 5 ShoalCC 41 HCR46 Bennetts Beach 5 GLC 41 NR64 Bundjalung NP (north) 6 DEC 41 HCR28 Tiona (including SEPP26 no. 155B – Seven Mile Beach Tiona) 4 P 51 HCR17 Forster Breakwall / Pilot Hill 4 DoL 51 HCR57 Fingal Beach / Barry Park 4 PSC 58 NR97 Yuraygir NP 9 DEC 86 SM3 Long Reef 2 P, WarC 93 SR27 Narrawallee Creek NR and Conjola Beach 2 DEC, DoL 102 SM30 Pott Pt, Cooks Knoll, Kurnell 1 DEC 123 Themeda (Themeda 4 NR29 Cape Byron SCA (including SEPP26 no. 27, 27A, 27B) 13 DEC 2 triandra) grassland on NR36 Broken Head NR (including SEPP26 no. 32, 33B, 34A) 12 DoL, DEC, P 3 sea cliffs & coastal HCR96 Munmorah SCA 16 DEC 7 headlands in the NSW HCR76 Glenrock SCA (various locations throughout park) 6 DEC 13 North Coast, Sydney HCR95 Wallarah NP 8 DEC 21 Basin and South East NR110 Look at me now Headland, Moonee Beach NR 6 DEC 22 Corner bioregions HCR107 Wyrrabalong NP South (Bateau Bay to Wamberal North) 6 DEC 25 HCR109 Bouddi NP 7 DEC 28 NR66 Snapper Rock, Bundjalung NP 6 DEC 31 NR94 Bare Point–Wilsons Headland Yuraygir NP 6 DEC 33 HCR59 Boat Harbour 5 PSC 39 HCR37 South of Bald Head 5 DoL 47 NR107 Dammerels Head, Moonee Beach NR 4 DEC 54 NR82 Angourie Point, Yuraygir NP 5 DEC 58 NR85 Redcliff, Yuraygir NP 4 DEC 63 NR71 Middle Bluff Bundjalung NP 3 DEC 68 HCR41 Yagon Gibber, Myall Lakes NP 3 DEC 72 NR65 Bundjalung NP (Iluka Bluff) 3 DEC 72 SM3 Long Reef 2 P, WarC 93 NR83 Shelley Headland Yuragir NP 2 DEC 93 NR50 Sharps Beach Ballina (White's Head) 2 BaSC 93 HN1 Lion Island (north east face) 1 DEC 123 HN2 Barrenjoey (northern and eastern slopes of headland) 1 DEC 123 HN8 Mona Vale cliff 1 PwC 123 HN9 Turrimetta headland 1 PwC 123 SM1 Narrabeen Headland 1 PwC 123 SM2 Warriewood beach / cliff 1 PwC 123 NR98 Dirrangan Lookout track Yuraygir NP 1 DEC 123 NR84 Plumbago Headland, Yuraygir NP 1 DEC 123 Eastern Suburbs Banksia 4 HCR107 Wyrrabalong NP South (Bateau Bay to Wamberal North) 6 DEC 25 Scrub equivalent HCR109 Bouddi NP 7 DEC 28 communities (Coastal Sand Wallum Heath) [ continued over page ]

