PORT MACQUARIE-HASTING COUNCIL BUSHLAND RESERVE … · Electronic File Name 8055_pmhc final report on bushland mgt reform v4.doc Date Last Saved 29/4/2009 Date Last Printed 29/4/2009

ETHOS NRM Pty Ltd

ABN: 44 104 999 528 PO Box 204, 162 Macleod St Bairnsdale, Vic. 3875 Telephone: 03-5153 0037 Facsimile: 03-5153 0038 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.ethosnrm.com.au

ENV IRONMENTAL , P L A N N I N G & NATURAL RESOURC E MANAG E MENT

C O N S U L T A N T S

PORT MACQUARIE-HASTING COUNCIL BUSHLAND RESERVE MANAGEMENT REFORM Health Assessment Reserve ranking Reserve management

Prepared for: Port Macquarie Hastings Council

April 2009 – FINAL REPORT

PMHC Bushland Reserve Management Reform

Port Macquarie-Hasitngs Council

ETHOS NRM E N V I R O N M E N T A L , P L A N N I N G & N A T U R A L R E S O U R C E M A N A G E M E N T C O N S U L T A N T S

Page 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................................. 5 1.1 KEY FINDINGS.......................................................................................................... 5 1.2 KEY DEFICIENCIES ................................................................................................... 6 1.3 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................ 6 1.4 CRITICAL FUTURE MANAGEMENT ISSUES................................................................... 7

2 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 9 2.1 BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................... 9 2.2 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVE ....................................................................................... 9 2.3 SCOPE AND EXTENT ................................................................................................ 9 2.4 PROJECT OUTPUTS AND DELIVERABLES .................................................................. 9

2.4.1 Alterations to the Brief ................................................................................... 10 3 OVERARCHING PRINCIPLES .................................................................................. 13

4 METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................... 13 4.1 DEVELOP BUSHLAND SITE HEALTH PRO FORMA AND ANNUAL BUSHLAND ASSESSMENT13 4.2 KEY TO THE ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES OF THE LGA............................................ 13 4.3 HEALTH ASSESSMENT CATEGORIES: WHAT THEY MEAN AND HOW TO FILL THEM IN .. 14

5 CONSULTATIONS AND FIELDWORK ..................................................................... 14 5.1 PUBLIC LIAISON..................................................................................................... 14 5.2 BUSHLAND RESERVES HEALTH ASSESSMENT ........................................................ 14

5.2.1 Reserve Ranking Score................................................................................. 14 5.2.2 Onsite factors ................................................................................................ 15 5.2.3 Neighbourhood factors .................................................................................. 15

5.3 BUSHLAND RESERVES ACTION PLANS ................................................................... 15 5.3.1 Reserve Health Ranking Score ..................................................................... 15 5.3.2 Onsite factors ................................................................................................ 16 5.3.3 Neighbourhood factors .................................................................................. 16

5.4 SPECIES AND KEYSTONE SPECIES: MISSING OR UNDER-REPRESENTED .................... 16 5.4.1 Palms............................................................................................................. 16 5.4.2 Pioneer and/or secondary species on restoration sites................................. 17 5.4.3 Coast Banksia ............................................................................................... 17 5.4.4 Mistletoes: why they are missing and should they be replanted? ................. 17 5.4.5 Figs................................................................................................................ 18

5.5 SITE, SOCIAL OR INSTITUTIONAL CONSTRAINTS....................................................... 18 6 RESULTS................................................................................................................... 20

6.1 BUSHLAND RESERVE RANKING............................................................................... 20 6.1.1 Health Score rankings ................................................................................... 20 6.1.2 Site conservation significance ....................................................................... 21 6.1.3 Comparison of effort (health) vs. priority (conservation significance)............ 21

6.2 INDIVIDUAL BUSHLAND ACTION PLANS................................................................... 21 6.3 SPECIFIC MANAGEMENT ACTIONS: PRIORITIES BY RESERVE (SHORT-TERM GOALS) .. 21

6.3.1 Weeds and their treatment ............................................................................ 21 6.3.2 Stressors and mitigation actions.................................................................... 23 6.3.3 Reserve tasks (based on threats, completed works, likelihood of success).. 23

