Species of City-wide Significance for Conservation (2016 Update)
Final Report June 2016
CITY OF GOLD COAST
Speciesecology of City-wide Significance/ vegetation for Conservation / wildlife (2016 Update) / aquatic ecologyecosure / GIS.com.au | i
Executive summary
The City of Gold Coast engaged Ecosure Pty Ltd to undertake a review of the 2012 species of city-wide significance for conservation list and develop a decision-framework for prioritising species for future conservation management actions.
Through a review of the existing criteria, updating the legislative status and scoring the base list of species for the Gold Coast local government area against the revised criteria, a draft list of city-wide significant species was established. An expert panel review of the draft species list resulted in a final city-wide significant species list containing 572 flora and 160 fauna species, from a base species list containing 1,952 vascular and legislatively significant non-vascular flora and 609 vertebrate and legislatively significant invertebrate fauna species.
This species list will be used by the City to create a priority species list as part of a priority species management program. Part of the scope of this present project has been to review various frameworks to assess priorities. After an in-depth literature review and consultative process, Ecosure recommended the Back on Track Phase II methods as a suitable decision- support framework for the City. Customisation of the Back on Track Phase II methods to suit the City’s requirements are summarised in Section 3.6 of this report.
Section 4 provides recommendations which have arisen during the course of this project and include for example, the timeframe for future reviews of the city-wide significant species list and decision-support framework criteria, items for consideration in future reviews and suggestions for the subsequent application of the species list.
Species of City-wide Significance for Conservation (2016 Update) ecosure.com.au | ii
Glossary, acronyms and abbreviations
BAMM Biodiversity Assessment and Mapping Methodology BoT Back on Track species prioritisation program the City City of Gold Coast CWS Species of city-wide significance (for conservation) DEHP Department of Environment and Heritage Protection EPBC Act Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 IBRA Interim Biogeographic Regionalisation for Australia IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature LGA Local government area NC Act Queensland Nature Conservation Act 1992 PPP Project prioritisation protocol SEQ bioregion South Eastern Queensland bioregion (under IBRA 7)
Species of City-wide Significance for Conservation (2016 Update) ecosure.com.au | iii
Contents
Executive summary ...... ii
Glossary, acronyms and abbreviations...... iii
List of figures ...... vi
List of tables ...... vi
1 Introduction ...... 1
1.1 Project background ...... 1 1.2 Scope ...... 2
2 Species of city-wide significance for conservation ...... 3
2.1 Base species list ...... 3 2.2 Criteria review ...... 3 2.3 Criteria application ...... 6
Conservation status ...... 6 Number of records ...... 6 Distribution ...... 7 Endemism ...... 7
2.4 Scoring ...... 7 2.5 Threshold score ...... 8 2.6 Workshop - reviewing the draft CWS species list ...... 9 2.7 Additional Expert Panel decisions ...... 10 2.8 Final CWS lists ...... 10
3 Decision-support framework to prioritise species ...... 12
3.1 Literature review ...... 12 3.2 Consultation ...... 13 3.3 Literature review findings ...... 13
Back on Track species prioritisation framework ...... 13 Moreton Bay Regional Council Priority Species ...... 16 WWF priority species ...... 18 UK Biodiversity Action Plan priority species list ...... 18 Nature Conservancy: Conservation by Design ...... 19 Project prioritisation protocol ...... 19
3.4 Overview of decision-support frameworks ...... 20
Species of City-wide Significance for Conservation (2016 Update) ecosure.com.au | iv
3.5 Preferred options for a decision-support framework: The revised Back on Track Phase II methods ...... 21
Input species...... 21 Criteria ...... 22 Scoring ...... 22 Weightings ...... 22 Priority groupings ...... 23
3.6 Recommended decision-support framework ...... 23
Input species...... 24 Criteria ...... 25 Scoring ...... 28 Weightings ...... 29 Priority groupings ...... 29 Expert input ...... 29 Review period ...... 30 Prioritising management actions ...... 30
4 Recommendations ...... 31
4.1 Species of city-wide significance for conservation ...... 31 4.2 Decision-support framework for prioritising species ...... 32
5 Conclusion ...... 34
References ...... 35
Appendix 1 Base species list...... 37
Appendix 2 City of Gold Coast stakeholder feedback on revised criteria ...... 38
Appendix 3 Workshop attendees ...... 41
Appendix 4 CWS fauna species list...... 42
Appendix 5 CWS flora species list ...... 47
Appendix 6 Species assessment spreadsheets ...... 63
Appendix 7 Back on Track Phase II criteria ...... 64
Appendix 8 Peer Review Group meeting attendees ...... 66
Appendix 9 External peer review on Options Analysis Report ...... 67
Appendix 10 The Spring – threats to priority species ...... 70
Species of City-wide Significance for Conservation (2016 Update) ecosure.com.au | v
List of figures
Figure 1 Initial scores (i.e. without expert panel input) for fauna which assisted in determining threshold level ...... 9 Figure 2 Initial scores (i.e. without expert panel input) for flora which assisted in determining threshold level ...... 9 Figure 3 Summary of the process involved to establish a recommended decision-support framework ...... 12 Figure 4 Overview of Stage 1 – species prioritisation of the Back on Track framework (taken from DEHP 2012)...... 15 Figure 5 Summary of the process to implement the recommended decision-support framework ...... 24
List of tables
Table 1 Updated criteria and scoring system for fauna ...... 4
Table 2 Updated criteria and scoring system for flora ...... 5 Table 3 An example of the expert panel input (rating) which will influence the species score for that criterion...... 8
Table 4 Summary of reviewed decision-support frameworks ...... 20
Table 5 Criteria to assess species for a priority list ...... 26
Table 6 Certainty scores to be applied during the species assessments ...... 29
Species of City-wide Significance for Conservation (2016 Update) ecosure.com.au | vi
1 Introduction
The City of Gold Coast (the City) engaged Ecosure Pty Ltd to review the 2012 city-wide significant (CWS) flora and fauna species list, and develop a decision-support framework for prioritising species for future conservation planning and management actions. A revised 2016 CWS species list has been achieved via a review of the previously applied criteria and through in-depth consultation with local flora and fauna specialists as part of an expert panel workshop.
In addition, the City has identified the need to prioritise CWS-listed species so that a priority species management program can be developed. This will assist to target conservation actions for the City more efficiently. This report includes a review of applicable existing decision support frameworks and presents the recommended framework which will enable the City to create a prioritised species list and identify iconic species.
1.1 Project background
A CWS species list for the Gold Coast local government area (LGA) was originally prepared in 2004 (Gold Coast City Council 2005). It was largely based on expert panel input but with limited application of objective criteria to substantiate the listings. Subsequently, the City required an updated list to be developed based on scientifically robust criteria that were practical to apply. This would allow the CWS species to be more extensively used and relied on by the City in management and planning activities, such as planning scheme policies, assessing development applications and conservation programs.
In 2012, the City engaged Ecosure to develop criteria to categorise flora and fauna species of CWS for the Gold Coast LGA. The engagement also required the application of these criteria to the established lists of vascular flora and vertebrate fauna species. This process resulted in a final CWS list that contained 153 fauna species and 466 flora species (Ecosure 2012). A recommendation from the 2012 project was that ‘the CWS species list should be reviewed regularly (at minimum every 5 years) against the criteria, with an expert panel reviewing and confirming the updated species list’ (Ecosure 2012).
Regular reviews of the CWS list and associated criteria is necessary to capture for example, any new species records, possible changes in species distribution, amendments to the legislative status and advancements in scientific knowledge. In addition, this current review includes non-vascular flora and invertebrate fauna species that are listed as threatened or near threatened under the Queensland Nature Conservation Act 1992 (NC Act) and Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).
Species of City-wide Significance for Conservation (2016 Update) ecosure.com.au | 1
1.2 Scope
The scope for this project included:
1. 2016 CWS species list - conduct a literature review and criteria review, create a base species list and update the legislative status - apply criteria to the base species list - facilitate an Expert Panel workshop to review the updated CWS species list - prepare a final CWS species list. 2. Recommend a decision-support framework - conduct a literature review of decision-support frameworks which have been applied elsewhere - prepare an options analysis report - seek input from external experts such as CSIRO, University of Queensland and the Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (DEHP) - facilitate a Peer Review Group meeting to examine the recommended decision- support framework - deliver a report on the recommended decision-support framework based on outcomes of the Peer Review Group meeting.
N.B. The scope for this aspect of the project was to examine decision-support frameworks to establish a priority species list. Subsequent stages of this process (such as examining threats in detail and prioritising conservation management actions) are outside the scope of this project.
3. Final report - prepare a final report which includes technical aspects relating to both the CWS species list update and the decision-support framework, the final 2016 CWS species list, and the recommended decision support framework (this report).
Species of City-wide Significance for Conservation (2016 Update) ecosure.com.au | 2
2 Species of city-wide significance for conservation
2.1 Base species list
To create a base species list for the project, flora and fauna records for the Gold Coast LGA were combined from the Queensland Herbarium Herbrecs, Department of Science, Information Technology and Innovation’s WildNet and the Gold Coast Flora and Fauna Database. Previously, only vertebrate fauna and vascular flora were included on the CWS list. During this review, the species list also included non-vascular plant and invertebrate animal species that are listed as threatened or near threatened under the NC Act and EPBC Act.
To create the base species list, exotic species and species that did not occur within the Gold Coast LGA were removed from the list. The legislative status of species listed under the NC Act and EPBC Act was also checked and updated.
The base species list which was then used to assess species against the criteria is provided in Appendix 1. This base species list contains 1952 vascular and listed non-vascular flora species, as well as 609 vertebrate and listed invertebrate fauna species.
2.2 Criteria review
Criteria and an associated scoring system were established on the basis of a literature review and stakeholder input in 2012, when the CWS species project was last carried out.
As part of the 2016 iteration of this project, the criteria and scoring have been reassessed for currency, and a brief literature review carried out to ensure criteria were still relevant and up to date. This literature review included the updated Biodiversity Assessment and Mapping Methodology (BAMM) (DEHP 2014a), Brisbane City Plan 2014 (Brisbane City Council 2014), and the IUCN red list criteria (IUCN 2001).
The existing criteria and suggested amendments were discussed during a meeting with Ecosure’s senior ecologists and botanists as well as with relevant City representatives. The revised criteria were also reviewed by City stakeholders and expert panel members. Feedback from the City on the revised criteria is provided in Appendix 2. Changes from the 2012 criteria include amending the numeric values used to score, introducing a weighting system for each criterion, and minor amendments to the sub-categories and justifications (Tables 1 and 2). It was proposed that the weightings may be adjusted as part of the workshop to review the draft CWS species list, however no changes to the weightings were ultimately required.
It was also decided during the criteria review that a previous criterion to score the BAMM Priority Fauna Taxa for the South Eastern Queensland (SEQ) bioregion should be deleted. During the 2012 project, it was found that scoring for some species had to be adjusted due
Species of City-wide Significance for Conservation (2016 Update) ecosure.com.au | 3
to duplications, as criteria for this BAMM listing includes Distribution - Range limit and Endemism.
Table 1 Updated criteria and scoring system for fauna
Fauna Reason for Sub-category Justification Value Weighting Criteria amendment Conservation Dependent, Species listed under 1 Migratory NC Act and EPBC Listed under Act (with the Vulnerable 2 1.5 EPBC Act exception of Endangered, Critically Conservation 3 Endangered Dependent and Migratory) are Near Threatened 1 automatically a CWS Listed under NC species, although a Conservation Vulnerable 2 1.5 status Act score is still needed Endangered 3 to be assigned. Recently named Expect there to be a or discovered Recently named or lack of data on such species that discovered vertebrate species, therefore Automatic have not yet species that have not yet N/A assigning scores will CWS been listed been listed under NC Act be difficult. under NC Act or or EPBC Act EPBC Act <=25 records 3 Reducing importance of this category and Number of 26-75 records 2 the groupings of Number of records within 1 number of records records Gold Coast 76-125 records 1 due to data LGA deficiencies and data > =126 records 0 biases. Specialised ecological No change to criteria requirements that are (except moving 2 common in Gold Coast significant stronghold Specialised or LGA to Endemism - see complex habitat below), adjustment of requirements Specialised ecological scoring only. requirements that are Distribution 3 1.5 uncommon in Gold Coast LGA At the limit or At or near the limit of near limit of geographic range (SEQ 3 geographical bioregion) range Level of Endemic to SEQ Significant stronghold 1 endemism bioregion moved to Endemism (Gold Coast criterion and removed LGA or SEQ Endemic to Gold Coast SEQ bioregion 3 bioregion - LGA subcategory as Endemism under IBRA) 2 decision made that LGA more important Species for to assess than which Gold Significant stronghold bioregion for Coast LGA is a within Gold Coast LGA 2 stronghold. significant (>70% of records) stronghold
Species of City-wide Significance for Conservation (2016 Update) ecosure.com.au | 4
When reviewing the species scores to set a threshold point for inclusion as a CWS (see Section 2.5), it became apparent that a high number of flora species (over 600 species) had scored 7.5, which was mainly attributed to the species having a low number of records and being at the limit of the geographical range. For flora only, the criteria was amended further to have an additional ‘number of records’ group of 1 – 10 records that then received a score of 4 (Table 2).
Table 2 Updated criteria and scoring system for flora
Flora Reason for Sub category Justification Value Weighting Criteria amendment Conservation Dependent 1 Species listed under NC Act and EPBC Listed under Vulnerable 2 1.5 Act (with the EPBC Act Endangered, Critically exception of 3 Endangered Conservation Dependent) are Near Threatened 1 automatically a CWS Listed under NC species, although a Vulnerable 2 1.5 Conservation Act score is still needed status Endangered 3 to be assigned. Recently named Expect there to be a or discovered Recently named or lack of data on such species that discovered vascular species, therefore Automatic have not yet species that have not yet N/A assigning scores will CWS been listed been listed under NC Act be difficult. under NC Act or or EPBC Act EPBC Act 1-10 records 4 Reducing importance of this category and Number of 11-25 records 3 the groupings of Number of records within 26-75 records 2 1 number of records records Gold Coast due to data LGA 76 - 125 1 deficiencies and data biases. >=126 records 0 Specialised ecological No change to criteria requirements that are (except moving 2 common in Gold Coast significant stronghold Specialised or LGA to Endemism -see complex habitat below), adjustment of requirements Specialised ecological scoring only. Distribution requirements that are 1.5 3 uncommon in Gold Coast LGA At the limit of At the limit of geographic geographical 3 range (SEQ bioregion) range Level of Endemic to SEQ Significant stronghold 1 endemism bioregion moved to Endemism (Gold Coast criterion and removed LGA or SEQ Endemic to Gold Coast SEQ bioregion 3 bioregion - LGA subcategory as under IBRA) decision made that Endemism 2 LGA more important Species for to assess than which Gold Significant stronghold bioregion for Coast LGA within Gold Coast LGA 2 stronghold. bioregion is a (>70% of records) significant stronghold
Species of City-wide Significance for Conservation (2016 Update) ecosure.com.au | 5
2.3 Criteria application
This section provides an overview of the methods used to apply the criterion to assess the significance status of each species.
Conservation status
During the 2012 project, species listed as critically endangered, endangered or vulnerable under the EPBC Act or the NC Act, were automatically included as CWS and no cumulative score was calculated for these species. During the expert panel review of the draft species list, it was decided that flora species listed as near threatened should also automatically be included as a CWS (Ecosure 2012). As part of this current review and with consideration of the recommendations from Ecosure (2012), all listed species including those listed as near threatened, were automatically included as CWS. However, during this project all species were scored against all criteria, including those listed as legislatively significant.
Species listed as migratory or conservation dependent under the EPBC Act were also given a score, however these species were not automatically considered a CWS.
The updated legislative status of species was scored as per Tables 1 and 2.
Number of records
This criterion was applied to the base species list by combining Herbrecs, WildNet and the Gold Coast Flora and Fauna Database for the LGA.
When creating the combined database to assess the number of records, the following decisions were made when sorting data:
• unconfirmed records were taken out of the WildNet database
• duplications were minimised wherever possible
• exotic species and non-local species were removed from the data
• to align with Queensland Government data vetting for matters of state environmental significance (DEHP 2014b), records prior to 1950 for flora and 1975 for fauna were deleted
• species names and associated records were reviewed and reconciled to ensure that all records were assigned to a species wherever possible. Some flora records could not be assigned where varieties or subspecies existed for species yet where records did not contain sufficient taxonomic information (i.e. variety or subspecies was not recorded)
• synonyms were identified where practical and duplicate species names removed
• records for invertebrate fauna and non-vascular flora species that are not listed under the EPBC Act or NC Act were removed.