124 Threat Abatement Plan – Invasion of native plant communities by Chrysanthemoides monilifera

no. of site entities site species b rank b no. c Category 1 – site name a, d present e tenure f rankg Frontal Dune Vegetation 4 SR16 Warrain Beach / Currarong Beach 12 ShoalCC, DEC, FH 7 Complex HCR108 Wamberal Lagoon NR 12 DEC 7 HCR96 Munmorah SCA 16 DEC 7 SR13 Seven Mile Beach NP (including SEPP 26 no. 175, 175A) 7 DEC, DoL 13 SR20 Bherwerre Peninsula Booderee NP 10 DEH 19 HCR105 Wyrrabalong NP and Council Rd Reserve 9 DEC, WySC 19 HCR95 Wallarah NP 8 DEC 21 SR14 Comerong Island NP & Crown land to the north 8 DEC, DoL 25 HCR48 Yacaaba Peninsula 6 DoL 25 SR26 Haven, Alamin & Farnham Headland (Conjola NP) 8 DEC, DoL 29 SR15 Culburra beach, Crookhaven Heads 5 DoL, AL 33 HCR46 Bennetts Beach 5 GLC 41 HCR28 Tiona (including SEPP26 no. 155B – Seven Mile Beach Tiona) 4 P 51 HCR17 Forster Breakwall / Pilot Hill 4 DoL 51 HCR14 Nine Mile Beach, North Tuncurry 3 DoL 72 HCR35 Blueys Beach (including SEPP 26 no. 157, 158) 3 DoL 81 NR97 Yuraygir NP 9 DEC 86 HCR32 Boomerang Beach 2 DoL 93 NR67 Bundjalung NP – many locations 8 DEC 115 SR55 Fuller's Beach Wagonga 1 WLALC 123 SM29 Potter Point, Kurnell – Botany Bay NP 1 DEC 123 Coastal Sand Dune 4 SR16 Warrain Beach / Currarong Beach 12 ShoalCC, DEC, FH 7 Complex (Acacia HCR96 Munmorah SCA 16 DEC 7 longifolia var. SR13 Seven Mile Beach NP (including SEPP 26 no. 175, 175A) 7 DEC, DoL 13 sophorae) HCR76 Glenrock SCA (various locations throughout park) 6 DEC 13 HCR105 Wyrrabalong NP and Council Rd Reserve 9 DEC, WySC 19 HCR95 Wallarah NP 8 DEC 21 SR14 Comerong Island NP and Crown land to the north 8 DEC 25 HCR107 Wyrrabalong NP South (Bateau Bay to Wamberal North) 6 DEC 25 HCR48 Yacaaba Peninsula 6 DoL 25 SR26 Haven, Alamin & Farnham Headland (Conjola NP) 8 DEC, DoL 29 HCR20 One Mile Beach, Forster 6 GLC 29 SR15 Culburra beach, Crookhaven Heads 5 DoL, AL 33 HCR44 Banksia Green, Myall Lakes NP 5 DEC 33 HCR42 Coastline from Big Gibber to Banksia Green, Myall Lakes NP 5 DEC 33 SR17 Callala Bay and Beach (Miola Peninsula) 5 ShoalCC, DoL 41 HCR46 Bennetts Beach 5 GLC 41 HCR17 Forster Breakwall / Pilot Hill 4 DoL 51 HCR14 Nine Mile Beach, North Tuncurry 3 DoL 72 HCR35 Blueys Beach (including SEPP 26 no. 157, 158) 3 DoL, P 81 NR97 Yuraygir NP 9 DEC 86 HCR32 Boomerang Beach 2 DoL 93 SM38 Yena/Muru Kurnell – Botany Bay NP 2 DEC 102 NR67 Bundjalung NP – many locations 8 DEC 115

a-g see Table A8.1 for details

125 Threat Abatement Plan – Invasion of native plant communities by Chrysanthemoides monilifera

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

Site Management Plan pro-forma for sites identified in the Bitou Bush Threat Abatement Plan

This pro-forma is to be used at all control category 1 sites as identified in the Bitou Bush Threat Abatement Plan (TAP) to ensure that the control of bitou bush meets the objectives of the TAP (i.e. is aimed at protecting the priority biodiversity). This pro-forma can also be used for sites in other categories. Each site-specific management plan should be developed in consultation with relevant stakeholder/s and in accordance with the TAP. Copies of this pro-forma are available in electronic format from the TAP coordinator ([email protected]).

Site number Control Where GPS (outlined in the category reading was TAP) Site location details GPS coordinates taken from? (i.e. 1–5 outlined (i.e. one of these (i.e. centre in the TAP) three) point of site) Site name latitude / longitude

AMG (Australian Map Grid) Site owner (or contact) GDA (Geodetic Datum of Australia) Contact name for site Phone number LGA or Mobile National Park name Email

List all species, Scientific name/s Common name/s Priority populations or ecological communities present from 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)

126 Threat Abatement Plan – Invasion of native plant communities by Chrysanthemoides monilifera

Section 1 – site map

1. 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 to illustrate the general area for those species, populations and ecological communities where the exact location is unknown, and for widely dispersed species, populations and ecological communities.