7 RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................................. 23




Page 2

7.1 LONG TERM GOALS................................................................................................ 23 7.1.1 Use of fire (or inability to do so)..................................................................... 26 7.1.2 Nutrient reduction .......................................................................................... 26 7.1.3 Storm water ................................................................................................... 27 7.1.4 Water-logging ................................................................................................ 27

7.2 SHORT TO MEDIUM-TERM GOALS (BUSHLAND RESERVE ACTION PLANS)................. 27 7.2.1 General medium term actions ....................................................................... 27 7.2.2 Timing of aerial Bitou control ......................................................................... 28 7.2.3 Palms............................................................................................................. 29 7.2.4 Mowing encroachment and reclaiming bush ................................................. 29 7.2.5 Poor mowing behaviour................................................................................. 30 7.2.6 Mowing, bush regeneration win wins............................................................. 30

7.3 GENERAL ACTIONS FOR THREATENED VEGETATION AND SPECIES ........................... 31 7.3.1 Vegetation conservation significance ............................................................ 31 7.3.2 Freshwater Wetlands..................................................................................... 33 7.3.3 Littoral Rainforest .......................................................................................... 34 7.3.4 Lowland Subtropical Rainforest..................................................................... 35 7.3.5 Saltmarsh ...................................................................................................... 39 7.3.6 Subtropical Floodplain Forest........................................................................ 39 7.3.7 Swamp Oak Floodplain Forest ...................................................................... 39 7.3.8 Swamp Sclerophyll Forest............................................................................. 40 7.3.9 Themeda Headlands ..................................................................................... 40 7.3.10 Flora conservation significance ..................................................................... 41 7.3.11 Fauna conservation significance ................................................................... 42 7.3.12 Koalas............................................................................................................ 43

7.4 CLIMATE CHANGE .................................................................................................. 44 7.4.1 Climate change (fire risk, rising sea levels, increasing temperatures) .......... 44 7.4.2 Prioritisation actions by category................................................................... 45

7.5 PLANNING: GETTING AHEAD OF THE GAME.............................................................. 48 7.5.1 LGA Weed Alert process ............................................................................... 48 7.5.2 Hierarchy for Municipal planting decisions .................................................... 48 7.5.3 Planting by land zone for Council, domestic and commercial sites ............... 49 7.5.4 Soil carbon..................................................................................................... 50

7.6 THREATENING PROCESSES .................................................................................... 52 7.6.1 State and national level threatening processes............................................. 52 7.6.2 Council mediated threatening processes ...................................................... 53

7.7 REINFORCING EXISTING WORKS ............................................................................. 54 7.7.1 Edge plantings............................................................................................... 54 7.7.2 Supplementary plantings ............................................................................... 56

7.8 STRATEGIC THREAT MITIGATION (WEEDS, FRAGMENTATION) ................................... 57 7.8.1 Acknowledge limitation of resources: SAY NO.............................................. 58 7.8.2 Successional planning for expert staff........................................................... 58 7.8.3 Grow me instead ........................................................................................... 59

7.9 COMMUNITY INITIATIVES AND SUPPORT................................................................... 59 7.9.1 Landcare nursery........................................................................................... 59 7.9.2 Creating demand for local plants................................................................... 60 7.9.3 Working with nurseries .................................................................................. 60

7.10 OFF-RESERVE CONNECTIVITY OPTIONS (IN URBAN AND PERI-URBAN LANDSCAPES).. 61 7.10.1 Weakest links ................................................................................................ 62

8 TRAINING .................................................................................................................. 62 8.1 REPORTING RESULTS, TRAINING AND FEEDBACK .................................................... 62




Page 3

8.1.1 Council officer training for Bushland Health Assessment.............................. 62 8.1.2 Prioritisation workshop .................................................................................. 62

9 FUTURE TASKS........................................................................................................ 64 9.1 FUTURE TASKS ...................................................................................................... 65