Species of City-wide Significance for Conservation (2016 Update) ecosure.com.au | 6
Distribution
This criterion was applied to the base species list in the following way:
• Assessing the species limit of geographical range occurred primarily through accessing online records from the Atlas of Living Australia (Atlas of Living Australia 2016). The SEQ bioregion boundary under IBRA 7 was added as a layer on the map to allow for an accurate assessment of the geographical range.
• When accessing these online resources, if three or fewer records occurred outside the SEQ bioregion, published resources such as the Field Guide to the Birds of Australia (Pizzey and Knight 2003), Field Guide to the Mammals of Australia (Menkhurst and Knight 2001), Australian Bats (Churchill 2009) and Mangroves to Mountains (Leiper et al. 2008) were consulted to confirm if these records were likely to be outliers or valid records. Expert input was also sought to confirm species data where required.
• Knowledge from experienced Ecosure ecologists was used to assess whether a species had specialised or complex habitat requirements. This criterion was further assessed by the expert panel during the workshop.
Endemism
This criterion was applied to the base species list as follows:
• Assessing whether a species is endemic to the Gold Coast LGA or SEQ bioregion was done by accessing online records from the Atlas of Living Australia (Atlas of Living Australia 2016). Where required, field guides such as the Field Guide to the Birds of Australia (Pizzey and Knight 2003), Field Guide to the Mammals of Australia (Menkhurst and Knight 2001) and Australian Bats (Churchill 2009) and expert input were used to confirm species data.
• The SEQ bioregion and LGA boundaries were added as a layer to the map to allow for an accurate assessment of the endemism criterion.
• For a species to receive a score for the sub-category of ‘level of endemism’, all records had to be contained within either the Gold Coast LGA or SEQ bioregion.
• To assess whether the LGA was a significant stronghold for a species, greater than 70% of the records had to be contained within the LGA. To calculate the percentage of records, the Atlas of Living Australia website (Atlas of Living Australia 2016) provided the total number of records for the species and the number of records contained within the Gold Coast LGA.
2.4 Scoring
To assess whether a species should be classed as being of CWS, a numerical scoring process was applied to each of the sub-categories (Tables 1 and 2). The final score of a species was dependent on its score after evaluation against each of these criteria themes and associated sub-categories.
Species of City-wide Significance for Conservation (2016 Update) ecosure.com.au | 7
An expert panel workshop was held to review the draft CWS species list based on the initial scoring process (see Section 2.6). The expert panel reviewed each species score and members were allowed to provide an additional rating if required. As in 2012, during the workshop the expert panel could influence the final score against each criteria by applying by consensus +2, +4 or -2, -4. For example, where a species scored an initial 2 under ‘number of records’ (Tables 1 and 2) from desktop information but the expert panel were aware that the number of that species in the LGA is actually lower than the data set indicates, an additional score of +2 or +4 could be added (see examples in Table 3). The expert panel assessment allowed for the correction of any species score and inclusion on the CWS list as it is acknowledged that the desktop data for some sub-categories may be skewed or deficient. For example, increased/targeted survey effort on a particular species, such as the glossy black cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus lathami subsp. lathami), may result in a higher number of records for that species (B. Prince, City of Gold Coast pers. comm.).
Table 3 An example of the expert panel input (rating) which will influence the species score for that criterion.
Distribution
Species name Specialised or At the limit of Distribution - complex habitat geographic subtotal (inc. Expert Panel rating requirements range weighting x 1.5)
XX 2 3 7.5 +2 YY 0 0 0 0 ZZ 0 3 4.5 -2
2.5 Threshold score
The threshold score for determining whether a species should be classed as one of CWS was set at 7.5 for fauna and 8.5 for flora. This was determined by reviewing the distribution of species scores and assessing where a threshold point in the scoring would best fit (Figures 1 and 2).
The expert panel briefly reviewed these threshold levels at the workshop with no change required. Species scoring above the threshold were reviewed to ensure the CWS status was appropriate and species scoring just below the threshold were also reviewed.
Where the expert panel identified a need to amend the species status, the scoring spreadsheet was changed to include an expert panel score against the relevant criterion to reflect these decisions.
Species of City-wide Significance for Conservation (2016 Update) ecosure.com.au | 8
Fauna 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 Total 60 40 scores initialof Count 20 0 0 1.5 3 4 5 6 7 9 10.5 11.5 12.5 14 16.5 20 Initial score
Figure 1 Initial scores (i.e. without expert panel input) for fauna which assisted in determining threshold level
Flora
450 400 350 300 250 200 150 Total
100 Count of initial scores initialof Count 50
0
2 0 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 18 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 23
21.5 25.5 20.5 Initial score
Figure 2 Initial scores (i.e. without expert panel input) for flora which assisted in determining threshold level
2.6 Workshop - reviewing the draft CWS species list
A workshop to review the draft CWS species list was held on the 12th May 2016. Workshop participants included an external expert panel, City stakeholders and Ecosure’s Julie Whelan and Beth Kramer (both Senior Environmental Scientists). Appendix 3 provides a list of workshop attendees.
The workshop provided attendees with an opportunity to review and refine the proposed draft list of city-wide significant species. The workshop also considered expert panel input where this was provided before the workshop (see below). The final species list contained within this report (see Section 2.8) incorporates comments and recommendations from this workshop.
Species of City-wide Significance for Conservation (2016 Update) ecosure.com.au | 9
Key outcomes from this workshop included the review and finalisation of the CWS species list. Workshop attendees had the opportunity to comment on the threshold score and the inclusion or exclusion of species on the CWS list (see Section 2.4). Due to a number of flora expert panel members being unable to attend the workshop, some of the species input and comments were received via email both prior to and after the workshop. The resulting final flora list is a consolidation of input from the workshop and expert panel members’ comments and advice after the workshop. Through this process, general consensus was gained for each individual flora species’ inclusion on the CWS list and those species requiring clarification/confirmation were referred back to the expert panel for guidance.
2.7 Additional Expert Panel decisions
During the workshop, the expert panels also decided on the validity of some flora and fauna species on the base species list and inclusion as CWS species. These decisions included:
• the removal of pelagic/marine species from the base species list except for species which use the estuaries or terrestrial habitat within the LGA, for example during migration or as part of their life cycle (i.e. blindsharks use estuaries; humpbacks occasionally use estuaries and feed close to the shore; both species made the CWS list)
• increasing the scoring for migratory birds which rely on habitat within the LGA and which use the East Asian-Australasian Flyway, as recognition of the particular conservation challenges facing these species
• removal of bird species with vagrant records within the LGA; however retention of more sedentary fauna species (i.e. frogs) which had outlier (possibly vagrant) records
• the removal of exotic species including non-local species (e.g. species native to northern Queensland)
• the removal of species not known to occur within the Gold Coast LGA
• the removal of species whose records were considered to be unreliable, including records where the misidentification of species was likely
• the consideration/removal of species that were present within the Gold Coast LGA historically but are now possibly locally extinct.
2.8 Final CWS lists
The final CWS species lists (Appendices 4 and 5) were determined by applying the revised criteria and associated scores to the base species list of vascular flora, vertebrate fauna and listed non-vascular flora and invertebrate fauna. In total, 572 flora species and 160 fauna species have been classed as CWS through this process, which included 96 flora and 51 fauna species listed under the EPBC Act and NC Act. Species included on the CWS list represent 29% of flora species and 26% of fauna species known to occur within the LGA (calculated from the base species lists).
These lists were reviewed and refined by the expert panel during the workshop (12 May
Species of City-wide Significance for Conservation (2016 Update) ecosure.com.au | 10
2016), with a final review also occurring post workshop by a select group of experts. One species, the grey-headed flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus), was included in the CWS list based only on its conservation status. This species did not score enough through other criteria to reach the threshold level as it is common within the LGA and is not at the end of its distribution. However all other threatened species made the CWS list on their own merit.
The final CWS list from this current review includes 113 more species than the 2012 CWS list. This is comprised of an additional 106 flora species (i.e. 466 in 2012 to 572 in 2016) and an additional seven fauna species (i.e. 153 in 2012 to 160 in 2016). The flora result is particularly interesting because it represents a 23% increase in CWS-listed flora from 2012 to 2016. The increase in CWS-listed flora species during this review may be attributed to:
• an increase in the flora base species list (i.e. from 1,737 in 2012 to 1,952 in 2016; which represents a 12% increase)
• improved understanding of the City's flora species
• additional data
• the refined criteria and scoring method in 2016.
A large number of flora species scored the maximum score for ‘distribution - at the limit of geographical range’ and ‘number of records’ criteria which attributed to an overall high number of CWS-listed flora species. The number of CWS-listed flora species also reflects the high biodiversity and diverse ecosystems present within the LGA. The flora experts engaged throughout the 2016 consultation process were largely consistent with those who contributed to the 2012 project, which meant that the approach was comparable across both project iterations.
The species assessment spreadsheets with the criteria and expert panel scoring are provided in Appendix 6.
Species of City-wide Significance for Conservation (2016 Update) ecosure.com.au | 11
3 Decision-support framework to prioritise species
The methods to review and recommend a decision-support framework to prioritise species within the Gold Coast LGA are provided below in Sections 3.1 and 3.2 and are summarised in Figure 3. The literature review findings and options analysis are presented in Sections 3.3 - 3.5 and the final recommended decision-support framework is provided in Section 3.6.
Literature review of potentially suitable decision-support frameworks for Consultation adoption by the City
Issued to Peer Review Group and Options Analysis Report external experts for review
Peer Review Group meeting to discuss the recommended decision-support External expert input considered framework and clarify details specific to during the meeting the City
Recommended decision-support framework issued to the City incorporating Peer Review Group meeting outcomes
Issued to Steering Committee, Peer Review Group, Coordinator Final report incorporating recommended Environment Planning and decision-support framework Executive Coordinator Environment for review
Figure 3 Summary of the process involved to establish a recommended decision-support framework
3.1 Literature review
To assess potentially suitable decision-support frameworks for adoption by the City, Ecosure reviewed a number of literature sources, journal articles and websites. When examining potential frameworks, we considered key factors such as risk of extinction, likelihood of success, cost, logistics and other biological and habitat characteristics of species (IUCN 2001).
The reviewed literature included, but was not limited to:
Species of City-wide Significance for Conservation (2016 Update) ecosure.com.au | 12
• The Back on Track species prioritisation framework (Department of Environment and Heritage Protection [DEHP] 2012)
• Back on Track Phase II – Background, rational and revised methodology (Peeters 2014)
• Priority Species of the Moreton Bay Region Report (Moreton Bay Regional Council undated)
• The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species – categories and criteria (IUCN 2001)
• Prioritizing Choices in Conservation (Mace et al. 2007)
• UK Biodiversity Action Plan priority species (Joint Nature Conservation Committee 2016)
• Optimizing Allocation of Management Resources for Wildlife (Marsh et al. 2007)
• Conservation by Design (The Nature Conservancy 2016)
• Optimal Allocation of Resources among Threatened Species: a Project Prioritization Protocol (Joseph et al. 2009).
A review of each of the frameworks which appeared most suitable for species prioritisation by the City is discussed in Section 3.3. Table 4 provides an overview of the benefits of each framework detailed in Section 3.3.
3.2 Consultation
The Decision-support Framework Option Analysis report was distributed for review and comment by relevant City officers and external stakeholders, such as SEQ Catchments, DEHP, University of Queensland and CSIRO. Ecosure facilitated a Peer Review Group meeting to discuss the options, review feedback from external stakeholders and decide upon a preferred framework to prioritise species within the City.
3.3 Literature review findings
Back on Track species prioritisation framework
The Back on Track species prioritisation framework (Back on Track) is a Queensland State Government project that aims to (from DEHP 2012):
• prioritise species to direct conservation management actions and recovery
• strategically allocate resources to achieve the greatest biodiversity outcomes
• make species information widely available to allow for the government, communities and relevant agencies/natural resources management bodies to make informed decisions.
This framework uses multiple criteria and weightings to prioritise species, regardless of their legislative status under the EPBC Act and NC Act.
Species of City-wide Significance for Conservation (2016 Update) ecosure.com.au | 13
Provided below is a summary of the original framework and a revised method for the Back on Track program, still in draft form, has also been reviewed below.
Criteria
The criteria used in this framework are presented below. A score ranging from 1 to 4 is given to each species, for each criterion, by a panel of technical experts during a workshop.
1. Probability of extinction – based on experts selecting the IUCN threatened species category which best represents the current situation of the species. 2. Consequences of extinction - a. Ecological redundancy – experts assign scores based on the role the species plays within its ecosystem. For example, a keystone species (e.g. top predator or pollinator) is given the highest score. b. Endemicity and abundance patterns – assessment is based on the proportion of the entire population of the species which occurs within Queensland. c. Social values – this criterion is based on the value of the species to humans, and includes for example, social value to the community, value of the species existing in the wild, and value of the species for non-consumptive or consumptive use. 3. Potential for successful recovery - a. Knowledge of threatening processes – scores are based on the extent of knowledge of the threats which affect each species. b. Capacity to affect recovery by controlling threatening processes – scores are assigned based on whether a threat affecting a species can be easily controlled. c. Need for ongoing management (distinct from monitoring) – assessment of this criterion is based on whether a long term or large commitment of financial resources are required to control threats for a species, in comparison to managing threats for species which require only limited ongoing financial resources (DEHP 2012).
Weightings
Weightings are allocated to the above criteria by managers and/or senior staff according to what was deemed to be their representative value (DEHP 2012). The technical experts are not informed of the criteria weightings assigned by the managers/stakeholders until after the species scoring is completed (Marsh et al. 2008).
Final scores
To calculate the total score for each species, the expert scores from the technical workshops are multiplied by the managers’ weightings (Figure 4). The species are then grouped as Low, Medium, High or Critical priority or are categorised as data deficient. These data deficient species can become a priority for research where there is insufficient information to score against the criteria (DEHP 2012).
Species of City-wide Significance for Conservation (2016 Update) ecosure.com.au | 14
Figure 4 Overview of Stage 1 – species prioritisation of the Back on Track framework (taken from DEHP 2012).
Subsequent stages
There are subsequent stages to this framework which are outside the scope of this current project (i.e. stages 2 - 6 as described below). However, these stages could be a useful reference for the City when developing action plans and identifying threats.
Stages of the Back on Track framework:
• “Stage 1 - Identify priority threatened species for each Natural Resource Management (NRM) region and the state of Queensland
• Stage 2 - Regionally specific information collated
• Stage 3 - Workshop to gather local expertise and knowledge of threats and actions to achieve species recovery
• Stage 4 - Post workshop research, action document development and consultation
• Stage 5 - Support for the Regional Actions for Biodiversity document
• Stage 6 - Implementation and review” (DEHP 2012).
Revised method
A revised method of the Back on Track program has been prepared and is currently still in draft form (Peeters 2014).
A number of changes are proposed to the methods used to establish the priority species list. They include:
• Weightings are no longer used for the criteria. They were found to obscure the individual factors which contributed to the final species score and therefore any unusual results could not be examined easily and may not represent the intentions of the group that assigned the weightings (Peeters 2014).
Species of City-wide Significance for Conservation (2016 Update) ecosure.com.au | 15
• Social values are now omitted from the priority scoring criteria but species will still be scored against this criterion to instead create an iconic species list. This change was due to perceptions that social values can be measures of popularity, whereas other values can have a greater benefit to society such as ecological, evolutionary and endemicity. Also some species, for example the koala, will always attract attention and funding regardless of where they appear in a priority species list as they have a high social value. Iconic species will be kept separate from the prioritisation process, however Peeters (2014) acknowledges that this information may be used by other conservation players to determine separate conservation priorities.
• The method was also refined to reduce time spent on establishing priority lists, which takes valuable resources away from actually implementing conservation actions (Peeters 2014).
• Scoring of cost has changed to reflect ranges of cost for Criterion 3c (cost of conservation) as the previous method did not capture the actual dollar cost of management actions (Peeters 2014).
• A new criterion ‘Evolutionary value’ has been included in the revised methods.
• Expert panel input for the majority of the species assessments will be conducted via the telephone and email. An expert workshop will only be held at the end of the process to finalise the scores.
• A new metric has been designed for species scoring, adopted from the Project Prioritisation Protocol (Joseph et al. 2009).
In summary, the revised method states that the “prioritisation of species based on ecological and evolutionary value, status, and feasibility and cost of conservation, will allocate resources for the purpose of saving the greatest number of species and the highest diversity of species-traits” (Peeters 2014).