Section 2 – site history

2. 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 NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995), please include the year each activity took place and the stakeholders and costs involved. Also include information on any other weed control undertaken at the site.

List all threatened Other control Control measure species, populations or Stakeholders Cost measures and Year (community group ($ and in-kind) undertaken ecological communities and contractor) (where possible) the target weed present species

3. Identify all programs or actions undertaken for those threatened species present (i.e. as per the Priority Action Statement (PAS), threat abatement or recovery plans, or park or reserve specific pest management plans (or other legislative requirement)), or any other high conservation value (i.e. HCV (high conservation vegetation), or cultural heritage values (also see below)).

List all species, populations or Program or action undertaken Reference (e.g. recovery plan) ecological communities present

4. List all threat abatement and recovery plan actions relevant to the site (e.g. the Green and Gold Bell Frog Recovery Plan: see NPWS 2003b) and their likely interactions with the Bitou TAP. Also check with the Priority Action Statement to ensure that all actions have been accounted for.

List all species, populations or How this links with ecological communities Source Action required the Bitou TAP present

Section 3 – site attributes

5. 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 include visitation 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 ecological communities listed in the TAP (i.e. herbicide sensitive species, locally/regionally significant species).

Significance Linkage with your control program Other priority biodiversity present (e.g. southern limit) and other plans

127 Threat Abatement Plan – Invasion of native plant communities by Chrysanthemoides monilifera

Section 4 – control

7A. 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 van Groenou and Downey 2006). 7C. Outline the follow-up control required in each stage to prevent re-invasion/re-infestation of the site after the initial control.

Follow-up control Stages of Area/location to be treated Initial control technique technique to be used (e.g. Year control as per (please also mark on map above in to be used (e.g. cut and for recruitment and resprouting Section 1) paint, ground spraying, etc.) the TAP plants) 1 2 3 4 5

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 weeds

9. Identify all other significant weed species present and highlight those that are likely to invade following the removal of bitou bush.

Other significant How these weed species influence Likely change Density of weed species weed species present (i.e. scatter, scarce, your bitou bush control program following bitou control (common/scientific (e.g. much harder to control and require (i.e. increase, stay same, dominant) name) other techniques) decrease, don’t know)

10. Outline a control program that addresses the weed species identified above (e.g. do not move onto stage 2 until glory lily is controlled as well). Ensure that this information is also provided in the control Section above.

Stages of Control measure to be implemented which control as per Other weed species present differs from that used for bitou bush the TAP Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 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 a generic 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 risk assessment.

14. Ensure all activities comply with OH&S standards/guidelines and that a Job Safety Analysis (or similar) has been prepared where required.

128 Threat Abatement Plan – Invasion of native plant communities by Chrysanthemoides monilifera

Section 7 – monitoring

15. 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 method Measures collected Interval of collection Where the data is stored undertaken (i.e. what is being measured or (frequency at which data is and the collector of the (e.g. photo points, quadrats) recorded – seedling counts) collected) data

Section 8 – stakeholder involvement

16. 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 involvement

17. 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 disclosure of this information before listing below.

Cultural Location Site number (i.e. heritage site Description of (coordinates – if location details are NPWS Aboriginal Protection works (e.g. sensitive ensure that knowledge of the name the site Heritage Information site is passed on to personnel required (if known midden) Management System) officially) implementing the control)

18. Identify and consult with indigenous people with respect to any special knowledge or interest in the site or the species, population or ecological community and control programs at that site, including the likely social, cultural and economic consequences.