10 ATTACHMENTS ........................................................................................................ 66 10.1 ATTACHMENT 1: KEY TO THE ECS AND EECS OF THE PMHC LGA ......................... 66 10.2 ATTACHMENT 2: EXPLANATION OF HEALTH ASSESSMENT CATEGORIES AND HOW TO FILL THEM IN.................................................................................................................... 68 10.3 ATTACHMENT 3: SHELLY BEACH AERIAL BITOU CONTROL REVIEW.......................... 72

11 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 76

12 GLOSSARY ............................................................................................................... 77

13 APPENDICES ............................................................................................................ 78 13.1 APPENDIX 1. OVERARCHING PRINCIPLES............................................................... 78 13.2 APPENDIX 2. PRIORITISATION RESULTS ................................................................. 86 13.3 APPENDIX 3. MISTLETOES..................................................................................... 87 13.4 APPENDIX 4. THREATENED TAXA, VEGETATION AND THREATENING PROCESSES...... 89 13.5 APPENDIX 5. PLANTING SPECIES LISTS .................................................................. 89 13.6 APPENDIX 6. COUNCIL WEED RISK AND GROW-ME-INSTEAD.................................... 89




Page 4

Cover Photo: Blair Reserve, Lighthouse Beach Port Macquarie. Swamp Sclerophyll Forest in excellent condition as the result of high quality bush regeneration by Port Macquarie Landcare volunteers. Currently there are three TSC Act listed entities in this reserve: Swamp Sclerophyll Forest that provides habitat for the vulnerable Biconvex Paperbark Melaleuca biconvexa and Swamp Oak Sclerophyll Forest. The current proviso is used advisedly as to date there have been no systematic surveys for threatened species.

Ethos NRM Pty Ltd Document Control Client Port Macquarie-Hastings Council Title PMHC Bushland Reserve Management Reform Project Author Bill Peel Manager Eric Sjerp Version Final v4.0 Electronic File Name 8055_pmhc final report on bushland mgt reform v4.doc Date Last Saved 29/4/2009 Date Last Printed 29/4/2009 No. Format Date

DRAFT - Thor Aaso – Port Macquarie-Hastings Council for community and agency comment

1 Word doc 02-02-09

Final Document - Thor Aaso 1 PDF 29/04/09

Distribution:




Page 5

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This review involved substantial community and Council consultation and training in Bushland Health Assessments and priority setting. Bushland management has five phases:

1. Assessment (what is the site’s health, current progress and status);

2. Prioritisation: (which actions: where and why);

3. Initial knockdown and landscape-scale weed control: (reducing the weed load);

4. Bush regeneration: finessing the site allowing it to naturally regenerate and become strong again; and

5. Ecological maintenance: keeping the site healthy and robust against threats.

The Port Macquarie Hastings Council’s requires a logical, repeatable and scientific method to prioritise its Bushland Reserve management as well as to be able to measure progress towards defined targets and goals. The method developed and the work undertaken in this project fulfils these requirements. It prioritises reserves to be managed; lists actions for each reserve; and delivers a benchmark assessment against which progress can be measured.

1.1 Key findings Of the 48 sites assessed, the Health Score rankings show the Council’s Bushland Reserve estate to have:

4 reserves LEVEL 1: ECOLOGICAL MAINTENANCE (8% of the total);

7 reserves LEVEL 2: NEAR TO ECOLOGICAL MAINTENANCE (15% of total);

14 reserves LEVEL 3: ACHIEVING ECOLOGICAL MAINTENANCE (29% of total);

10 reserves LEVEL 4: REQUIRING CONSOLIDATION (21% of total); and

13 reserves LEVEL 5: STATUS QUO (27% of total).

Other major findings of the project were:

• Good work is being done;

• Past prioritisation has largely (and appropriately) concentrated on high conservation sites;

• There is fantastic good will between Council and those working on the reserves;

• The excellent outcomes observed during the project are a testament to both strong ownership and good communication between the Council and the reserve’s volunteers.

Excellent Council practices include:

• Recognition of the inextricable links between the human and social element of good reserve management (engaging and involving local residents and communities);

• Strong and consistent action on encroachment into reserves;

• Sensitive and appropriate development and implementation of APZs; and

• Prioritised and phased application of reserve management based on site-based and landscape priorities.