Moreton Bay Regional Council Priority Species
For the purposes of determining priority species, Moreton Bay Regional Council used a definition based on the Queensland Department of Environment and Resource Management (formerly EPA) (2012) (Moreton Bay Regional Council undated):
“A species that is currently listed as threatened (that is, extinct, extinct in the wild, endangered, vulnerable or near threatened) under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Protection Act 1999 and/or the Queensland Nature Conservation (Wildlife) Regulation 2006; or identified in various action plans as being of concern; or listed under international agreements; or at risk (that is, a poorly known population, or at their distributional limits); or of management concern within specific bioregions based on the opinion of experts; or of scientific interest (for example, because of specific habitat requirements, or a restricted distribution).
It should be highlighted that not all the priority species listed in this document are threatened, or mentioned in specific action plans, or otherwise. Rather, they have been identified as priority species because of their perceived values in the Moreton Bay region, such as iconic
Species of City-wide Significance for Conservation (2016 Update) ecosure.com.au | 16
status, habitat values or cultural significance, for example. An example of such a species is the Moreton Bay Fig (Ficus macrophylla).
Given the above definition, and other considerations, for the Moreton Bay region, priority species are important because:
• Their populations may be in decline due to various pressures, such as development and habitat destruction.
• The species are in need of monitoring; particularly in terms of their population status and response to disturbance” (Moreton Bay Regional Council undated).”
Moreton Bay Regional Council identified priority species through a four step process.
Step 1
Priority flora and fauna species were defined using a set of criteria largely based on the definition above. The criteria included the following aspects:
• legislative status
• confirmed records of flora and fauna species in the Moreton Bay region
• other areas of significance (e.g. cultural or iconic).
The criteria were ranked, although it states that it is only an indicative ranking. For example, ranking number 1 was “EPBC Act, endangered, confirmed records” and ranking 15 was “other significant species as determined by experts and others” (Moreton Bay Regional Council undated).
Step 2
Data sources were reviewed to determine all known and potential species which occur within the Moreton Bay region.
Step 3
A list of priority species was established using the criteria from Step 1 and the species list from Step 2. No further details were provided on how this priority list was generated or whether weightings were used.
Step 4
A species profile was developed for each priority species, including a brief description of the species, distribution map and photograph.
A total of 119 priority species were identified through this process.
Recognised limitations of this method included that the priority species list is not exhaustive, and the list was created using a “rapid” assessment method. Therefore, only known and readily available data was used in the development of the list (Moreton Bay Regional Council
Species of City-wide Significance for Conservation (2016 Update) ecosure.com.au | 17
undated).
WWF priority species
WWF defines a priority species as “one of the most ecologically, economically and/or culturally important species on our planet” (WWF 2016). WWF have established a group of priority species that are considered to be particularly important for either their ecosystem or for people, as below.
For the ecosystem:
• “Species forming a key element of the food chain
• Species which help the stability or regeneration of habitats
• Species demonstrating broader conservation needs” (WWF 2016). For people:
• “Species important for the health and livelihoods of local communities
• Species exploited commercially
• Species that are important cultural icons” (WWF 2016).
WWF have divided the priority species into two groups, both of which are focused solely on animals:
1. “Flagship species – iconic animals that provide a focus for raising awareness and stimulating action and funding for broader conservation efforts
2. Footprint-impacted species – species whose populations are primarily threatened because of unsustainable hunting, logging or fishing” (WWF 2016).
WWF propose that focusing efforts on these species will assist in the conservation of others which share the habitat and/or are susceptible to the same threats.
No further detailed information on the assessment process was available.
UK Biodiversity Action Plan priority species list
The UK Biodiversity Action Plan priority species list was generated by expert working groups by assessing species against a set of selection criteria. These criteria were based on the following (Joint Nature Conservation Committee 2016):
1. international threat, e.g. IUCN Red List
2. international responsibility (of the UK) + moderate decline in the UK
3. marked decline in the UK
4. other important factors e.g. evidence of species decline and geographic range is very
Species of City-wide Significance for Conservation (2016 Update) ecosure.com.au | 18
restricted.
From the information about selection criteria readily available online, there were no weightings that were applied to these criteria.
Nature Conservancy: Conservation by Design
The Nature Conservancy has developed a framework called Conservation by Design to assist in the identification of what to conserve, how and where to conserve it and how to measure the effectiveness of the actions (The Nature Conservancy 2016).
The components of this approach are:
1. Identify conservation challenges and goals – this component includes situation analysis to assess the socioeconomic, political, ecological, cultural and institutional context and engage with stakeholders to review existing evidence. This stage includes setting high level biodiversity conservation goals.
2. Strategy and opportunity maps – these are created to set actions and identify the places requiring conservation efforts.
3. Define measurable outcomes – these outcomes are clearly defined for both nature and human well-being to focus the strategies.
4. Take action – working in diverse systems and with a variety of partnerships.
5. Measure and adapt – previously measures of success was assessed through tracking biodiversity metrics on various parcels of land. This is now extended to include not only field data, but also remotely sensed satellite data, interviews, evidence/data published by others and even can include social media posts (The Nature Conservancy 2016).
This framework only provided an overview of the general process undertaken whilst not providing any specific detail on prioritisation methods. This method may be investigated further for future stages of this project when the City looks for an approach to monitor success.
Project prioritisation protocol
A project prioritisation protocol (PPP) was developed for New Zealand’s threatened species management to maximise resource allocation (Joseph et al. 2008). Although this protocol does not directly create a priority species list as it prioritises projects, the information below was included as a guide for the City in potential future stages of utilising the priority list to allocate resources, management actions and projects.
“The PPP consisted of 9 steps (brackets show how steps relate to the City):
1. define objectives
Species of City-wide Significance for Conservation (2016 Update) ecosure.com.au | 19
2. list biodiversity assets (in the City case, all native flora and fauna species)
3. weight assets (in the City case, priority species)
4. list management projects (in the City case, management actions)
5. calculate the costs of each project (in the City case, management action)
6. predict the benefit to species generated by each project (in the City case, the benefit to both the target species as well as any other species generated by each management action)
7. estimate likelihood of success
8. state constraints
9. combine information on costs, values, benefits and likelihood of success to rank projects according to benefits per unit dollar and choose set of projects” (Joseph et al. 2009) (in the City case, management actions).
For the PPP, an assessment was carried out using five criteria to gauge the number of threatened species that could be managed and expected benefits of the project. One of the outcomes was that if management programs/projects were prioritised only based on threat status or species value (without consideration of likely costs, benefits and potential for success; i.e. Step 9), fewer species could be managed and the process was deemed to be inefficient (Joseph et al. 2009).
3.4 Overview of decision-support frameworks
Table 4 below provides a summary of the reviewed frameworks/programs and features that may be of benefit to the City in developing a priority species list.
Table 4 Summary of reviewed decision-support frameworks
Program Advantages Disadvantages General /framework comments Back on Track Criteria categories relevant to Gold Fairly time-consuming process. Already adopted by species Coast LGA. Does not rely on Queensland State prioritisation legislative status of species. Government. framework Technical experts already identified and engaged through CWS selection process. Weightings can be determined by relevant City officers on relative importance of criteria. Back on Track Provides a revised version of a Unclear if social values are still Still in draft form. Phase II working prioritisation method. Aims assessed by the expert panel or to minimise assessment time and only internal staff. incorporates a metric to calculate final scores which is similar to the PPP of Joseph et al. (2009) (Peeters 2014).
Species of City-wide Significance for Conservation (2016 Update) ecosure.com.au | 20
Program Advantages Disadvantages General /framework comments WWF Priority species divided into two No detail is provided on how Global scheme. groups 1, being flagship species species assessments against the which include iconic species to criteria are conducted. raise awareness etc., group 2 being Geographic scale not appropriate. footprint impacted species subject to certain threatening processes. Moreton Bay Lacking detail on how species list Regional Council is established using the criteria Priority Species from Step 1 and the species list from Step 2 as well as whether weightings were used. UK Biodiversity Criteria included whether the Was not clear on how the priority No apparent Action Plan species was in decline and species list was generated (i.e. if weighting system priority species international responsibility. certain criteria triggered inclusion used. list on the list or a number of criteria were required). Conservation by To measure the success of actions Provides just a broad overview of Not species-specific. Design the program not only uses field the process they use to data, but also remotely sensed strategically select biodiversity satellite data, interviews, conservation actions, locations evidence/data published by others and measuring outcomes. and even can include social media posts. Project Provides a process for allocating Prioritises projects rather than Not species-specific. Prioritisation resources and prioritising species. Protocol management projects.
3.5 Preferred options for a decision-support framework: The revised Back on Track Phase II methods
The revised Back on Track Phase II methods should be used by the City as the basis for prioritising species. The revised methods (Peeters 2014) incorporate learning experiences from practical application and refines the initial Back on Track methodology, which has been in use since 2005. This approach provides a scientifically sound, logical, regionally and legislatively relevant basis upon which the City’s assessment process could be developed.
A number of suggestions to tailor this decision-support framework to best suit the City's requirements are provided below. These were based on the literature review results, and were presented at the Peer Review Group meeting to inform discussions and gain consensus on the recommended decision framework (presented in Section 3.6).
Input species
The City should consider species outside of the CWS list as the CWS process is based on ecological significance whereas the priority species or iconic/flagship species (see Section 3.5.5) may include species based on their cultural, social or financial values. It is important to note that the iconic/flagship species should only include native species as per the CWS list.
Species of City-wide Significance for Conservation (2016 Update) ecosure.com.au | 21
Criteria
The criteria for scoring species under the Back on Track Phase II methods are included in Appendix 7. The timeframe for considering the cost of conservation and managing future threats is 20 years for the Phase II methods (Peeters 2014).
Additional criteria specific to the City could be included in the scoring process and metric (see Section 3.5.3). For example, ‘species that can be sustained within Council reserves or properties categorised as Toolbox A within the corridor network’ (as the focus is to gain permanent protection for Toolbox A properties).
The social values criterion (see Appendix 7) could be expanded to consider cultural values as a separate component to social values. For example, social may consider aspects such as popularity and amenity value whilst cultural could consider indigenous and historical values.
Scoring
The scoring method may be varied depending on the criteria used and whether weightings are applied. For example, the technical experts’ score could be multiplied by the weighting to provide the final species score (DEHP 2012). Alternatively, a metric has been provided in the Peeters (2014) methods which includes the following criteria and calculations. This metric and associated values could be amended to suit the requirements of the City.
Species score = (ecol value + security of popn outside Qld + evol value) x status x feasibility Cost
(taken from Peeters 2014; terms used relate to Appendix 7).
Weightings
Three options for weighting are presented below based on the original Back on Track methods, the Phase II Back on Track methods and a third alternative option.
Option One
The group of City stakeholders could assign weightings independent of the technical experts’ scoring of species. The weightings would be assigned based on what the City stakeholders consider to be the relative importance of each criterion for the LGA at that time. It is anticipated that, for example, as social/political values change and data becomes more readily available, the weightings may differ in future reviews of the priority species list. As per Marsh et al. (2007), the group of stakeholders could assign 100 points across the components of each criterion. A component can be scored zero, however an entire criterion cannot be scored zero. The weighting would be assigned independently of the technical expert scoring.
Option Two
Criteria would not be assigned weightings as they can obscure which elements contributed to the final score of the species and can result in some species making the priority list which
Species of City-wide Significance for Conservation (2016 Update) ecosure.com.au | 22
otherwise would not do so (Peeters 2014). In Back on Track Phase II, the relative importance of each criterion to the City can be influenced through the metric used to score the species (Peeters 2014).
Option Three
The components of each criterion could be grouped together and assigned weightings at the criterion level. These weightings could be allocated by the City stakeholders or in consultation with the expert panel.
Priority groupings
Suggestions for grouping priority species are provided below.
Once the species are scored, the list could be divided into categories such as Low, Medium, High or Critical priority species, or a cut off score could be determined that will create a list of 100 priority species (DEHP 2012; Peeters 2014).
Iconic or flagship species, based on social values (including indigenous values), should be grouped separately from priority species for conservation management. As proposed in the back on Track Phase II methods, these species would still be scored against all criteria, but the score from the social values criterion would not be included in the calculations to finalise the priority list. The score from the social values criterion would be used for the iconic species list.
Depending on how the social values are scored, stakeholder expertise during the scoring process should include not only biology/ecology, but also community/social science and indigenous inputs. The aim is to score social components of the criteria with a similar level of rigour, data and expert opinion (Marsh et al. 2007).
Data deficient species could be grouped separately to target research priorities and data collection (DEHP 2012). Species for which threats are not well known may also be grouped separately for further monitoring or surveys to improved knowledge in this area (Peeters 2014).
3.6 Recommended decision-support framework
The Peer Review Group meeting to review the recommended decision-support framework and clarify details specific to the City was held on 19th May 2016. The recommended decision-support framework is the revised Back on Track (BoT) Phase II methods, based on a paper by Peeters (2014), with amendments where relevant to suit the requirements of the City. This recommended method was reviewed by external and internal stakeholders and was accepted as a suitable method to prioritise species within the Gold Coast LGA. A list of the Peer Review Group meeting attendees is provided in Appendix 8. A summary of the external stakeholder feedback on this recommended framework is presented in Appendix 9.
The sections below document the decisions made by the City’s Peer Review Group in
Species of City-wide Significance for Conservation (2016 Update) ecosure.com.au | 23
respect to the application of this decision-support framework. The overall process for applying the recommended decision-support framework is summarised in Figure 5.
Figure 5 Summary of the process to implement the recommended decision-support framework
Input species
The species for assessment will consist of species listed as CWS, as well as other native species considered to be potentially of iconic value and which are not on the CWS list. The
Species of City-wide Significance for Conservation (2016 Update) ecosure.com.au | 24
CWS criteria were based solely on ecological significance, therefore some species which the community considers to be iconic (i.e. have high social values) may not be included as CWS species. All of these species (i.e. both CWS and iconic species) will be assessed against all of the criteria as specified in Section 3.6.2.
To determine which species should be considered for potential iconic status, the general community can be consulted through avenues such as the “Have Your Say” panel to gauge the social values of respective species. Indigenous values, which form part of the social values criterion, could also be assessed through consultation with indigenous elders, the “GC Have Your Say” panel, organisations such as Currumbin Wildlife Sanctuary or existing forums which involve indigenous groups.
Criteria
The criteria to assess flora and fauna species to establish a priority species list for the Gold Coast LGA is presented in Table 5. These criteria are based on the Peeters (2014) paper, with amendments to suit the requirements of the City, as per the outcomes of the Peer Review Group meeting. For example, an additional criterion, ‘status of important populations within the Gold Coast LGA’ was added and ‘cost of conservation’ was removed. The City agreed that in the initial stages, it would be difficult to calculate an average cost of conservation; however this component will be applied in subsequent stages when actions/projects are prioritised.
Species of City-wide Significance for Conservation (2016 Update) ecosure.com.au | 25
Table 5 Criteria to assess species for a priority list (taken from Peeters 2014, with some amendments)
Criteria Component Score = 4 Score = 3 Score = 2 Score = 1 1. Probability of extinction a. Current status using NC Critically Endangered or Vulnerable Near Threatened Least Concern or extirpation at local scale Act and EPBC Act (score Endangered assigned from the highest listings of these Acts) b. Presence of important Important regional Important regional regional populations1 within population is present in the population is not present in the Gold Coast LGA LGA. the LGA. c. Status of important Important regional Important regional Important regional Important populations regional populations1 populations and/or populations and/or populations and/or and/or important habitat for within the Gold Coast LGA important habitat for the important habitat for the important habitat for the the species within the LGA species within the LGA are species within the LGA are species within the LGA are are not present or are in rapid decline. in decline. stable. expanding. 2. Consequence of a. Ecological value Keystone species or Species of significance in Role in ecosystem Role in ecosystem extinction structuring species, top ecosystem/s processes but processes is shared by 3, 4 processes is shared by predator, significant shares this role with one or or 5 other species in the numerous other species in dispersal or pollination two other species in the same functional group in the same functional group agent. same functional group in the ecosystem/s in which it in the ecosystem/s in which the ecosystems in which it lives. it lives. lives. b. Security of populations Species is only found in Species is only found in More than 30% of known Less than 30% of known outside SEQ bioregion Gold Coast LGA, or is SEQ bioregion, or is known global population is within global population is within known to be in decline and to be in decline and is SEQ bioregion, and in most SEQ bioregion, and in most is unlikely to be actively unlikely to be actively other parts of its range it is other parts of its range it is managed in most other managed in most other likely to be either actively likely to be either actively parts of its range. parts of its range. managed or not in decline. managed or not in decline.