Name of person Details of interest Date contacted Outcomes of consultation contacted

Section 10 – community involvement

19. 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 group Frequency of work Number of people or individual/s working at Training/qualifications undertaken at the site involved the site

Section 11 – other information

20. 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 delivery Effect of the TAP

129 Threat Abatement Plan – Invasion of native plant communities by Chrysanthemoides monilifera

Appendix 10A Species at risk from herbicide application

There are approximately 850 plant species recorded within the distribution of bitou bush in New South Wales, however information on the impacts of herbicide on native plants from controlled laboratory and field studies is limited.

The species listed in Tables A10.1 and A10.2 are either known to be susceptible or are suspected of being vulnerable to herbicide used to control bitou bush. Consideration should be given to these species during bitou bush control programs and management plans. In addition, a list of species examined for herbicide sensitivity as part of the aerial bitou bush spraying program in New South Wales is presented in Appendix 10B below.

Table A10.1 List of native plants susceptible to herbicide which are not included in Tables A10.3 and Tables A10.4 – unfortunately the herbicide formulation was not noted/recorded, rather these 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. fish Nannaperca oxleyana (Oxleyan pygmy perch) E susceptible to herbicide contamination of aquatic habitats Murphy pers. comm. insects Petalura 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

130 Threat Abatement Plan – Invasion of native plant communities by Chrysanthemoides monilifera

Appendix 10B Plant species examined for herbicide sensitivity

The information below was adapted from the Best Practice Guidelines for Aerial Spraying of Bitou Bush in New 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 bitou bush has not been undertaken, information on the toxic effects of aerial spraying of bitou bush (using population-based visual assessment of herbicide injury) has been compiled over the past 15 years for glyphosate and 12 years for metsulfuron methyl (John Toth unpublished data). These lists contain 220 species 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 introduced plants – a compilation of results from 1989–2004 for the spraying of 2 L of Roundup® in 30 L water ha–1 from a helicopter, during winter (1 June to 31 August) (John Toth unpublished data). These results are for Roundup® 360 only a.

plant condition b plant condition b after 8 after 6 after 8 after 6 weeks months c weeks months c species name comments species name comments