Page 6

1.2 Key deficiencies Such deficiencies hinder efficient and appropriate reserve management in the LGA.

Strategic deficiencies include:

• No Biodiversity Strategy (expected to commence in 2010);

• No comprehensive (LGA-wide) Urban Growth Strategy;

• The lack of a comprehensive Koala Habitat Assessment and Plan of Management; and

• The obvious integration and links required between these.

Policy deficiencies include:

• A previous lack of a strategic overview (partially addressed by this work); and

• Council plantings of environmental weeds in parks and streetscapes that are degrading the Bushland estate.

Organisational deficiencies include:

• Insufficient ecological expertise within Council to meet its legislative, management and strategic responsibilities for biodiversity within the LGA;

• A lack of an in-house bush regeneration team that can efficiently take on the task of ecological maintenance of sites once they have been restored by contractors; and

• The need for successional planning within the Natural Resources Section for the replacement of the pivotal expertise of Graham Guy. The successes in the Council’s landscape weed knockdown program should not be lost for want of a mentoring approach to train a fully capable replacement to take on his role at the time that Graeme retires.

Reserve management deficiencies include:

• Mowing impinging on Bushland Reserves due to a lack of reserve use zonation;

• A lack of threatened species assessment for all of the Council’s Bushland Reserves.

1.3 Recommendations These are divided into long and medium to short term goals. Each should be addressed in turn and where there are linkages and synergies, several may be grouped into a single concerted response. More detail is provided in Section 7

Long-term goals

• Reduce the weed load by:

o Using a catchment down approach, being both strategic at the landscape scale as well as targeted and consistent at the local scale;

o Eliminating environmental weeds from Council plantings, targeting reserve neighbours with the same goal in mind, whilst educating gardeners and local nurseries about their roles and responsibilities to the wider natural environment.




Page 7

• Connectivity to be enhanced by: o Incorporating substantial and viable connections between reserves through

planning, strategies and other instruments;

o Improve the health of existing reserves;

o Renovation of existing exotic or non-native municipal plantings with appropriate indigenous substitute species;

o Street and road reserve plantings of appropriate indigenous species (that take account of other uses and risks such as fire) which can provide diffuse connections between reserves that are otherwise isolated by housing or other infrastructure; and

o Develop cooperative community programs to ‘expand existing reserves’ through encouraging resident’s to develop bush gardens of indigenous species.

• Fire: o Should be routinely incorporated into sclerophyll dominated reserves for

ecological purposes where it is safe to do so, and that unplanned fires are likely to continue and that sufficient access and APZ’s be incorporated into any restoration plans in flammable ecological communities to ensure asset protection.

• Nutrient reduction: o The build-up of nutrients is a threatening process for some low nutrient

ecological communities which are acerbated by a lack of fire, urban stormwater run-off. If there are no means of alleviating this situation an altered ecological trajectory should be accommodated.

Medium to Short-term goals

• Action Plans and prioritisation of works:

o Follow the suggested Action Plan for each reserve, modifying them as circumstances change and adaptive management is applied from lessons learnt, using the Plan as the basis for determining priorities.

• Site assessments for the remaining Council reserves:

o There is a need to conduct Health Assessments for the balance of Council reserves to deal with their management requirements and to provide a pool of reserves from which to draw new projects once the existing reserves attain LEVEL 1. Early assessment and intervention will save Council time and resources in the long run.

1.4 Critical future management issues

• Connectivity o Through the Biodiversity Strategy Council and NPWS are to address future

regional connectivity of native vegetation with a strategy that links remnant vegetation (not currently part of the reserve system) and the existing reserve system




Page 8

• Climate change o The Biodiversity Strategy should contain a climate change adaptation

component that should specifically address the needs of groups of reserves based on their composition, conservation status, their exposure to climate change and the degree of threat.

o The Biodiversity Strategy should identify climate change refugia and climate change freeways for biodiversity so that resources and planning can take account of these factors for biodiversity conservation and management across the LGA.