1 An ‘important regional population’ is a population that is necessary for a species’ long-term regional survival and recovery. This may include populations that are any of the following: • key source populations either for breeding or dispersal • populations that are necessary for maintaining genetic diversity • located in the LGA, that individually or collectively represent more than 50% of the entire known population(s) and/or distribution of the species (across the species range). (adopted from Department of the Environment 2013)
Species of City-wide Significance for Conservation (2016 Update) ecosure.com.au | 26
Criteria Component Score = 4 Score = 3 Score = 2 Score = 1 c. Social values (including Species (as distinct from its Species (as distinct from its Species (as distinct from its Generally unknown to wider both use and non-use habitat) of high social, habitat) of high social, habitat) of high social, community or actively values) economic or community economic or community economic or community disliked. values (including values (including values (including indigenous values) to the indigenous values) to at indigenous values) to at mainstream community in least one major stakeholder least one species interest the Gold Coast LGA. group (other than group in the Gold Coast scientists) within the Gold LGA (e.g. local community Coast LGA (e.g. indigenous group). people, conservationists). d. Evolutionary values Species is the only Species is the only Species in a genus with 2, Species in a genus with representative of its family representative of its genus 3 or 4 species within the more than 4 species within within the Gold Coast LGA. within the Gold Coast LGA. Gold Coast LGA. the Gold Coast LGA. 3. Potential for successful a. Knowledge of threats Current threats (i.e. those Current threats (i.e. those Threats are not known. recovery likely to occur within the likely to occur within the next 20 years) and their next 20 years) have been relative importance are well identified but their relative understood. importance is poorly understood. b. Feasibility of Actions to conserve the Actions to conserve the Actions to conserve the Actions to conserve the conservation species are very highly species are highly likely to species are moderately species are unlikely to be likely to be successful. The be successful. The likely to be successful. The successful. The probability probability of both: probability of both: probability of both: of both: successful implementation successful implementation 1. successful successful implementation effectiveness of actions effectiveness of actions implementation effectiveness of actions is each greater than 95% is each greater than 75% 2. effectiveness of is less than 50% (over a 20 (over a 20 year time frame). (over a 20 year time frame). actions year time frame). is each greater than 50% (over a 20 year time frame).
Species of City-wide Significance for Conservation (2016 Update) ecosure.com.au | 27
Criterion 2b ‘security of populations’ has been refined from a state-wide consideration down to the Gold Coast LGA and SEQ bioregion levels. A component of this criterion considers whether there is more or less than 30% of the known global population within SEQ. This percentage is currently consistent with the state-wide approach, however during practical application it may need to be adjusted once species data is reviewed. For example, the 30% cut-off may need to be lowered if very few species are triggered because the City’s approach will consider the bioregion rather than the entire state, and is therefore a substantially smaller geographic area.
To assess species against criterion 3a ‘knowledge of threats’, the revised BoT methods state that a threat is only recognised when (Peeters 2014):
1. the threat will have a major or minor impact on the species, and
2. there is good evidence that this impact is likely to occur in the next 20 years.
The recommended timeframe to consider likely threats was 20 years, as per Peeters (2014). The Peer Review Group agreed that this timeframe would be suitable to apply to the City. To assist in assessing criterion 3a, a list of threats relevant for the SEQ natural resource management (NRM) region as provided by the Species Recovery Information Gateway (The Spring) website are included in Appendix 10.
Scoring
The revised BoT methods adopt a metric from the PPP (Joseph et al. 2009) to calculate the species score. This metric was also recommended to the City. However, as the cost of conservation criterion (which formed part of the metric) was removed from this stage, it was decided by the Peer Review Group that a cumulative score would be used instead. In this situation, the scores of all of the criteria would be added to get a final score. The scores would incorporate expert input (see Section 3.6.6). A cut off score would then need to be applied to the list to determine which species are included on the priority species list. The cut off score would be determined after the species assessments are completed to gauge the range of scores and where appropriate species are placed on the list.
The social values criterion (2c) would be used to identify which species are considered to be iconic for the Gold Coast LGA. A species scoring 4 for this criterion would be identified on the list of species as iconic. A species can be a priority species and/or an iconic species (see Section 3.6.5). The City can decide whether the social values criterion should also be included in the overall score to determine a priority species, or whether it is used exclusively to determine iconic species status. This would depend on whether the City’s priority species list will also be based on social values or whether social values are only considered through the iconic species assessment.
A certainty score, as suggested by Peeters (2014), would also be applied by the experts when assessing each criterion. This certainty score would be recorded on the species assessment scoring spreadsheet, however it does not contribute to the cumulative score but rather is just a record of the confidence felt by the experts when assigning scores for each
Species of City-wide Significance for Conservation (2016 Update) ecosure.com.au | 28
species (where 4 indicates a high level of confidence) (Department of Environment and Heritage Protection [DEHP] 2008) (Table 6). Where these certainty scores indicate that there is little knowledge of a species, they can be highlighted as a priority for future research/data collation in the species assessment spreadsheet (DEHP 2008).
Table 6 Certainty scores to be applied during the species assessments (taken from Peeters 2014).
Score Certainty
4 > 75% certain
3 50-75% certain
2 25-50% certain
1 < 25% certain
Weightings
In the revised BoT methods, weightings were removed as they were found to obscure the individual factors which contributed to the final species score. Therefore any unusual results could not be examined easily and may not represent the intentions of the group that assigned the weightings (Peeters 2014). The Peer Review Group has also decided that weightings will not be applied to the scoring for the City.
Priority groupings
Through the outcomes of the Peer Review Group meeting, it was decided that the species would not be separated into high or critical groups but that through the scoring process, a list of species would be established, all of which are considered to be “priority species”.
This list would also include those species that are identified as “iconic” through the scoring process. These species may be included as just an iconic species or both an iconic species and a priority species. For example, the koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) may be on the list as scoring for both iconic and priority species, however the platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus) may be on the list as only an iconic species.
The list could also identify those species which are considered to be data deficient through the scoring process. This may focus effort and investment in targeted surveys or data collation on these species. The use of the uncertainty score may also indicate where knowledge/species information is lacking (see Section 3.6.3).
Expert input
An extensive panel of experts can be contacted for targeted species information via the telephone and email. Preliminary scoring can then be carried out internally by the City based on available species information. A smaller group of experts can subsequently be involved in the scoring and species assessment workshop (Peeters 2014). Stakeholder expertise during the scoring process should include not only biology/ecology but also community/social
Species of City-wide Significance for Conservation (2016 Update) ecosure.com.au | 29
science and indigenous inputs. The aim is to score social components of the criteria with a similar level of rigour, data and expert opinion (Marsh et al. 2007).
The preliminary scores can be distributed to the smaller expert group via email. Using the Delphi method, scores are assessed independently of other experts. The majority of the species assessments using the expert panel will be conducted via the telephone and email. A species assessment workshop will only be held at the end of the process to finalise the scores. A cut off point in the scoring to establish a priority species list can be determined at the workshop once the scores are finalised. The species assessment workshop can also be used to capture information on major threats, key sites for management, and required management actions (Peeters 2014) for use in the next stage to prioritise management actions.
Review period
The priority and iconic species list and associated scoring will be updated regularly at five yearly intervals. This will enable changes in social values to be reflected in the iconic species list and any new information that becomes available to be considered in the update of the priority species list.
Prioritising management actions
Prioritising management actions is outside the scope of this project, however the literature review and external stakeholder feedback indicated that processes such as the PPP (Joseph et al. 2009) would be ideal for the City to use in this subsequent stage.
In this respect, it is recommended that the City undertake the following steps to develop a priority species management action plan:
1. define objectives (i.e. to establish a management action plan for the City’s priority species) 2. gather information on the threats and management actions for each species 3. list management actions 4. calculate the cost of management actions 5. predict the benefit of management actions to both the target priority species and all other species 6. estimate the likelihood of success 7. identify constraints 8. analyse all the above to rank management actions and develop a priority species management action plan.
Species of City-wide Significance for Conservation (2016 Update) ecosure.com.au | 30
4 Recommendations
Recommendations arising from this project are provided below under the relevant sections (i.e. species of city-wide significance and recommended decision-support framework).
4.1 Species of city-wide significance for conservation
• The CWS species list should be reviewed regularly (at minimum every five years) against the criteria with an expert panel assessing and confirming the updated species list. Items for consideration during future iterations are: – The review of CWS species should include species updates from relevant sources such as Herbrecs, WildNet and the Gold Coast Flora and Fauna Database, and changes to State and Commonwealth legislation. – The criteria to assess CWS species should be reviewed in alignment with the species list update (i.e. at minimum every five years) to ensure criteria and sub-categories are kept up to date with the most recent and available data. – During future reviews of the CWS species lists, additional criteria such as ‘population status’ and ‘population size’ could be added if relevant data is available to assess these criteria. – The revised criteria from this 2016 update could be amended further to increase the score or weightings assigned to species under the ‘endemism’ criterion as species endemic to the SEQ bioregion or LGA are ecologically significant and scoring should be increased to reflect this importance. – The sub-category of ‘Species for which Gold Coast LGA bioregion is a significant stronghold’ currently requires greater than 70% of records within the LGA to receive a score. As only seven species scored under this sub- category, during the next review this could be reduced, e.g. to greater than 50% of records. – A review could be undertaken to see if the ‘number of records’ criterion could be assessed by using the Atlas of Living Australia as a central source of records (i.e. are record numbers within the Atlas of Living Australia comparable to the combined database of records?). – The base species list could be expanded further to include other invertebrate fauna such as those listed in the IUCN red list, for example local crayfish species that are not listed under either the NC Act or EPBC Act. – To ensure all relevant flora species are reviewed during the workshop, future projects should aim to have sufficient flora experts (i.e. minimum of four) present and the flora group could be divided up into two or three smaller groups, with each group reviewing a separate section of the flora list. The length of the workshop could also be increased from four hours to ensure all relevant information/input is captured on the day.
Species of City-wide Significance for Conservation (2016 Update) ecosure.com.au | 31
• The inclusion of the CWS species list in the City Plan is important to ensure these species are considered during any planning activities and development application assessment processes. All CWS species should be considered during the development assessment process, even if they are not triggered as matters of national or state environmental significance. The City Plan notes whether a CWS species is of national, state or local significance (i.e. a national significant species cannot also be a local significant species). Occasionally, a species may cease to be of national or state significance (e.g. because they are no longer listed under the EPBC Act or NC Act). The City Plan should then be amended to ensure any such species is reclassified as locally significant.
• The review process highlights that some species are still data deficient and require additional survey effort or data collection to increase the knowledge of these species distribution and presence or absence within the Gold Coast LGA.
• The CWS species list should be used in the recommended decision-support framework to prioritise species.
4.2 Decision-support framework for prioritising species
• The revised Back on Track Phase II methods (Peeters 2014) should be used as the basis for prioritising species. This method incorporates learning experiences from practical application and refines the initial Back on Track methodology which commenced in 2005. It provides a scientifically sound and logical basis upon which the City’s assessment process can be developed, and is based within a comparable legislative framework and regionally applicable context.
• The priority and iconic species list and associated scoring should be updated regularly at five yearly intervals.
• Species outside of the CWS list should also be considered for assessment as they may qualify as iconic species based on their social values.
• Stakeholder expertise during the scoring process should include not only biology/ecology but also community/social science and indigenous inputs. The aim is to score social components of the criteria with a similar level of rigour, data and expert opinion.
• Data deficient species will also be highlighted through the prioritisation process. This may focus effort and investment in targeted surveys or data collation on these species to assist future conservation planning tasks (e.g. species distribution modelling).
• The PPP framework provides a process to allocate resources and prioritise management actions/programs which should be considered in subsequent stages when utilising the priority species list.
• The Conservation by Design framework may be investigated further for future stages of this project when the City looks for an approach to monitor success.
Species of City-wide Significance for Conservation (2016 Update) ecosure.com.au | 32
• The ‘cost of conservation’ criterion was removed from the initial scoring of the priority species list as it is difficult to determine at that stage, however it should be incorporated during the assessment of priority management actions/projects.
• The City could draw information, such as threats and recovery actions, for priority species from The Spring - Species Recovery Information Gateway. The City could also provide data to be shared with The Spring website. This website provides information on the conservation and recovery of Back on Track species (http://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/wildlife/species-recovery).
• Consider the use of SMART targets (Specific Measurable Achievable Relevant and Time-bound) to measure progress of conservation actions. For example, clearly defining the level of conservation which should be achieved within a certain timeframe (Peeters 2014), such as, the amount of habitat for a particular priority species or group of species which should be protected within a certain timeframe.
Species of City-wide Significance for Conservation (2016 Update) ecosure.com.au | 33
5 Conclusion
Ecosure updated the CWS species list through a review of the existing criteria, the application of the revised criteria to a base list of species for the Gold Coast LGA and an expert panel review of the scoring and the draft CWS species list. The final list of CWS species for conservation contains 160 fauna species and 572 flora species. This update resulted in an increase for both fauna and flora species from 153 and 466 respectively in the 2012 list. The total CWS-listed species from this review represent 29% of flora species and 26% of fauna species which occur within the LGA (calculated from the base species lists).
The increase in CWS-listed flora species during this review may be attributed to an increase in the flora base species list (i.e. from 1,737 in 2012 to 1,952 in 2016), improved understanding of the City's flora species as well as additional data, and the refined criteria and associated scoring. The flora experts engaged throughout the 2016 consultation process were largely consistent with those who contributed to the 2012 project, which meant that the approach was comparable across both project iterations.
As was noted in the 2012 report, the large number of CWS species for the Gold Coast LGA is a direct reflection of the ecological diversity present within this LGA. It is this unique situation where the LGA supports for example, heath on coastal sands, freshwater wetlands, estuarine environments and high altitude ecosystems such as those that occur at Springbrook (Ecosure 2012). The resulting high numbers of CWS species during this review still reflect the biodiversity of ecosystems present within the Gold Coast LGA.
Ecosure also reviewed a range of literature sources to assess potential decision-support framework options to enable the prioritisation of species by the City. The recommended approach is the revised BoT Phase II methods, based on a paper by Peeters (2014), with amendments where relevant to suit the requirements of the City. It provides a scientifically sound, logical and both regionally and legislatively relevant basis upon which the City’s assessment process can be developed. Section 3.6 provides decisions made by the City’s Peer Review Group in respect to the application of this decision-support framework. To create a priority species list, the CWS species plus species likely to be considered as iconic within the Gold Coast LGA, will be assessed using the recommended decision-support framework.
Species of City-wide Significance for Conservation (2016 Update) ecosure.com.au | 34
References
Atlas of Living Australia, 2016, Explore the Atlas of Living Australia, viewed 15 April 2016, http://www.ala.org.au/. Brisbane City Council 2014, Brisbane City Plan 2014, viewed 7 April 2016, http://eplan.brisbane.qld.gov.au/. Churchill, SK 2009, Australian Bats – Second Edition. Allen & Unwin, Sydney. Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (formerly EPA) 2008, ‘Back on Track Species Prioritisation Framework’ – A framework for prioritising species conservation and recovery in Queensland, Queensland Government. Department of Environment and Heritage Protection 2012, Back on Track species prioritisation framework, viewed 7 April 2016, https://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/wildlife/prioritisation-framework/index.html. Department of Environment and Heritage Protection 2014a, Biodiversity Assessment and Mapping Methodology. Version 2.2. Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, Brisbane. Department of Environment and Heritage Protection 2014b, Method for mapping: Matters of State environmental significance for use in land use planning and development assessment (Version 4.1), Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, Brisbane. Department of Environment and Heritage Protection 2015, The Species Recovery Information Gateway - The Spring, viewed 23 May 2016, http://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/wildlife/species-recovery/index.html. Department of the Environment 2013, Matters of National Environmental Significance, Significant impact guidelines 1.1, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, Department of the Environment, Commonwealth of Australia. Ecosure 2012, Species of city-wide significance for conservation, prepared for the City of Gold Coast, publication location – West Burleigh. Gold Coast City Council 2005, Gold Coast City Nature Conservation Mapping Review - Stage 2 Significance Mapping (Common Nature Conservation Classification System), Gold Coast City Council. IUCN 2001, IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria Version 3.1. Prepared by the IUCN Species Survival Commission. Joint Nature Conservation Committee 2016, UK BAP priority species, viewed 15 April 2016, http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-5717. Joseph, LN, Maloney, RF & Possingham, HP 2009, ‘Optimal Allocation of Resources among Threatened Species: a Project Prioritization Protocol’, Conservation Biology, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 328-338. Leiper, G, Glazebrook, J, Cox, D & Rathie, K 2008, Mangroves to Mountains (Revised Edition), Society for Growing Australian Plants (Qld Region), Queensland. Mace, GM, Possingham, HP & Leader-Williams, N 2007, ‘Prioritizing Choices in Conservation’, Key Topics in Conservation Biology, pp. 17-34. Marsh, H, Dennis, A, Hines, H, Kutt, A, McDonald, K, Weber, Williams, S & Winter, J 2007, ‘Optimizing Allocation of Management Resources for Wildlife’, Conservation Biology, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 387–399.