Acacia bineruia OK OK N Clematis glycinoides SL OK Y Acacia implexa SL OK Y Clerodendrum floribundum OK, M, SD OK, M, SD Y Acacia longifolia var. OK OK N Comesperma ericinum OK OK Y sophorae Acacia maidenii OK OK Y – insect gall Commelina cyanea OK, M OK, SD N damage Acacia myrtifolia OK OK N Commersonia fraseri OK OK Y Acacia saligna* SL OK Y Conospermum taxifolium OK OK Y Acacia suaveolens SL SD, OK Y Correa alba OK OK Y Acacia terminalis SL OK Y Corymbia gummifera OK OK Y Acacia ulicifolia OK OK Y Cotoneaster glaucophylla* OK OK Y Acmena smithii OK OK Y Crinum pedunculatum M SL, OK Y Acronychia imperforata M OK Y Cryptocarya triplinervis SL M Y Actinotus helianthi OK OK N Cupaniopsis anarcardioides OK, SL OK Y Actinotus minor OK OK Y Cuscuta campestris* SD SD Y Aegiceras corniculatum OK OK Y Cyperus enervis OK OK Y Alectryon coriaceous SL OK Y Dianella caerulea OK OK Y Alectryon subcinereus OK OK Y Dianella caerulea var. OK OK Y producta Allocasuarina distyla OK OK Y Dianella congesta SL OK Y Allocasuarina littoralis OK OK Y Dianella revoluta OK OK N Allocasuarina nana OK OK Y Dichondra repens OK OK Y Alphitonia excelsa OK, M OK, SD Y Dillwynia floribunda OK OK Y Ammophila arenaria* OK OK Y Dillwynia glabberima OK OK Y Amperea xiphoclada OK OK Y Dodonaea triquetra OK, M OK, D Y Andropogon virginicus* OK OK Y Duboisia myoporoides SL, M OK, D Y Angophora costata OK OK Y Einadia hastata OK OK Y Anredera cordifolia OK OK Y Elaocarpus reticulatus OK OK Y Aotus ericoides OK OK Y Empodisma minus OK OK Y Araujia hortorum OK OK Y Endiandra sieberi OK OK Y Aristida ramosa M OK Y Entolasia stricta M M Y Astroloma pinifolium OK OK Y Epacris microphylla OK OK Y Austromyrtus dulcis OK OK Y Epacris obtusifolia SL SL Y Avicennia marina OK OK Y Erythrina X sikesii OK OK Y Baeckea brevifilia OK OK Y Eucalyptus botryoides OK, SL OK Y Baeckea imbricata OK OK Y Eucalyptus globoidea OK OK Y Banksia aemula SL OK Y Eucalyptus gummifera OK OK Y Banksia ericifolia OK OK Y Eucalyptus pilularis OK OK N Banksia integrifolia OK, SL OK Y – few died Eucalyptus punctata OK OK Y Banksia oblongifolia OK OK Y Eucalyptus robusta OK OK Y Banksia serrata OK OK N Eucalyptus signata OK OK Y Billardiera scandens OK, M OK Y Euroschinus falcata var. OK OK Y falcata Blechnum sp. OK OK Y Eustrephus latifolius OK, OK, SL OK, OK, M Y Bossiaea ensata OK OK N Excoecaria agallocha OK OK Y Bossiaea heterophylla OK OK N Exocarpos cupressiformis OK OK Y Brachyloma daphnoides OK OK Y Ficus fraseri M M Y – resprouting Breynia oblongifolia OK, M OK? N Ficus rubiginosa OK OK Y Briza maxima* OK OK Y Gahnia clarkei/minus OK OK N Cakile maritima subsp. OK OK Y Geitonoplesium cymosum OK OK Y maritima* Callistemon citrinus OK OK Y Gleichenia dicarpa OK OK Y Callitris globoidea M OK Y Gleichenia microphylla OK OK Y Canavalia rosea OK OK Y Glochidion ferdinandii OK OK Y Canthium coprosmoides OK OK Y Glycine clandestina M SD Y Carpobrotus SL, M OK, SD N – susceptible if Gonocarpus teucrioides OK, SD OK, SD Y glaucescens fully exposed Cassina sp. OK OK Y Hardenbergia violacea OK, M, SL OK, SD, M Y Cassine australis var. OK OK Y Hibbertia fasciculata OK OK Y australis Cassinia aculeata M M Y Hibbertia linearis OK OK Y Cassytha pubescens OK OK N Hibbertia obtusifolia OK OK N [ continued on next page ]

131 Threat Abatement Plan – Invasion of native plant communities by Chrysanthemoides monilifera

plant condition b plant condition b

after 8 after 6 after 8 weeks after 6 months weeks months species name comments c species name comments c