• Site limitations based on past land use: o Historic land use may deflect, limit or delay the return past vegetation

recovery (e.g. sandmining, dairy farms, old tip sites in bushland etc.). Understanding these limitations and changing the restoration trajectory may be necessary for some sites (tips on nutrient poor sands being restored as rainforests, or sand mined sites being restored to Banksia Woodland to reinstate soil carbon before the site’s previous Littoral Rainforest are reinstated would be two examples).

• Management of reserves for both flora and fauna o All reserves require flora and fauna surveys and management for these

values (Biodiversity Strategy).




Page 9

2 INTRODUCTION

2.1 Background This project arose from recommendations in the Natural Area Bushland Plan of Management (Hastings Council 2001). Port Macquarie Hastings Council contracted Ethos NRM Pty Ltd to undertake a Bushland Health Assessment and to provide Action Plan recommendations based on priorities between and within reserves as well as any strategic wider landscape issues that would assist reserve management and viability.

2.2 Purpose and Objective The purpose of this project was to provide expert advice based on the current and past management of reserves and their current health. The objective of the project was to assess the progress and effectiveness of bushland reserve management in the PMHC area by undertaking a health assessment of all of the reserves that have received management. A pro-forma was to be developed, reserves assessed, recommendations made for the Action Plan and reserves ranked on their health and conservation status.

2.3 Scope and Extent The study area covers only the Council-managed Bushland Reserves that have had recent management activity conducted in them. Of the original 53 reserves listed for assessment, 2 were taken from the list by the client (Mrs. Yorks Garden and Wilson River Crown Reserve), one was not assessed because of low biological values (Tunis St. Laurieton) leaving 50 sites to be visited. Upon assessment, it was decided that another two (Scarborough Way and Telegraph Point) were to be combined with their adjacent reserves (Googleys Lagoon Southern Foreshore and Telegraph Point respectively) and their condition reported under those reserve names. Consequently 48 reserves are referred to from this point forward.

The geographic area is largely to the east of the Pacific Highway to the coast within the Local Government Area; with the exceptions of several sites on the Hastings River upstream of the highway (Partridge Creek, Rocks Ferry Bridge, Sancrox Reserve and Ellenborough Reserve).

2.4 Project Outputs and Deliverables The following outputs and deliverables have been agreed in the Project Brief:

1. Develop a bushland site health assessment pro-forma in liaison with Council;

2. Assess the current health status of areas under current or past active management (52 sites totalling 552ha);

3. Rank each bushland area in terms of its management priority concurrent with regional factors (habitat links/corridors);




Page 10

4. Provide Action Plans for each site where a formal Action Plan is lacking (50 sites). Action plan to be a simple 2 page document with map. Action Plan to summarise:

a. Tabulated weed list and treatment methodology;

b. List of identified stressors and action plan to mitigate against these;

c. Short and long term goals;

d. Health ranking score;

e. Known threatened species/critical habitat/ecological communities;

5. Liaise with Landcare:

a. Understand site and rehabilitation work history and issues;

b. Explain and walk through the action plan (with Council Officers;

6. Develop an annual bushland health assessment pro-forma and train Council Officers (and two bush regenerators) to enable PMHC to assess the rehabilitation progress of each site in the future.

2.4.1 Alterations to the Brief

The process of project evolution has been documented in Table 1.




Page 11

Table 1. Alterations to the brief

Issue (and origin) Request Action Natural Area Bushland Plan of Management (Hastings 2001) recommendations (Liam)

Reinforce agreement and highlight conflict with recommendations of (Hastings 2001)

Incorporate into Report

Cultural sites (Thor) Incorporate acknowledgement of presence on the site

Include on health assessment pro forma (DONE)

Weed control in natural areas and reserves by Council Staff (Thor)

Seasonality.vs finessing

Review current approach and provide recommendations for changing priority, staging and methodology.