Species of City-wide Significance for Conservation (2016 Update) ecosure.com.au | 35
Menkhurst, P & Knight, F 2001, A Field Guide to the Mammals of Australia, Oxford University Press, South Melbourne. Moreton Bay Regional Council undated, Priority species of the Moreton Bay Region, produced by Moreton Bay Regional Council and Golder Associates. Peeters, PJ 2014, Back on Track Phase II: Background, rationale and revised methodology, Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, Queensland Government. Pizzey, G & Knight, F 2003, The Field Guide to the Birds of Australia, Harper Collins Publishers, Sydney. The Nature Conservancy 2016, Conservation by Design, viewed 7 April 2016, http://www.nature.org/science-in-action/conservation-by-design/index.htm. Wintle, BA 2008, ‘A review of biodiversity investment prioritization tools’. A report to the Biodiversity Expert Working Group toward the development of the Investment Framework for Environmental Resources. WWF 2016, Priority species, viewed 15 April 2016, http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/endangered_species/ and http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/species/.
Species of City-wide Significance for Conservation (2016 Update) ecosure.com.au | 36 Appendix 1 Base species list
Please see attached spreadsheet.
Species of City-wide Significance for Conservation (2016 Update) ecosure.com.au | 37 Appendix 2 City of Gold Coast stakeholder feedback on revised criteria
Comments from City of Gold Coast Stakeholders on Revised Scoring Criteria 19 April 2016.
Table 1 Amended criteria and scoring system for flora
CoGC stakeholder Flora criteria Sub category Justification Value Weighting Reason for amendment comments Endangered, Critically Endangered 3 Listed under Species listed under NC Act Vulnerable 2 1.5 EPBC Act and EPBC Act (with the Conservation Dependent 1 exception of Conservation Dependent) are automatically OK Endangered 3 a CWS species, although a Listed under score is still needed to be Vulnerable 2 1.5 NC Act assigned. Conservation status Near Threatened 1 Recently What about newly/recently named or discovered invertebrates discovered Expect there to be a lack of (e.g. a new worm was Recently named or discovered species that Automatic data on such species, discovered in a Currumbin species that have not yet been N/A have not yet CWS therefore assigning scores Creek study). May need to listed under NC Act or EPBC Act been listed will be difficult. refine this criterion to under NC Act specifically exclude certain or EPBC Act taxa. <=25 records 3 Reducing importance of this Number of OK, although concern about category and the groupings records within 26-75 records 2 sampling bias etc. Future Number of records 1 of number of records due to Gold Coast updates should attempt to 76-125 records 1 data deficiencies and data LGA measure ‘population size’ biases. >=126 records 0
Species of City-wide Significance for Conservation (2016 Update) ecosure.com.au | 38 CoGC stakeholder Flora criteria Sub category Justification Value Weighting Reason for amendment comments Specialised ecological Specialised or requirements that are common in 2 Gold Coast LGA OK, although concern about complex why the species might be at No change to criteria (except habitat Specialised ecological is geographic limit (disjunct moving significant stronghold Distribution requirements requirements that are uncommon 3 1.5 population or habitat to Endemicity below), in Gold Coast LGA fragmentation). Future adjustment of scoring only. updates should attempt to At the limit of At the limit of geographic range measure ‘population status’ geographical 3 (SEQ bioregion) range Level of Endemic to SEQ bioregion 1 endemicity What about species with (Gold Coast Significant stronghold moved locally distinct populations LGA or SEQ Endemic to Gold Coast LGA 3 to Endemicity criterion and (e.g. the dolphins in the bioregion - removed SEQ bioregion Broadwater have been Endemicity under IBRA) 2 subcategory as decision identified as different to those in the ocean)? Species for made that LGA more which Gold important to assess than Significant stronghold within Gold Coast LGA is 2 bioregion for stronghold. Should the criterion be titled Coast LGA (>70% of records) a significant ‘endemism’? stronghold
Species of City-wide Significance for Conservation (2016 Update) ecosure.com.au | 39 Table 2 Amended criteria and scoring system for fauna
CoGC Stakeholder Fauna criteria Sub-category Justification Value Weighting Reason for amendment Comments Endangered, Critically Endangered 3 Listed under EPBC Vulnerable 2 Species listed under NC Act 1.5 Act and EPBC Act (with the Conservation Dependent, exception of Conservation 1 OK. Should this include Migratory Dependent and Migratory) ‘recently discovered species’? Endangered 3 are automatically a CWS species, although a score is Listed under NC Vulnerable 2 1.5 still needed to be assigned. Act Conservation status Near Threatened 1 If this criterion is deleted, Delete this criterion? In included consideration of workshop 2, scoring under BAMM, AquaBAMM and Back BAMM Priority BAMM criterion had to be Priority Fauna Taxa for SEQ on Track listed species during Fauna Taxa other 1 1? adjusted due to duplications bioregion the expert panel workshop in than EVR taxa as criteria for this listing case they were triggered for includes Distribution - Range other reasons. limit and Endemic.
<=25 records 3 Reducing importance of this OK, although concern about Number of records category and the groupings 26-75 records 2 sampling bias etc. Future Number of records within Gold Coast 1 of number of records due to updates should attempt to LGA 76-125 records 1 data deficiencies and data measure ‘population size’ biases. >=126 records 0 Specialised ecological OK, although concern about requirements that are common in 2 why the species might be at is No change to criteria (except Specialised or Gold Coast LGA geographic limit (disjunct moving significant stronghold Distribution complex habitat 1.5 population or habitat to Endemicity -see below), requirements Specialised ecological fragmentation). Future updates adjustment of scoring only. requirements that are uncommon 3 should attempt to measure in Gold Coast LGA ‘population status’
Species of City-wide Significance for Conservation (2016 Update) ecosure.com.au | 40 Appendix 3 Workshop attendees
Workshop to review draft CWS species lists
Date: 12th May 2016
Location: Nerang Bicentennial Hall, Nerang
Attendees Apologies
Carmel Peacock, CoGC Glenn Leiper* Blair Prince, CoGC David Jinks* Nina Bishop, CoGC Cheree Fenton*, CoGC Tina Strachan, CoGC Naomi Christian, CoGC Todd Burrows, CoGC Liz Caddick, CoGC Lara Solyma, CoGC Mark Kingston, Tweed Shire Council Frank McGrath, CoGC John Callaghan, Biolink Peter Joy, CoGC Daniel Parker, CoGC Grant Perriot, CoGC Gillian McLeay, CoGC Beth Kramer, Ecosure * Detailed input provided by email both pre and post workshop Julie Whelan, Ecosure Bill McDonald Scott Hetherington, Tweed Shire Council Jason Searle Damian White, ddwfauna
Species of City-wide Significance for Conservation (2016 Update) ecosure.com.au | 41
Appendix 4 CWS fauna species list
Table 1 Updated list of CWS fauna species (2016)
Class Scientific name Common name Final score
Reptilia Acanthophis antarcticus common death adder 9 Mammalia Acrobates pygmaeus narrow-toed feathertail glider 9 Insecta Acrodipsas illidgei Illidgeis ant blue 15.5 Aves Actitis hypoleucos common sandpiper 7.5 Amphibia Adelotus brevis tusked frog 8 Mammalia Aepyprymnus rufescens rufous bettong 9 Reptilia Amalosia jacovae clouded gecko 9.5 Reptilia Amalosia lesueurii Lesueur's velvet gecko 9 Aves Amaurornis moluccana pale-vented bush-hen 7.5 Actinopterygii Ambassis jacksonensis Port Jackson glassfish 7.5 Actinopterygii Anguilla australis short-finned eel 7.5 Reptilia Anilios wiedii a blind snake 9 Mammalia Antechinus arktos black-tailed antechinus 14 Mammalia Antechinus mysticus buff-footed antechinus 9.5 Mammalia Antechinus subtropicus brown antechinus 8.5 Mammalia Antechinus swainsonii dusky antechinus 10.5 Aves Anthochaera phrygia regent honeyeater 15.5 Aves Arenaria interpres ruddy turnstone 8.5 Insecta Argyreus hyperbius inconstans Australian fritillary butterfly 12 Aves Atrichornis rufescens rufous scrub-bird 19.5 Reptilia Bellatorias major land mullet 7.5 Aves Botaurus poiciloptilus Australasian bittern 7.5 Chondrichthyes Brachaelurus waddi blindshark 9.5 Actinopterygii Butis butis crimson-tipped gudgeon 7.5 Aves Calidris acuminata sharp-tailed sandpiper 7.5 Aves Calidris alba sanderling 8.5 Aves Calidris canutus red knot 13 Aves Calidris ferruginea curlew sandpiper 9 Aves Calidris melanotos pectoral sandpiper 8.5 Aves Calidris ruficollis red-necked stint 8.5 Aves Calidris tenuirostris great knot 12 Aves Calyptorhynchus banksii red-tailed black-cockatoo 8 Aves Calyptorhynchus lathami glossy black-cockatoo 8 Reptilia Caretta caretta loggerhead turtle 13.5
Species of City-wide Significance for Conservation (2016 Update) ecosure.com.au | 42
Class Scientific name Common name Final score
Reptilia Carlia pectoralis a skink 7.5 Reptilia Carlia schmeltzii a lively skink 7.5 Mammalia Cercartetus nanus eastern pygmy-possum 7.5 Mammalia Chalinolobus dwyeri large-eared pied bat 9 Aves Charadrius leschenaultii greater sand plover 11.5 Aves Charadrius mongolus lesser sand plover 13 Aves Charadrius veredus oriental plover 7.5 Reptilia Chelonia mydas green turtle 10.5 Aves Chthonicola sagittata speckled warbler 8 Aves Cinclosoma punctatum spotted quail-thrush 8 Aves Climacteris erythrops red-browed treecreeper 9 Actinopterygii Cnidoglanis macrocephalus estuary catfish 7.5 Reptilia Coeranoscincus reticulatus three-toed snake-tooth skink 10.5 Amphibia Crinia tinnula wallum froglet 12.5 Reptilia Ctenotus arcanus arcane striped skink 7.5 Aves Cyclopsitta diophthalma coxeni double-eyed fig-parrot 16.5 Chondrichthyes Dasyatis fluviorum brown stingray 10.5 Aves Dasyornis brachypterus eastern bristlebird 16.5 Mammalia Dasyurus maculatus spotted-tailed quoll 12 Reptilia Diplodactylus vittatus stone gecko 9 Reptilia Diporiphora australis tommy round-head 7.5 Mammalia Dugong dugon dugong 7.5 Reptilia Egernia mcpheei 7.5 Reptilia Egernia striolata tree skink 9 Aves Ephippiorhynchus asiaticus black-necked stork 9 Aves Esacus magnirostris beach stone-curlew 7.5 Actinopterygii Gobiopterus semivestitus glassgoby 9.5 Aves Haematopus fuliginosus sooty oystercatcher 8 Reptilia Harrisoniascincus zia rainforest cool skink 7.5 Chondrichthyes Himantura uarnak reticulate whipray 12.5 Reptilia Hoplocephalus stephensii Stephens' banded snake 10.5 Actinopterygii Hyperlophus vittatus sandy sprat 11.5 Aves Ixobrychus dubius Australian little bittern 8 Aves Ixobrychus flavicollis black bittern 8 Reptilia Karma tryoni Tryon's skink 12.5 Reptilia Lampropholis couperi couper's skink 9.5 Reptilia Lampropholis guichenoti grass skink 9 Aves Lathamus discolor swift parrot 11
Species of City-wide Significance for Conservation (2016 Update) ecosure.com.au | 43
Class Scientific name Common name Final score
Amphibia Lechriodus fletcheri black soled frog 9.5 Aves Lewinia pectoralis Lewin's rail 9 Aves Lichenostomus fasciogularis mangrove honeyeater 7.5 Aves Limicola falcinellus broad-billed sandpiper 8.5 Amphibia Limnodynastes tasmaniensis spotted marshfrog 9 Aves Limosa lapponica bar-tailed godwit 8.5 Aves Limosa limosa black-tailed godwit 7.5 Amphibia Litoria brevipalmata green thighed frog 7.5 Amphibia Litoria olongburensis wallum sedgefrog 20 Amphibia Litoria pearsoniana cascade treefrog 7.5 Amphibia Litoria revelata whirring treefrog 8 Amphibia Litoria verreauxii whistling treefrog 7.5 Actinopterygii Liza argentea goldspot mullet 7.5 Aves Lophoictinia isura square-tailed kite 9 Reptilia Lophosaurus spinipes southern angle-headed dragon 7.5 Actinopterygii Macquaria novemaculeata Australian bass 7.5 Aves Macronectes giganteus southern giant-petrel 13.5 Aves Macronectes halli northern giant-petrel 10.5 Mammalia Macropus agilis agile wallaby 8.5 Mammalia Macropus dorsalis black-striped wallaby 8 Mammalia Macropus parryi whiptail wallaby 7.5 Mammalia Megaptera novaeangliae humpback whale 14.5 Aves Melithreptus gularis black-chinned honeyeater 9 Aves Menura alberti Albert's lyrebird 8 Amphibia Mixophyes fleayi fleay's barred frog 16.5 Amphibia Mixophyes iteratus giant barred frog 16.5 Actinopterygii Mogurnda adspersa southern purplespotted gudgeon 9 Reptilia Morethia taeniopleura fire-tailed skink 7.5 Mormopterus lumsdenae sp. Mammalia Nov Beccari's freetail bat 7.5 Aves Myiagra alecto shining flycatcher 7.5 Actinopterygii Myxus elongatus a mullet 9.5 Actinopterygii Nannoperca oxleyana Oxleyan pygmy perch 14 Sarcopterygii Neoceratodus forsteri Queensland lungfish 10.5 Chondrichthyes Neotrygon kuhlii bluespotted maskray 7.5 Aves Ninox strenua powerful owl 9 Reptilia Notechis scutatus eastern tiger snake 7.5 Aves Numenius madagascariensis eastern curlew 12 Aves Numenius minutus little curlew 9
Species of City-wide Significance for Conservation (2016 Update) ecosure.com.au | 44
Class Scientific name Common name Final score