Casuarina equisetifolia SL, M OK Y Hibbertia scandens OK, SL OK N Casuarina glauca OK, SL, OK, SL, OK Y Hibbertia vestita OK OK Y M Cayratia clematidea OK, M OK, D Y Homoranthus virgatus OK OK Y Chelilanthes siberi OK OK Y Hydrocotyle bonariensis* OK, M OK, M, SD N Cissus antartica OK OK N Imperata cylindrica M M Y Clematis aristata OK OK Y Imperata cylindrica var. OK, SL OK, SL N Pittosporum revolutum OK OK Y major Indigofera australis OK OK Y Pittosporum undulatum OK, SL OK Y Ipomoea brasiliensis OK OK Y Planchonella australis OK OK Y Ipomoea cairica* OK OK Y Platysace lanceolata OK, SL OK Y Ipomoea indica* OK OK Y Polygalifolium OK OK Y Isolepis nodosa OK, SL, OK Y Polyscias sambucifolius OK, SL OK Y M Jacksonia scoparia OK OK Y Pomaderris discolor OK OK Y Kennedia rubicunda OK, M, OK, SD N – susceptible if Protasparagus densiflorus* OK OK Y SL fully exposed Lantana camara* SL, M OK Y Pteridium esculentum OK, SL OK, SL N Leptomeria acida OK OK Y Pultenaea retusa OK OK Y Leptospermum OK OK Y Pultenaea villosa OK OK Y juniperinum Leptospermum OK OK N Rapanea variabilis OK, M, SD OK, M Y laevigatum Leptospermum OK OK Y Rhagodia candolleana OK, SL, M OK Y liversedgei Leptospermum OK OK Y Rhodomystus psidioides SL OK Y polygalifolium Leucopogon ericoides OK OK Y Ricinocarpos pinifolius OK OK Y Leucopogon parviflorus OK OK N Ricinus communis OK OK Y Leucopogon sp. OK OK Y Rubus sp.* OK, M OK Y (unnamed) Leucopogon virgatus OK OK Y Scaevola calendulaceae OK, SL, M, SD OK, SD N Lomandra longifolia OK, M OK N Scaevola ramosissima OK OK Y Lomandra multiflora OK OK Y Schoenus ericetorum OK, SL OK, SL Y Lupinus cosentinii* OK OK Y Scolopia braunii OK OK Y Macaranga tanarius OK OK Y Senna pendula var glabrata* OK OK Y Maclura OK, M OK Y Senecio linearifolius SL OK Y cochinchinensus Macrozamia sp. OK OK Y Senecio autus subsp. maritima OK OK Y Marsdenia rostrata OK OK Y Sesuvium portulacastrum OK, SL OK Y Melaleuca armillaris OK OK Y Smilax australis OK, SL OK, M Y Melaleuca ericifolia OK OK Y Smilax glyciphylla OK OK Y Melaleuca nodosa OK OK Y Solanum nigrum OK OK Y Melastoma affine OK OK Y Solanum vescum SL OK Y Monotoca elliptica OK OK N Sonchus oleraceus OK OK Y Monotoca scoparia OK OK Y Spinifex hirsutus OK OK Y Muchenbeckia SL OK Y Spinifex sericeus OK OK Y gracillima Myoporum boninense OK, SD OK, MD Y Sprengelia incarnata M M Y Myoporum insulare OK OK Y Stackhousia spathulata OK, M OK, M Y Myoporum lucidum OK OK Y Stephania japonica OK, M, SL OK, D Y Nephrolepis cordifolia* OK OK Y Stylidium graminifolium OK OK Y Notelaea longifolia OK, M, OK Y Styphelia viridis subsp. M OK Y SL breviflora Opuntia sp. OK OK Y Styphelia viridis subsp. viridis OK OK Y Pandorea pandorana OK, M OK, D Y Syzygium australe OK OK Y Parsonsia straminea OK OK Y Syzygium oleosum OK, SL OK, OK, M Y Pelargonium australe OK, SD OK, SD Y Tetragonia tetragonoides OK, M, SL OK Y Pennisetum OK OK Y Themeda triandra OK, M, SD OK, M, SD Y clandestinum Persoonia lanceolata OK OK N Trachymene anisocarpa OK OK Y Persoonia linearis OK OK Y Tylophora benthamii OK OK Y Persoonia SL, M OK, M, SD Y Viminaria juncea SL SL Y stradbrocensis Persoonia tenuifolia M M Y Viola hederacea OK OK Y Phebalium squameum OK OK Y Westringia fruticosa OK, M OK, M Y Phragmites australis OK, MD OK, SL Y Wikstromia indica SL M Y Pimelea linifolia OK, M OK, SD Y Zoysia macrantha OK OK Y Pinus 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 to our 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 illustrate the 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.

132 Threat Abatement Plan – Invasion of native plant communities by Chrysanthemoides monilifera

Table A10.4 Herbicide sensitivity to Brush-Off® (Metsulfuron methyl 600g a.i./kg) of native and some introduced plants – a compilation of results from 1992–2004 for the spraying of 30g of Brush-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.

plant condition b plant condition b after 8 after 6 after 8 after 6 weeks months weeks months species name comments c species name comments c