Will collect data on the job and will provide recommendations if there is time: really a separate project. (dealt with in 6.3.1)

Weeds and treatment (add on) Method: provide a compendium based on operators experience: Grant, Dave, Sue, Graeme, Estelle, Julie

High priority: submit quote for this as an extra

Multiple site assessments based on management units within each reserve (Bill)

Health Assessments need to be done on management units to fairly reflect health differences related to past management and duration of activity

Principle agreed, time taken to do it may mean full reserve health assessment/or ranking is not possible and some may need to be left out (Grants Beach only case)




Page 12

Table 1 cont’d. Alterations to the brief

Issue (and origin) Request Action Multiple site assessments based on management units within each reserve (Bill)

Site/Reserve rankings need to be done on management units to fairly reflect health differences related to past management and duration of activity

Principle agreed, time taken to do it though may mean reserve plans for all sites may not be possible and some may need to be left out. As we progress a priority list will emerge. (Modified by addressing specific issues in each reserve)

Key performance indicator

For the environment section

Previously new ha opened up.

Change to improvement in area of the 4 site quality zones

Incorporate into report (DONE)

Site Assessment: an aerial bitou determination: Christmas Bells Plains Bitou strategy

Where to do whole of weed attack (Graeme): probably associated with weed source in Lake Cathie and then further north by helicopter (Bitou only)

DONE (see Health Assessment)

Themeda Headlands meeting with Mike Dodkin and David Filipczyk.

Needed to provide some strength to management recommendations

DONE: see field notes, this is really whole new project in itself




Page 13

3 OVERARCHING PRINCIPLES There are a series of overarching principles that are important for bushland management. Bush Reserve managers need to take these into account when working in reserves or considering the viability of individual reserves in fragmented landscapes. These have been listed and are described in Appendix 1: Overarching Principles.

4 METHODOLOGY The methodologies outlined below have been developed in cooperation with the people who manage and work on the reserves in the municipality. The approach adopted in this report is to let those doing the work, discover the answers. The major objective behind this approach is to ensure that those who must carry out the recommendations of this report, want to do it, can do it and will do it.

4.1 Develop bushland site health pro forma and annual bushland assessment

The bushland site health assessment methodology was developed in close consultation with the Bushland Reserves team (Liam Bulley, Mathew Rogers, Thor Aaso, Paul O’Connor, and Graeme Guy).

The goals are:

• Assess the current health of the site using practical, easy to apply, self-explanatory methods;

• Use information in the assessment that provides ecological meaning and real management advice to reserve and site managers; and

• Use the health assessment as one of the components that would feed into the reserve management prioritisation process.

Rankings from the scoring were to include both thresholds (i.e. the site meets a certain significance if it falls into a numerical range) as well as a trumping schema where a single record, or site feature will meet a threshold (e.g. a long-active site, one with high community involvement, icon sites, listed threatened community etc.).

The categories in the scoring were:

• Landscape context; • Neighbourhood context; • Inherent site factors; • Altered site factors; • Human factors (site management); • Site and neighbourhood relations (working with people); • Financial resources (funding); • Human resources (people);

4.2 Key to the Ecological Communities of the LGA In order to undertake the Health Assessment, the assessor needs to be able to identify the presence of specific vegetation types. A key to the Ecological Communities (ECs) and Endangered Ecological Communities (EECs) of the LGA is provided in Attachment 1.




Page 14

4.3 Health Assessment categories: what they mean and how to fill them in The Health Assessment pro-forma covers four pages and has many categories which requires a uniform understanding of their meaning and how to fill them in. This will ensure consistency between assessors and between successive assessments for the same site. Such assessments should be undertaken by a suitably qualified ecologist on an annual basis in cooperation with reserve volunteers in order to maintain both consistency and the involvement of the community.

Understanding these categories and filling them in correctly will help to provide robust data and conclusions on the health of individual reserves and the progress being made to manage them. To aid in this process Attachment 2 provides an explanation of the categories and how to fill them in.

5 CONSULTATIONS AND FIELDWORK

5.1 Public Liaison The following individuals and groups were involved in Bushland Reserve health assessments and in some cases were also trained in the methodology:

• Council officers most associated with specific reserves: o Paul O’Connor (trained); o Graeme Guy (trained); and o Thor Aaso (trained).