Aves Numenius phaeopus whimbrel 8.5 Mammalia Nyctimene robinsoni eastern tube-nosed bat 8.5 Reptilia Ophioscincus ophioscincus a fossorial skink 9.5 Reptilia Ophioscincus truncatus short-limbed snake-skink 7.5 Insecta Ornithoptera richmondia Richmond birdwing butterfly 11.5 Aves Pachycephala olivacea olive whistler 10.5 Actinopterygii Paramugil georgii fantail mullet 9.5 Chondrichthyes Pastinachus sephen cowtail stingray 7.5 Mammalia Petauroides volans greater glider 11 Mammalia Petaurus australis yellow-bellied glider 9 Mammalia Petrogale penicillata brush-tailed rock-wallaby 13.5 Mammalia Phascogale tapoatafa brush-tailed phascogale 9 Mammalia Phascolarctos cinereus koala 9 Amphibia Philoria loveridgei masked mountainfrog 10.5 Insecta Phyllodes imperialis smithersi pink underwing moth 14 Aves Pluvialis fulva pacific golden plover 8.5 Aves Pluvialis squatarola grey plover 7.5 Aves Podargus ocellatus plumiferus plumed frogmouth 12.5 Aves Pomatostomus temporalis grey-crowned babbler 9 Mammalia Potorous tridactylus long-nosed potoroo 13.5 Amphibia Pseudophryne coriacea red backed broodfrog 8.5 Mammalia Pteropus poliocephalus grey-headed flying-fox 5* Reptilia Pygopus lepidopodus common scaly-foot 9 Actinopterygii Redigobius macrostoma largemouth goby 13.5 Actinopterygii Rhadinocentrus ornatus ornate rainbowfish 9 Aves Rostratula australis Australian painted snipe 7.5 Reptilia Saltuarius swaini southern leaf-tailed gecko 7.5 Reptilia Saproscincus rosei a rainforest skink 7.5 Reptilia Saproscincus spectabilis a rainforest skink 7.5 Mammalia Sousa sahulensis Australian humpback dolphin 10.5 Aves Sterna sumatrana black-naped tern 7.5 Aves Sternula albifrons little tern 7.5 Crustacea Tenuibranchiurus glypticus swamp crayfish 15.5 Mammalia Thylogale stigmatica red-legged pademelon 8 Aves Todiramphus chloris collared kingfisher 9 Aves Tringa brevipes grey-tailed tattler 8.5 Aves Tringa glareola wood sandpiper 8.5 Aves Tringa incana wandering tattler 8.5
Species of City-wide Significance for Conservation (2016 Update) ecosure.com.au | 45
Class Scientific name Common name Final score
Aves Tringa nebularia common greenshank 9.5 Aves Tringa stagnatilis marsh sandpiper 8.5 Aves Turnix melanogaster black-breasted button-quail 9 Aves Tyto longimembris eastern grass owl 8 Aves Tyto novaehollandiae masked owl 9 Aves Tyto tenebricosa sooty owl 9 Amphibia Uperoleia fusca dusky gungan 9 Amphibia Uperoleia laevigata eastern gungan 7.5 Mammalia Vespadelus darlingtoni large forest bat 7.5 Reptilia Wollumbinia latisternum saw-shelled turtle 7.5 Aves Xenus cinereus terek sandpiper 7.5 Mammalia Xeromys myoides mangrove mouse 12.5
* only as CWS for conservation status
Species of City-wide Significance for Conservation (2016 Update) ecosure.com.au | 46
Appendix 5 CWS flora species list
Table 1 Updated list of CWS flora species (2016)
Family Scientific name Common name Final score
Abelmoschus moschatus subsp. Malvaceae tuberosus 8.5 Cyperaceae Abildgaardia vaginata 8.5 Hymenophyllaceae Abrodictyum obscurum 8.5 Fabaceae Acacia attenuata a wattle 16.5 Fabaceae Acacia bakeri marblewood 13 Fabaceae Acacia baueri subsp. baueri Bauer's wattle 10.5 Fabaceae Acacia brownei brown's wattle 11.5 Fabaceae Acacia cincinnata coiled pod wattle 8.5 Fabaceae Acacia floribunda white sally 8.5 Fabaceae Acacia glaucocarpa whitewood 8.5 Fabaceae Acacia leucoclada subsp. argentifolia northern silver wattle 8.5 Fabaceae Acacia myrtifolia myrtle wattle 9.5 Fabaceae Acacia obtusifolia blunt-leaved wattle 9.5 Fabaceae Acacia orites mountain wattle 8.5 Fabaceae Acacia paradoxa kangaroo thorn 8.5 Fabaceae Acacia stricta 8.5 Euphorbiaceae Acalypha capillipes small-leaved acalypha 11.5 Euphorbiaceae Acalypha eremorum common acalypha 9.5 Euphorbiaceae Acalypha sp. Big Scrub N/A Rutaceae Acronychia baeuerlenii Byron Bay acronychia 12 Rutaceae Acronychia littoralis scented acronychia 16.5 Rutaceae Acronychia octandra doughwood 10 Rutaceae Acronychia suberosa corky acronychia 9.5 Rutaceae Acronychia wilcoxiana silver aspen 13 Ericaceae Acrothamnus spathaceus a shrub 8.5 Phyllanthaceae Actephila grandifolia 10.5 Asteraceae Adenostemma lavenia 10 Asteraceae Adenostemma macrophyllum 8.5 Fabaceae Aeschynomene brevifolia 8.5 Ericaceae Agiortia pedicellata wallum beard-heath 15 Sapindaceae Alectryon connatus small-leaved alectryon 9.5 Sapindaceae Alectryon reticulatus scrub boonaree 8.5 Casuarinaceae Allocasuarina rigida subsp. rigida rigid she-oak 13 Proteaceae Alloxylon pinnatum tree waratah 10
Species of City-wide Significance for Conservation (2016 Update) ecosure.com.au | 47
Family Scientific name Common name Final score
Apocynaceae Alyxia magnifolia large-leaf chain fruit 8.5 Lythraceae Ammannia multiflora 10 Asteraceae Ammobium alatum 8.5 Euphorbiaceae Amperea xiphoclada var. xiphoclada 8.5 Loranthaceae Amyema mackayensis mangrove mistletoe 8.5 Lamiaceae Anisomeles malabarica 11.5 Escalloniaceae Anopterus macleayanus Macleay laurel 11 Poaceae Anthosachne multiflora subsp. multiflora 8.5 Fabaceae Archidendron hendersonii white lace flower 12 Fabaceae Archidendron muellerianum veiny lace flower 12 Primulaceae Ardisia bakeri ardisia 10 Argophyllaceae Argophyllum nullumense silver leaf 9.5 Argyrodendron actinophyllum subsp. Malvaceae actinophyllum black booyong 11 Poaceae Arthraxon hispidus 14.5 Asparagaceae Arthropodium milleflorum 8.5 Asparagaceae Arthropodium paniculatum vanilla lily 8.5 Aspleniaceae Asplenium attenuatum var. indivisum frilly spleenwort 14 Aspleniaceae Asplenium bulbiferum subsp. gracillimum mother spleenwort 8.5 Aspleniaceae Asplenium difforme 13 Aspleniaceae Asplenium flabellifolium necklace fern 11.5 Aspleniaceae Asplenium harmanii necklace fern 13.5 Araliaceae Astrotricha umbrosa woolly star-hair 11.5 Picrodendraceae Austrobuxus swainii pink cherry 8.5 Boraginaceae Austrocynoglossum latifolium forest hound's tongue 13 Poaceae Austrodanthonia induta a wallaby grass 8.5 Myrtaceae Backhousia leptopetala 8.5 Myrtaceae Backhousia sciadophora shatterwood 8.5 Myrtaceae Backhousia subargentea giant ironwood 10.5 Myrtaceae Backhousia subargentea giant ironwood 14 Myrtaceae Baeckea diosmifolia fringed baeckea 8.5 Myrtaceae Baeckea imbricata spindly baeckea 8.5 Euphorbiaceae Baloghia marmorata jointed baloghia 19 Proteaceae Banksia aemula wallum banksia 9.5 Proteaceae Banksia conferta 16 Proteaceae Banksia neoanglica 8.5 Proteaceae Banksia oblongifolia dwarf banksia 8.5 Fabaceae Barklya syringifolia crown of gold 9.5 Cunoniaceae Bauera capitata 13
Species of City-wide Significance for Conservation (2016 Update) ecosure.com.au | 48
Family Scientific name Common name Final score
Polypodiaceae Belvisia mucronata var. mucronata tailed fern 8.5 Euphorbiaceae Beyeria lasiocarpa beyeria 10.5 Pittosporaceae Billardiera rubens an apple-berry 8.5 Blandfordiaceae Blandfordia grandiflora christmas bells 17.5 Blechnaceae Blechnum camfieldii a water fern 10.5 Asteraceae Blumea lacera 8.5 Asteraceae Blumea saxatilis 8.5 Boehmeria virgata var. Urticaceae austroqueenslandica 10.5 Rutaceae Boronia falcifolia wallum boronia 8.5 Rutaceae Boronia parviflora 8.5 Rutaceae Boronia rosmarinifolia forest boronia 8.5 Rutaceae Boronia safrolifera safrole boronia 8.5 Rutaceae Bosistoa transversa three-leaved bosistoa 10.5 Fabaceae Bossiaea brownii a shrub 8.5 Fabaceae Bossiaea scortechinii 8.5 Brachychiton sp. (Ormeau L.H.Bird Malvaceae AQ435851) Ormeau bottle tree 25.5 Brachyloma daphnoides subsp. Malvaceae daphnoides daphne heath 8.5 Ericaceae Brachyloma scortechinii large-fruited daphne heath 13 Asteraceae Brachyscome ascendens Binna Burra daisy 13.5 Cabombaceae Brasenia schreberi water shield 12 Acanthaceae Brunoniella spiciflora white brunoniella 13 Asphodelaceae Bulbine vagans bulbine lily 13 Orchidaceae Bulbophyllum lamingtonense 10.5 Orchidaceae Bulbophyllum weinthalii 13.5 Burmanniaceae Burmannia disticha 8.5 Orchidaceae Caladenia catenata var. gigantea 10.5 Orchidaceae Caleana major 13 Fabaceae Callerya australis austral wisteria 12 Cupressaceae Callitris columellaris white cypress pine 9 Cupressaceae Callitris macleayana stringybark pine 9 Cupressaceae Callitris monticola steelhead 12 Orchidaceae Calochilus campestris copper beard orchid 13 Orchidaceae Calochilus grandiflorus golden beard orchid 8.5 Orchidaceae Calochilus robertsonii 8.5 Convolvulaceae Calystegia soldanella 8.5 Cyperaceae Carex breviculmis 10.5 Salicaceae Casearia multinervosa casearia 10.5 Fabaceae Cassia marksiana brush cassia 16
Species of City-wide Significance for Conservation (2016 Update) ecosure.com.au | 49
Family Scientific name Common name Final score
Asteraceae Cassinia compacta tall cassinia 8.5 Asteraceae Cassinia laevis cough bush 8.5 Asteraceae Cassinia quinquefaria cough bush 10 Asteraceae Cassinia straminea New England cassinia 8.5 Cyperaceae Caustis blakei koala fern 8.5 Cyperaceae Caustis recurvata curly sedge 8.5 Linderniaceae Centranthera cochinchinensis an annual 8.5 Pteridaceae Ceratopteris thalictroides 8.5 Rhizophoraceae Ceriops tagal yellow mangrove 9.5 Orchidaceae Cestichis swenssonii a herb 8.5 Fabaceae Chamaecrista maritima 8.5 Orchidaceae Cheirostylis notialis 10.5 Orchidaceae Chiloglottis reflexa autumn bird orchid 13 Orchidaceae Chiloglottis sylvestris a bird orchid 10.5 Orchidaceae Chiloglottis trapeziformis broad-lip bird orchid 13 Thelypteridaceae Christella parasitica a water fern 8.5 Rutaceae Citrus australasica finger lime 9.5 Rutaceae Citrus australis native lime 9.5 Cyperaceae Cladium procerum leafy twig-rush 8.5 Ranunculaceae Clematis aristata traveller's joy 8.5 Ranunculaceae Clematis fawcettii northern clematis 16.5 Lamiaceae Clerodendrum inerme mangrove lollybush 8.5 Rutaceae Coatesia paniculata axebreaker 8.5 Gyrostemonaceae Codonocarpus attenuatus bell fruit 10 Polygalaceae Comesperma breviflorum 12 Polygalaceae Comesperma defoliatum 8.5 Polygalaceae Comesperma ericinum pink matchheads 12 Polygalaceae Comesperma retusum 8.5 Polygalaceae Comesperma volubile love creeper 8.5 Malvaceae Commersonia fraseri brush kurrajong 9.5 Malvaceae Corchorus cunninghamii Cunningham's jute 17.5 Asparagaceae Cordyline congesta Boonah palm lily 8.5 Asteraceae Coronidium telfordii 10.5 Rutaceae Correa lawrenciana var. glandulifera mountain correa 11.5 Orchidaceae Corybas fimbriatus fringed helmet orchid 8.5 Orchidaceae Corybas montanus 16.5 Corynocarpus rupestris subsp. Corynocarpaceae arborescens southern corynocarpus 20 Asteraceae Craspedia variabilis 8.5
Species of City-wide Significance for Conservation (2016 Update) ecosure.com.au | 50
Family Scientific name Common name Final score
Rhamnaceae Cryptandra propinqua subsp.propinqua 8.5 Lauraceae Cryptocarya foetida stinking cryptocarya 14.5 Lauraceae Cryptocarya macdonaldii Cooloola laurel 10.5 Lauraceae Cryptocarya meisneriana thick-leaved cryptocarya 11 Lauraceae Cryptocarya rigida rose apple 9.5 Lauraceae Cryptocarya sp. (World's End Pocket) totem pole 12.5 Orchidaceae Cryptostylis erecta bonnet orchid 12 Orchidaceae Cryptostylis subulata large tongue orchid 13 Sapindaceae Cupaniopsis baileyana narrow-leaved tuckeroo 10.5 Sapindaceae Cupaniopsis flagelliformis var. australis narrow-leaved tuckeroo 11.5 Sapindaceae Cupaniopsis newmanii long-leaved tuckeroo 10 Sapindaceae Cupaniopsis serrata smooth tuckeroo 11.5 Cymodoceaceae Cymodocea serrulata 8.5 Boraginaceae Cynoglossum suaveolens sweet hound's tongue 8.5 Cyperaceae Cyperus curvistylis 8.5 Cyperaceae Cyperus disjunctus 8.5 Cyperaceae Cyperus rupicola cliff sedge 13.5 Cyperaceae Cyperus semifertilis a sedge 15.5 Cyperaceae Cyperus stradbrokensis 8.5 Goodeniaceae Dampiera stricta blue dampiera 8.5 Goodeniaceae Dampiera sylvestris 8.5 Cunoniaceae Davidsonia johnsonii smooth Davidsonia 23 Fabaceae Daviesia mimosoides subsp. mimosoides golden pea 8.5 Fabaceae Daviesia villifera 8.5 Orchidaceae Dendrobium aemulum ironbark orchid 9.5 Orchidaceae Dendrobium delicatum an orchid 10.5 Orchidaceae Dendrobium falcorostrum beech orchid 13 Orchidaceae Dendrobium kingianum pink rock orchid 11 Orchidaceae Dendrobium monophyllum lily of the valley orchid 12.5 Dendrobium schneiderae var. Orchidaceae schneiderae an orchid 16.5 Orchidaceae Dendrobium suffusum an orchid 14.5 Urticaceae Dendrocnide moroides Gympie stinger 9.5 Woodsiaceae Deparia petersenii subsp. congrua deparia 8.5 Poaceae Deyeuxia parviseta bent grass 8.5 Poaceae Dichelachne montana Brisbane plumegrass 8.5 Dicksoniaceae Dicksonia antarctica soft tree fern 8.5 Dicksoniaceae Dicksonia youngiae bristly tree fern 11.5 Fabaceae Dillwynia retorta eggs and bacon 8.5
Species of City-wide Significance for Conservation (2016 Update) ecosure.com.au | 51 Family Scientific name Common name Final score
Rutaceae Dinosperma erythrococcum tingle tongue 8.5 Sapindaceae Diploglottis campbellii small-leaved tamarind 15.5 Orchidaceae Dipodium hamiltonianum yellow hyacinth orchid 8.5 Orchidaceae Diuris alba 13 Orchidaceae Diuris punctata var. punctata purple donkey orchid 13 Orchidaceae Diuris sulphurea hornet orchid 13 Orchidaceae Dockrillia linguiformis tongue orchid 9.5 Orchidaceae Dockrillia mortii mort's pencil orchid 10.5 Orchidaceae Dockrillia pugioniformis dagger orchid 11.5 Orchidaceae Dockrillia schoenina pencil orchid 11.5 Orchidaceae Dockrillia teretifolia pencil orchid 10.5 Sapindaceae Dodonaea megazyga hop bush 11.5 Blechnaceae Doodia heterophylla rasp fern 13.5 Doryanthaceae Doryanthes palmeri giant spear lily 12 Droseraceae Drosera auriculata tall sundew 8.5 Droseraceae Drosera binata 8.5 Droseraceae Drosera burmanni white-flowering sundew 8.5 Droseraceae Drosera pygmaea pygmy sundew 13 Droseraceae Drosera spatulata var. spatulata 8.5 Urticaceae Elatostema stipitatum small-leaved rainforest spinach 8.5 Restionaceae Empodisma minus spreading rope-rush 8.5 Lauraceae Endiandra compressa whitebark 8.5 Lauraceae Endiandra crassiflora Dorrigo maple 12 Lauraceae Endiandra floydii gorge laurel 14.5 Lauraceae Endiandra globosa ball-fruited walnut 12.5 Lauraceae Endiandra hayesii rusty rose walnut 12.5 Lauraceae Endiandra muelleri subsp. bracteata green-leaved rose walnut 9.5 Lauraceae Endiandra muelleri subsp. muelleri green-leaved rose walnut 9.5 Asteraceae Enydra woollsii 8.5 Ericaceae Epacris longiflora fuchsia heath 13 Ericaceae Epacris microphylla var. microphylla coral heath 8.5 Ericaceae Epacris pulchella wallum heath 8.5 Epilobium billardierianum subsp. Onagraceae hydrophilum 8.5 Orchidaceae Eriochilus cucullatus Parson's bands 13 Orchidaceae Eriochilus petricola 8.5 Fabaceae Erythrina vespertilio subsp. vespertilio bat wing coral tree 8.5 Orchidaceae Erythrorchis cassythoides climbing orchid 11.5 Myrtaceae Eucalyptus bancroftii 8.5
Species of City-wide Significance for Conservation (2016 Update) ecosure.com.au | 52
Family Scientific name Common name Final score