Acacia melanoxylon OK OK Y Juncus kraussii OK OK Y Acacia sophorae OK OK Y Kennedia rubicunda OK OK Y Acacia suaveolens OK OK Y Leptospermum laevigatum OK OK Y Acacia ulicifolia OK OK Y Leptospermum liversedgei OK OK Y Acmena smithii OK OK Y Leucopogon ericoides OK OK Y Actinotus helianthi OK OK Y Leucopogon lanceolatus OK OK Y Allocasuarina littoralis OK OK Y Leucopogon parviflorus OK OK Y Andropogon virginicus* SL OK Y Leucopogon virgatus OK OK Y Aotus ericoides OK OK Y Lomandra longifolia OK OK Y Astroloma pinifolium OK OK Y Maclura cochinchinensis M OK Y Banksia integrifolia OK OK Y Melaleuca quinquenervia OK OK Y Banksia serrata OK OK Y Monotoca elliptica OK OK Y Billardiera scandens OK OK Y Monotoca scoparia OK OK Y Bossiaea ensata OK OK Y Muehlenbeckia gracillima SL OK Y Bossiaea heterophylla OK OK Y Myoporum boninense OK OK Y Breynia oblongifolia OK OK Y Pandorea pandorana OK OK Y Cakile maritima subsp. OK OK Y Persoonia lanceolata OK OK Y maritima* Callistemon citrinus OK OK Y Persoonia stradbrokensis SL SL Y Canavalia rosea SL OK Y Phebalium squameum OK OK Y Carpobrotus M OK Y Pittosporum undulatum OK OK Y glaucescens Cassytha pubescens OK OK Y Platycerium bifurcatum OK OK Y Casuarina glauca OK OK Y Platysace lanceolata OK OK Y Cayratia clematidea OK OK Y Polyscias sambucifolius SL SL Y Conospermum OK OK Y Pteridium esculentum OK OK Y taxifolium Correa alba OK OK Y Pyrrosia rupestris OK OK Y Crinum pedunculatum OK OK Y Rhodomyrtus psidioides SL OK Y Cupaniopsis OK OK Y Ricinocarpos pinifolius OK OK Y anarcardioides Cyperus enervis OK OK Y Rubus parvifolius* OK OK Y Dianella caerulea SL OK Y Scaevola calendulaceae OK OK Y Dillwynia glabberima OK OK Y Schoenus ericetorum OK OK Y Eucalyptus pilularis OK OK Y Senecio lautus subsp. OK OK Y maritime Eucalyptus signata OK OK Y Sesuvium portulacastrum M OK Y Ficus Fraseri M M Y Smilax australis SL OK Y Gonocarpus teucrioides SD OK Y Spinifex hirsutus OK OK Y Hardenbergia violacea OK OK Y Spinifex sericeus OK OK Y Hibbertia fasciculata OK OK Y Stackhousia spathulata OK OK Y Hibbertia linearis OK OK Y Stephania japonica OK OK Y Hibbertia obtusifolia OK OK Y Styphelia viridis subsp. viridis OK OK Y Hibbertia scandens OK OK Y Syzygium australe OK OK Y Imperata cylindrica OK OK Y Tylophora benthamii OK OK Y Ipomoea brasiliensis OK OK Y Zoysia macrantha OK OK Y Isolepis 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 with Brush-off®. Given the paucity of data, the collection of such information is critical to our 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 illustrate the 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 Threat Abatement Plan – Invasion of native plant communities by Chrysanthemoides monilifera

Appendix 11 Map of bitou bush density in NSW

Byron Bay 3 ±

3 Iluka

3 Coffs Harbour

3 Port Macquarie

3 Forster

3 Newcastle

3 Sydney

3 Nowra

3 Batemans Bay

3 Bega

3 Eden Legend

Low Medium 062.5 125 250 375 500 High Kilometres

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.

134 Threat Abatement Plan – Invasion of native plant communities by Chrysanthemoides monilifera

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

Distribution maps of the 19 highest priority species within New South Wales were created using data derived 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

135 Threat Abatement Plan – Invasion of native plant communities by Chrysanthemoides monilifera

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 which spatial data was available (by priority rank). Distributions of the other high priority ecological communities were unavailable at the time of writing.

1) Littoral Rainforest 2) Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub

136