Myrtaceae Eucalyptus codonocarpa bell-fruited mallee ash 14.5 Myrtaceae Eucalyptus curtisii plunkett mallee 9 Myrtaceae Eucalyptus dura gum-topped ironbark 11.5 Myrtaceae Eucalyptus fusiformis Nambucca ironbark 11.5 Myrtaceae Eucalyptus globoidea 8.5 Myrtaceae Eucalyptus melliodora yellow box 8.5 Myrtaceae Eucalyptus notabilis blue mountains mahogany 8.5 Myrtaceae Eucalyptus racemosa subsp. racemosa scribbly gum 9.5 Myrtaceae Eucalyptus tereticornis subsp. basaltica 10 Myrtaceae Eucalyptus x kirtoniana coastal mahogany 8.5 Cunoniaceae Eucryphia jinksii Springbrook leatherwood 22.5 Restionaceae Eurychorda complanata flat cord-rush 8.5 Cyperaceae Exocarya scleroides 9.5 Gesneriaceae Fieldia australis fieldia 8.5 Fabaceae Flemingia parviflora 8.5 Rutaceae Flindersia xanthoxyla long jack 8.5 Proteaceae Floydia praealta ball nut 13.5 Euphorbiaceae Fontainea australis southern fontainea 20 Euphorbiaceae Fontainea venosa fontainea 21 Pandanaceae Freycinetia excelsa climbing pandani 9.5 Cyperaceae Gahnia clarkei tall sword-sedge 10.5 Cyperaceae Gahnia insignis grassy saw-sedge 12 Cyperaceae Gahnia melanocarpa black-fruited sword-sedge 10.5 Orchidaceae Gastrodia sesamoides cinnamon bells 8.5 Ericaceae Gaultheria viridicarpa 14.5 Orchidaceae Genoplesium psammophilum 15 Orchidaceae Genoplesium rufum 13 Orchidaceae Genoplesium sigmoideum 15 Gleicheniaceae Gleichenia mendellii 10.5 Gleicheniaceae Gleichenia rupestris a coral fern 9.5 Molluginaceae Glinus oppositifolius carpet weed 10 Orchidaceae Glossodia minor small waxlip 13 Fabaceae Gompholobium latifolium broad wedge pea 8.5 Gompholobium sp. (Dave's Creek Fabaceae P.I.Forster+ PIF15979) 18.5 Fabaceae Gompholobium virgatum var. virgatum wedge pea 8.5 Goodeniaceae Goodenia hederacea subsp. hederacea ivy goodenia 8.5 Goodeniaceae Goodenia ovata hop goodenia 8.5 Fabaceae Goodia lotifolia var. lotifolia golden tip 8.5
Species of City-wide Significance for Conservation (2016 Update) ecosure.com.au | 53
Family Scientific name Common name Final score
Fabaceae Goodia macrocarpa a shrub 8.5 Myrtaceae Gossia fragrantissima sweet myrtle 18.5 Myrtaceae Gossia punctata velvet myrtle 9.5 Polypodiaceae Grammitis billardierei finger fern 13 Acanthaceae Graptophyllum spinigerum spiny graptophyllum 10.5 Proteaceae Grevillea helmsiae helm's silky oak 10.5 Proteaceae Grevillea hilliana white yiel yiel 8.5 Proteaceae Grevillea leiophylla 10.5 Malvaceae Grewia latifolia dysentery plant 8.5 Asteraceae Gynura drymophila var. drymophila a herbaceous plant 13 Gyrostemonaceae Gyrostemon osmus a shrub 23 Haemodoraceae Haemodorum corymbosum 8.5 Haemodoraceae Haemodorum tenuifolium blood root 10.5 Proteaceae Hakea actites mulloway needle bush 8.5 Proteaceae Hakea eriantha 8.5 Proteaceae Hakea laevipes subsp. granticola finger hakea 8.5 Proteaceae Hakea salicifolia subsp. salicifolia willow-leaved hakea 9.5 Hydrocharitaceae Halophila spinulosa 8.5 Proteaceae Helicia ferruginea rusty helicia 9 Philydraceae Helmholtzia glaberrima giant stream lily 10 Dilleniaceae Hibbertia hexandra tree guinea flower 10 Dilleniaceae Hibbertia linearis var. floribunda 8.5 Dilleniaceae Hibbertia sp. (isla gorge p.sharpe 598) 8.5 Dilleniaceae Hibbertia vestita var. thymifolia a guinea flower 10.5 Proteaceae Hicksbeachia pinnatifolia red boppel nut 11.5 Poaceae Hierochloe rariflora scented holygrass 8.5 Fabaceae Hovea ramulosa 10.5 Fabaceae Hovea similis 8.5 Acanthaceae Hygrophila angustifolia 11.5 Hymenophyllaceae Hymenophyllum bivalve a filmy fern 8.5 Hymenophyllaceae Hymenophyllum marginatum 8.5 Dennstaedtiaceae Hypolepis rugosula ruddy ground fern 8.5 Menispermaceae Hypserpa decumbens hypserpa 8.5 Fabaceae Indigofera baileyi bailey's indigo 8.5 Fabaceae Indigofera linnaei 8.5 Campanulaceae Isotoma axillaris Australian harebell 9 Fabaceae Jacksonia stackhousei wallum dogwood 8.5 Oleaceae Jasminum jenniae shrubby jasmine 13
Species of City-wide Significance for Conservation (2016 Update) ecosure.com.au | 54 Family Scientific name Common name Final score
Oleaceae Jasminum singuliflorum soft jasmine 8.5 Juncaceae Juncus subsecundus finger rush 8.5 Rubiaceae Knoxia sumatrensis 8.5 Myrtaceae Kunzea ericoides burgan 8.5 Poaceae Lachnagrostis aemula blowngrass 8.5 Dryopteridaceae Lastreopsis silvestris mountain shield fern 11.5 Rutaceae Leionema elatius subsp. beckleri broad-leaved tall phebalium 13 Rutaceae Leionema elatius subsp. elatius tall phebalium 9.5 Araceae Lemna aequinoctialis common duckweed 8.5 Myrtaceae Lenwebbia prominens southern velvet myrtle 10 Sapindaceae Lepiderema pulchella fine-leaved tuckeroo 10.5 Cyperaceae Lepidosperma clipeicola a sword-sedge 11.5 Cyperaceae Lepidosperma elatius tall sword-sedge 9.5 Zamiaceae Lepidozamia peroffskyana shining burrawang 11 Asteraceae Leptinella longipes 8.5 Santalaceae Leptomeria drupacea 8.5 Myrtaceae Leptospermum brachyandrum weeping tea tree 10 Myrtaceae Leptospermum whitei White's tea tree 9.5 Ericaceae Leucopogon deformis a shrub 13 Ericaceae Leucopogon melaleucoides snow bush 12 Leucopogon sp. (Lamington G.Leiper Ericaceae AQ633386) Lamington beard heath 13 Plantaginaceae Limnophila brownii 8.5 Lindsaeaceae Lindsaea ensifolia subsp. agatii 8.5 Orchidaceae Liparis swenssonii rock orchid 9.5 Arecaceae Livistona australis cabbage tree palm 10 Campanulaceae Lobelia andrewsii 8.5 Campanulaceae Lobelia gibbosa var. browniana 8.5 Loganiaceae Logania pusilla little logania 8.5 Asparagaceae Lomandra elongata a mat-rush 8.5 Lamiaceae Lycopus australis water horehound 8.5 Orchidaceae Lyperanthus suaveolens brown beaks 13 Proteaceae Macadamia integrifolia macadamia nut 10.5 Proteaceae Macadamia tetraphylla macadamia nut 10.5 Zamiaceae Macrozamia lucida zamia 10.5 Euphorbiaceae Mallotus megadontus toothed kamala 17 Apocynaceae Marsdenia coronata slender milkvine 17 Apocynaceae Marsdenia hemiptera rusty vine 8.5 Apocynaceae Marsdenia lloydii Lloyd's milk vine 12
Species of City-wide Significance for Conservation (2016 Update) ecosure.com.au | 55
Family Scientific name Common name Final score
Apocynaceae Marsdenia longiloba slender-leaved milk vine 18 Apocynaceae Marsdenia micradenia 11.5 Apocynaceae Marsdenia pleiadenia 10 Celastraceae Maytenus disperma orange bush 8.5 Myrtaceae Melaleuca comboynensis cliff bottlebrush 8.5 Myrtaceae Melaleuca decora pretty paperbark 9.5 Myrtaceae Melaleuca irbyana bush-house paperbark 13 Myrtaceae Melaleuca pallida lemon bottlebrush 9.5 Myrtaceae Melaleuca styphelioides 8.5 Ericaceae Melichrus adpressus large nectar heath 8.5 Rutaceae Melicope vitiflora northern doughwood 8.5 Picrodendraceae Micrantheum ericoides a shrub 8.5 Rutaceae Micromelum minutum 8.5 Microsorum pustulatum subsp. Polypodiaceae pustulatum a creeping fern 8.5 Sapindaceae Mischocarpus ailae 10.5 Sapindaceae Mischocarpus australis red pearfruit 8.5 Primulaceae Myrsine angusta narrow-leaved muttonwood 9.5 Primulaceae Myrsine howittiana brush muttonwood 8.5 Apocynaceae Neisosperma poweri milkbush 13 Rutaceae Nematolepis squamea subsp. squamea satinwood 9.5 Sapotaceae Niemeyera antiloga brown pearwood 8.5 Sapotaceae Niemeyera whitei rusty plum 11.5 Oleaceae Notelaea venosa smooth mock-olive 8.5 Nothofagaceae Nothofagus moorei Antarctic beech 9.5 Poaceae Notodanthonia longifolia long-leaf wallaby grass 8.5 Nymphaeaceae Nymphaea gigantea giant water lily 10 Orchidaceae Oberonia complanata green fan orchid 8.5 Orchidaceae Oberonia muelleriana an oberonia orchid 8.5 Orchidaceae Oberonia titania soldier's crest orchid 8.5 Apocynaceae Ochrosia elliptica 8.5 Apocynaceae Ochrosia moorei southern ochrosia 23 Myrtaceae Ochrosperma citriodorum 8.5 Olacaceae Olax retusa blunt-leaf olax 8.5 Rubiaceae Oldenlandia galioides stinkweed 8.5 Asteraceae Olearia canescens 12 Asteraceae Olearia chrysophylla 8.5 Asteraceae Olearia elliptica subsp. elliptica stick daisy bush 9.5 Asteraceae Olearia heterocarpa nightcap daisy bush 13.5
Species of City-wide Significance for Conservation (2016 Update) ecosure.com.au | 56
Family Scientific name Common name Final score
Asteraceae Olearia oppositifolia 8.5 Rubiaceae Opercularia aspera coarse stinkweed 8.5 Orchidaceae Orthoceras strictum 8.5 Meliaceae Owenia cepiodora onion cedar 13.5 Fabaceae Oxylobium arborescens tall shaggy pea 8.5 Asteraceae Ozothamnus bidwillii 11.5 Asteraceae Ozothamnus vagans a shrub 21 Asteraceae Ozothamnus whitei a shrub 12 Monimiaceae Palmeria foremanii 8.5 Bignoniaceae Pandorea baileyana large-leaved wonga vine 10.5 Pandorea sp. (Mt Maroon P.I.Forster+ Bignoniaceae PIF7111) Mt Maroon wonga vine 8.5 Poaceae Panicum bisulcatum blackseed panic 8.5 Poaceae Panicum obseptum 8.5 Orchidaceae Papillilabium beckleri lipped orchid 14.5 Aristolochiaceae Pararistolochia laheyana mountain birdwing vine 13 Aristolochiaceae Pararistolochia praevenosa Richmond birdwing vine 11.5 Apocynaceae Parsonsia brisbanensis Brisbane silkpod 9.5 Apocynaceae Parsonsia induplicata thin-leaved silkpod 12 Apocynaceae Parsonsia largiflorens large-leaved silkpod 8.5 Apocynaceae Parsonsia lilacina crisped silkpod 13 Apocynaceae Parsonsia tenuis slender silkpod 16 Polygonaceae Persicaria elatior 14.5 Polygonaceae Persicaria praetermissa 8.5 Proteaceae Persoonia volcanica mountain geebung 8.5 Petermanniaceae Petermannia cirrosa petermannia 11 Proteaceae Petrophile shirleyae conesticks 10.5 Orchidaceae Phaius australis swamp orchid 17.5 Orchidaceae Phaius bernaysii 13 Thymelaeaceae Phaleria chermsideana scrub daphne 8.5 Phyllanthaceae Phyllanthus microcladus spiny phyllanthus 12 Phyllanthaceae Phyllanthus subcrenulatus 10 Myrtaceae Pilidiostigma rhytispermum 10.5 Thymelaeaceae Pimelea ligustrina subsp. ligustrina tall rice flower 9.5 Pittosporaceae Pittosporum oreillyanum thorny pittosporum 12 Sapotaceae Planchonella eerwah black plum 15.5 Lamiaceae Plectranthus argentatus silver plectranthus 12 Lamiaceae Plectranthus habrophyllus native coleus 24 Lamiaceae Plectranthus nitidus shiny-leaved plectranthus 20
Species of City-wide Significance for Conservation (2016 Update) ecosure.com.au | 57
Family Scientific name Common name Final score
Thelypteridaceae Pneumatopteris pennigera lime fern 13 Thelypteridaceae Pneumatopteris sogerensis giant creek fern 8.5 Podocarpaceae Podocarpus spinulosus 12 Asteraceae Podolepis monticola mountain podolepis 16 Commelinaceae Pollia macrophylla large-leaved pollia 9 Annonaceae Polyalthia nitidissima canary beech 8.5 Dryopteridaceae Polystichum formosum broad shield fern 8.5 Rhamnaceae Pomaderris crassifolia 11.5 Pomaderris lanigera var. (Mt Maroon Rhamnaceae L.S.Smith 12161) woolly pomaderris 8.5 Rhamnaceae Pomaderris notata tall pomaderris 13.5 Potamogetonaceae Potamogeton ochreatus 8.5 Orchidaceae Prasophyllum elatum tall leek orchid 13 Orchidaceae Prasophyllum flavum yellow leek-orchid 8.5 Orchidaceae Prasophyllum odoratum 8.5 Amaryllidaceae Proiphys cunninghamii Brisbane lily 10.5 Lamiaceae Prostanthera phylicifolia spiked mintbush 12 Orchidaceae Pseudovanilla foliata great climbing orchid 8.5 Rubiaceae Psychotria simmondsiana var. exigua small psychotria 10.5 Psychotria simmondsiana var. Rubiaceae glabrescens small psychotria 10.5 Psychotria simmondsiana var. Rubiaceae simmondsiana small psychotria 9.5 Pteridaceae Pteris comans hairy braken 8.5 Orchidaceae Pteroceras spathulatus 8.5 Orchidaceae Pterostylis acuminata sharp greenhood 8.5 Orchidaceae Pterostylis baptistii king greenhood 8.5 Orchidaceae Pterostylis bicornis 21 Orchidaceae Pterostylis daintreana daintree's greenhood 12 Orchidaceae Pterostylis grandiflora superb greenhood 8.5 Orchidaceae Pterostylis longifolia tall greenhood 8.5 Orchidaceae Pterostylis nigricans 10.5 Orchidaceae Pterostylis obtusa blunt tongue greenhood 11.5 Orchidaceae Pterostylis ophioglossa snake tongue greenhood 9 Orchidaceae Pterostylis parviflora tiny greenhood 8.5 Orchidaceae Pterostylis pedunculata maroonhood 13 Orchidaceae Pterostylis rufa rustyhood 13 Orchidaceae Pterostylis russellii 8.5 Orchidaceae Pterostylis vitrea 8.5 Cyperaceae Ptilothrix deusta 8.5 Fabaceae Pultenaea daphnoides 8.5
Species of City-wide Significance for Conservation (2016 Update) ecosure.com.au | 58 Family Scientific name Common name Final score
Fabaceae Pultenaea euchila orange pultenaea 8.5 Fabaceae Pultenaea microphylla 8.5 Fabaceae Pultenaea pycnocephala dense-head bush-pea 8.5 Quassia sp. (Mt Nardi B.L.Walker Simaroubaceae AQ33746) southern quassia 13.5 Rubiaceae Randia moorei spiny gardenia 16.5 Orchidaceae Rhinerrhiza divitiflora raspy root orchid 10 Orchidaceae Rhizanthella omissa 23 Orchidaceae Rhizanthella slateri eastern underground orchid 13 Myrtaceae Rhodamnia maideniana smooth scrub turpentine 12.5 Myrtaceae Rhodamnia whiteana white malletwood 8.5 Fabaceae Rhynchosia acuminatissima a climber 8.5 Cyperaceae Rhynchospora rubra a rhynchospora 11.5 Euphorbiaceae Ricinocarpos speciosus a wedding bush 15 Ripogonaceae Ripogonum fawcettianum small supplejack 8.5 Acanthaceae Rostellularia obtusa 11.5 Rosaceae Rubus nebulosus climbing raspberry 8.5 Rosaceae Rubus probus 8.5 Malvaceae Rulingia dasyphylla kerrawang 12 Malvaceae Rulingia salviifolia a shrub 15.5 Ruppiaceae Ruppia maritima 8.5 Santalaceae Santalum obtusifolium sandalwood 13 Orchidaceae Sarcochilus argochilus lawyer orchid 8.5 Orchidaceae Sarcochilus australis butterfly orchid 8.5 Orchidaceae Sarcochilus ceciliae fairy bells 8.5 Orchidaceae Sarcochilus dilatatus hoop pine orchid 13 Orchidaceae Sarcochilus fitzgeraldii ravine orchid 20.5 Orchidaceae Sarcochilus hartmannii waxy sarcochilus 14.5 Orchidaceae Sarcochilus weinthalii blotched sarcochilus 16 Sarcostemma viminale subsp. Apocynaceae brunonianum caustic vine 8.5 Schoenus lepidosperma subsp. Cyperaceae pachylepis bog-rush 13 Cyperaceae Schoenus nitens shiny bog-rush 13 Selaginellaceae Selaginella andrewsii a selaginella 21.5 Selaginellaceae Selaginella brisbanensis a selaginella 12.5 Asteraceae Senecio hispidulus 8.5 Fabaceae Senna acclinis rainforest cassia 8.5 Fabaceae Senna surattensis 8.5 Malvaceae Seringia hillii a shrub 8.5 Solanaceae Solanum discolor a solanum 8.5
Species of City-wide Significance for Conservation (2016 Update) ecosure.com.au | 59
Family Scientific name Common name Final score
Solanaceae Solanum ditrichum 8.5 Solanaceae Solanum nemophilum a shrub 8.5 Solanaceae Solanum prinophyllum forest nightshade 8.5 Solanaceae Solanum serpens hoop pine solanum 9.5 Solanaceae Solanum shirleyanum Shirley's nightshade 9.5 Solanaceae Solanum sp. (mt maroon) Mt Maroon solanum 8.5 Asteraceae Solenogyne bellioides 8.5 Fabaceae Sophora fraseri brush sophora 14.5 Asparagaceae Sowerbaea juncea 8.5 Caryophyllaceae Spergularia marina lesser sea-spurrey 8.5 Rubiaceae Spermacoce multicaulis 8.5 Fabaceae Sphaerolobium vimineum leafless globe pea 8.5 Restionaceae Sporadanthus caudatus a sedge 8.5 Restionaceae Sporadanthus interruptus a sedge 8.5 Poaceae Sporobolus diandrus 8.5 Celastraceae Stackhousia nuda leafless stackhousia 13 Celastraceae Stackhousia spathulata coast stackhousia 10.5 Caryophyllaceae Stellaria flaccida forest starwort 11.5 Gleicheniaceae Sticherus tener 8.5 Convolvulaceae Stictocardia tiliifolia 8.5 Proteaceae Strangea linearis a shrub 10.5 Stylidiaceae Stylidium ornatum ornate trigger plant 13 Stylidiaceae Stylidium tenerum swamp trigger plant 13 Hemerocallidaceae Stypandra glauca 8.5 Ericaceae Styphelia viridis subsp. breviflora green five fingers 8.5 Chenopodiaceae Suaeda arbusculoides seablite 8.5 Fabaceae Swainsona brachycarpa slender swainson-pea 8.5 Symplocaceae Symplocos baeuerlenii small-leaved hazelwood 14.5 Symplocaceae Symplocos harroldii hairy hazelwood 16.5 Symplocaceae Symplocos stawellii var. stawellii white hazelwood 13 Myrtaceae Syzygium hodgkinsoniae red lilly pilly 12.5 Myrtaceae Syzygium moorei durobby 11.5 Orchidaceae Taeniophyllum muelleri ribbon orchid 8.5 Tecticornia pergranulata subsp. Caryophyllaceae queenslandica samphire 8.5 Fabaceae Tephrosia bidwillii 11 Fabaceae Tephrosia brachyodon var. longipes 8.5 Fabaceae Tephrosia dietrichiae 8.5 Fabaceae Tephrosia filipes filipes a tephrosia 8.5
Species of City-wide Significance for Conservation (2016 Update) ecosure.com.au | 60
Family Scientific name Common name Final score
Elaeocarpaceae Tetratheca thymifolia 8.5 Lamiaceae Teucrium corymbosum a germander 10 Teucrium sp. (Ormeau G.Leiper Lamiaceae AQ476858) Ormeau germander 15 Hemerocallidaceae Thelionema caespitosum tufted blue lily 8.5 Orchidaceae Thelymitra carnea 8.5 Orchidaceae Thelymitra ixioides var. ixioides dotted sun orchid 13 Orchidaceae Thelymitra nuda scented sun orchid 8.5 Orchidaceae Thelymitra pauciflora slender sun orchid 8.5 Santalaceae Thesium australe 14.5 Thismiaceae Thismia rodwayi fairy lantern 10 Rubiaceae Timonius timon var. timon 12.5 Menispermaceae Tinospora tinosporoides arrowhead vine 11.5 Hemerocallidaceae Tricoryne anceps subsp. pterocaulon 8.5 Rubiaceae Triflorensia cameronii diplospora 16.5 Juncaginaceae Triglochin microtuberosa 8.5 Trimeniaceae Trimenia moorei bitter vine 8.5 Poaceae Trisetum spicatum subsp. australiense bristle grass 8.5 Myrtaceae Tristaniopsis collina hill kanuka 9.5 Proteaceae Triunia youngiana native honeysuckle 10.5 Apocynaceae Tylophora benthamii coast tylophora 8.5 Apocynaceae Tylophora grandiflora 8.5 Apocynaceae Tylophora woollsii 17.5 Araceae Typhonium brownii stink lily 10 Fabaceae Uraria lagopodioides 12.5 Myrtaceae Uromyrtus lamingtonensis Lamington peach myrtle 13.5 Urticaceae Urtica incisa stinging nettle 8.5 Fabaceae Viminaria juncea 8.5 Lamiaceae Vitex trifolia var. trifolia coastal vitex 8.5 Pteridaceae Vittaria ensiformis tape fern 8.5 Campanulaceae Wahlenbergia glabra a bluebell 8.5 Campanulaceae Wahlenbergia scopulicola rock-face bluebell 13.5 Lamiaceae Westringia blakeana blake's mintbush 13.5 Lamiaceae Westringia eremicola slender westringia 8.5 Lamiaceae Westringia rupicola a shrub 20 Ericaceae Woollsia pungens a shrub 12 Colchicaceae Wurmbea dioica subsp. dioica early nancy 8.5 Apiaceae Xanthosia pilosa woolly xanthosia 10.5 Xerochrysum bracteatum subsp. Mt Asteraceae merino 10.5
Species of City-wide Significance for Conservation (2016 Update) ecosure.com.au | 61
Family Scientific name Common name Final score
Salicaceae Xylosma terrae-reginae 8.5 Orchidaceae Zeuxine oblonga an orchid 13 Rutaceae Zieria adenodonta Wollumbin zieria 9 Rutaceae Zieria arborescens subsp. arborescens stinkwood 15.5 Rutaceae Zieria collina Mt Tamborine zieria 14.5 Rutaceae Zieria southwellii Lamington zieria 13.5
Species of City-wide Significance for Conservation (2016 Update) ecosure.com.au | 62 Appendix 6 Species assessment spreadsheets
Please see attached spreadsheet.
sx
Species of City-wide Significance for Conservation (2016 Update) ecosure.com.au | 63 Appendix 7 Back on Track Phase II criteria
Species of City-wide Significance for Conservation (2016 Update) ecosure.com.au | 64
Species of City-wide Significance for Conservation (2016 Update) ecosure.com.au | 65
Appendix 8 Peer Review Group meeting attendees
Meeting to review the recommended decision-support framework for prioritising species
Date: 19th May 2016
Location: City of Gold Coast office Waterside East, Bundall
Attendees
Carmel Peacock, CoGC Blair Prince, CoGC Nina Bishop, CoGC Tina Strachan, CoGC Frank McGrath, CoGC Grant Perriot, CoGC Gillian McLeay, CoGC Mikalah Koch, CoGC Tony Adkins, CoGC Beth Kramer, Ecosure Julie Whelan, Ecosure Nicola Catanzariti, Ecosure Luke Shoo, University of Queensland
Species of City-wide Significance for Conservation (2016 Update) ecosure.com.au | 66
Appendix 9 External peer review on Options Analysis Report
Species of City Wide Significance for Conservation (2016 Update) Comments from External Peers on Options Analysis Report and Decision Framework for Prioritising Species Collated by Gillian McLeay (CoGC) 18 May 2016
Comments Objective or Back on track PPP Social/Iconic Summary/Conclusion & Links from queries other Recommendations Josie Queried If the goal is to Typically more useful to Input from stakeholders Need to define clear Link to previous case Carwardine, whether goal generate a prioritise actions (such as the of the city would be objective. studies which have all Conservation is to generate species list, then approach used for PPP) so useful as it makes them PPP approach preferred, been large regions, Decisions list of priority using the relevant can set priorities with part owners of the however if use Back on however is a Team - CSIRO species or to parts of Back on knowledge of the costs, process and more Track II, avoid prioritising generalised tool that can Land and prioritise Track phase II is a feasibility and benefits (to supportive. Agree with until consider actions. be used at any scale. Water amongst list. reasonable one or more species) of a the report that need to Involve stakeholders and http://www.csiro.au/en/R What is the approach if it suits specific action. be wary of focusing too esearch/LWF/Areas/Eco the objectives for much on the popularity avoid weighting popular objective for If species are prioritised first, species. systems- the city from the city. then actions attached later, aspects of species biodiversity/Monitoring- If the next phase is to species lists But if possible we the initial prioritisation may value, including the biodiversity/Conservatio public opinion through prioritise amongst actions to -> can be would suggest not actually be very good n-decisions avoiding the use of resources, and may their direct input would benefit species on this list, informed by be really valuable way then an approach like PPP Paper by Eddie Game panel on what scoring approach need to be redone with the and colleagues could be to improve the ‘social would be suitable. can survive in to prioritise additional information that is helpful in describing why amongst them, attached to the action. license for biodiversity Another option is to use a City. action’. its typically better to and leave the modified approach of PTM prioritise actions rather prioritisation to the (Priority Threat than species or places. next stage where Management), which has actions can be been developed at CSIRO. http://onlinelibrary.wiley. considered. PTM could be really useful com/doi/10.1111/cobi.12 because it can prioritise a set 051/full of management scenarios across for the benefit of multiple species, whereas PPP focuses on separate actions for each species and can be less efficient if we can improve multiple species outcomes with fewer strategies.
Species of City-wide Significance for Conservation (2016 Update) ecosure.com.au | 67
Comments Objective or Back on track PPP Social/Iconic Summary/Conclusion & Links from queries other Recommendations Luke Shoo, Queried Benefit of Project If is for conservation National Threatened School of whether goal Prioritisation Protocol (PPP) planning projects and direct Species Recovery Hub Biological is to identify approach (and possibly other future conservation action by (http://www.nespthreate Sciences, priority tools) is that it considers at Council and the community, nedspecies.edu.au/) The University species or the same time BOTH the list then PPP would work. of Queensland actions for of species AND possible Investigate opportunities for species. management actions (cost, overlap with the ARC benefit, likelihood of Linkage project. success) to identify the best projects that are most likely to get you what you want e.g. maximise the expected persistence (no. of species safe from extinction) of a suite of species given the budget available. For that type of application then, the fact the PPP approach ‘prioritises projects rather than species’ would seem to be a strength rather than a disadvantage (as suggested in Table 1 of the report). Hugh Gave views on For more widespread Possingham, approaches threatened species affected School of for both. by generic threats – fire, feral Biological predators, disturbance by Sciences, The people etc., an action University of prioritisation approach Queensland similar to Carwardine et al – where actions at scale benefit multiple species (and habitats). Modified Peters formula is pretty close to the PPP approach and seems a reasonable compromise between back on track and PPP.
Species of City-wide Significance for Conservation (2016 Update) ecosure.com.au | 68
Comments Objective or Back on track PPP Social/Iconic Summary/Conclusion & Links from queries other Recommendations Paul Donatiu, Queried if Generally Don’t support inclusion Consider vulnerability to http://www.timlow.com/c SEQ ‘future supports Back on of social values in the projected climate impact. onsultancy/climate- Catchments management Track II DSF. criteria for species Concur to not use change/climate-change- Limited actions’ = assessments to avoid weightings. in-queensland future bias towards popular conservation species. Scoring in 3a and 3b (p23) – reverse potentially true management actions. (knowledge of threats and feasibility of conservation). P23 evolutionary value: narrow definition or measure. Consider ancient species linkages, centres of endemism, refugia species. Pg 23 1a: Include EPBC and ICUN. Recommend investigating use of ARC Linkage. Kerrie Wilson, Gave views on If want to identify ARC Linkage funded project To send through School of approaches priority species titled “Smart allocation of Martina’s species Biological for identifying then using the restoration funds”. If you planning tool. Sciences, The priority modified Back on move beyond simply University of species or for Track process is identifying priority species, to Queensland identifying likely fine. identifying priority actions priority then there are likely to be actions. some strong synergies between these two threads. There are thus likely to be strong efficiencies afforded to Council by trying to align these two streams across the teams involved. At that point we could work through the details of the utility of a PPP planning tool for that work.
Species of City-wide Significance for Conservation (2016 Update) ecosure.com.au | 69
Appendix 10 The Spring – threats to priority species
Threat category relevant to the South East Queensland region (taken from DEHP 2015)
• Clearing of vegetation (resulting in fragmentation of habitat)
• Urban development
• Inappropriate fire regimes
• Flow regime
• Road maintenance
• Weeds
• Small population size
• Weeds - exotic pasture species
• Recreation / tourism
• Water quality
• Weeds - exotic ponded pasture species
• Collectors
• Inappropriate grazing regimes
• Clearing of vegetation
Species of City-wide Significance for Conservation (2016 Update) ecosure.com.au | 70
Revision History
Revision No. Revision date Details Prepared by Reviewed by Approved by 00 2/06/2016 Species of City- Julie Whelan, Nicola Beth Kramer, wide Significance Senior Catanzariti, Gold Coast for Conservation Environmental Ecologist Manager/ Senior (2016 update) Scientist Environmental draft report Scientist 01 16/06/2016 Revised draft Julie Whelan, Beth Kramer, Gold Coast Manager/ report Senior Senior Environmental Scientist Environmental Scientist 02 28/06/2016 Final report Julie Whelan, Beth Kramer, Gold Coast Manager/ Senior Senior Environmental Scientist Environmental Scientist
Distribution List
Copy # Date Type Issued to Name 1 28/06/2016 Electronic and City of Gold Coast Carmel Peacock Word 2 28/06/2016 Electronic Ecosure Administration
Citation: Ecosure (2016), Species of City-wide Significance for Conservation (2016 update) final report, Report to City of Gold Coast, Publication Location – Burleigh Heads
Report compiled by Ecosure Pty Ltd
ABN: 63 106 067 976 [email protected] www.ecosure.com.au
PR1599-RE.Species of City-wide Significance for Conservation.R2
Adelaide Brisbane Gold Coast PO Box 145 PO Box 675 PO Box 404 Pooraka SA 5095 Fortitude Valley QLD 4006 West Burleigh QLD 4219 P 1300 112 021 P 07 3606 1030 P 07 5508 2046 M 0407 295 766 F 07 5508 2544
Rockhampton Sydney PO Box 235 PO Box 880 Rockhampton QLD 4700 Surry Hills NSW 2010 P 07 4994 1000 P 1300 112 021 F 07 4994 1012
© Ecosure Proprietary Limited 2016 Commercial in confidence. The information contained in this document produced by Ecosure Pty Ltd is solely for the use of the Client identified on the cover sheet for the purpose for which it has been prepared and Ecosure Pty Ltd undertakes no duty to or accepts any responsibility to any third party who may rely upon this document. All rights reserved. No section or element of this document may be removed from this documents, reproduced, electronically stored or transmitted in any form without the written permission of Ecosure Pty Ltd.