• Landcare: o Julie Ho (trained); o Estelle Gough (trained); o Ken Errington; o Nikala Sim (trained so she could assess a proposed new site);

• NPWS on Themeda Headlands: o Mike Dodkin and Cathy Mardell;

• Bush regenerators: o Sue Reagan of Wildthings Gardens(trained); and o Dave Filipczyk of Hastings Bush Regeneration Services (trained).

5.2 Bushland Reserves Health Assessment The health assessment process was developed by Ethos NRM Pty. Ltd. and then sent out to the client, Landcare and the bush regenerators for comment and amendment. The amended method formed the basis of the assessment.

5.2.1 Reserve Ranking Score The ranking score is a composite of features with weightings directly from the site health assessments (onsite factors) as well as other factors such as Ecological Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC) status, Threatened Species Conservation Act status, State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) mapped areas, strategic landscape position and management progress on each site. Additional factors were also brought to bear once the rankings had been set. These included: impact of doing nothing on nearby sites (primarily transforming weeds that would spread from otherwise low priority sites onto high quality sites); legal requirements (development agreements (Seachange on Wrights Creek at Flynns Beach), covenants on Crown Land (Pelican Point); and sites that are the subject of court-ordered restitution (Partridge Creek).




Page 15

5.2.2 Onsite factors The range of site factors used in the health assessment include: site management, financial and human resources; key (ecological processes); altered site factors, EEC and threatened species presence and their health; transformer weed distribution, weed control and reserve resilience.

5.2.3 Neighbourhood factors A range of neighbourhood factors can play a role in the viability of the site and their inclusion in the Health Assessment recognises both their importance as landscape scale determinants of viability as well as their role in social support for Bushland Reserve viability and sustainability.

The following neighbourhood factors were scored:

• Physical connectivity to other natural areas;

• ‘Virtual’ connectivity (through dispersal and pollination);

• Human neighbourhood relations; and

• Key ecological processes: ecotones, hydrology and edges.

5.3 Bushland Reserves Action Plans The Action Plans are intended to provide guidance to reserve managers, contractors, workers and volunteers who work on Bushland Reserves managed by the municipality. They are derived directly from each site’s Health Assessments recommendations that were formulated during filed work and included community consultation. Additional tasks have been added as a result of a landscape scale analysis of other factors that impact on the viability and health of reserves (e.g. working on another nearby reserves that are infecting a currently active reserve nearby; reducing the weed load etc.).

5.3.1 Reserve Health Ranking Score Whilst the status quo for funding allocation is to remain for currently active reserves, the Health Ranking Score (Appendix 2: 2a), shows that some sites are much closer to ecological maintenance than others and that these hold together relatively well based on their health score. As a consequence, and as a management guide, the calculation worksheet has been transformed) into Health Categories that suggest big picture actions (Appendix 2: 2b.

The Health Categories (Appendix 2: 2b) and their big picture management are as follows:

LEVEL 1: ECOLOGICAL MAINTENANCE (4 reserves; 8% of the total): sustain reserves and retain gains through ecological maintenance and deal with small scale issues as required. Not all reserves in this category are completely there or without issues (e.g. Kooloongbung: see Action Plan);

LEVEL 2: NEAR TO ECOLOGICAL MAINTENANCE (7 reserves; 15% of total): this is usually the post weed knockdown phase (the correct methods and prioritisation are occurring, so keep at it!). The goal of achieving ecological maintenance is in sight;




Page 16

LEVEL 3: ACHIEVABLE (14 reserves, 29% of total): some knockdown still required in some sections and significant edge closure, natural regeneration or restoration is still required. This can only be achieved through the application of bush regeneration to these sites that have had their major weed infestations knocked down. So maintain momentum, stay focused and strategic: attending to secondary issues following major weed knockdown and repair and ecological maintenance will come with time;

LEVEL 4: CONSOLIDATE (11 reserves, 23% of total): significant work required, knockdown usually just underway, monitor for secondary weed infestations and other issues, begin to seal edges and repair gaps. Still some way to go, but the light is there at the end of the tunnel; and

LEVEL 5: STATUS QUO (12 reserves, 25% of total): keep these on life-support until funding can be obtained to ramp them up; if groups are working on them, encourage maintenance and more work on higher priority sites that are further advanced.

5.3.2 Onsite factors These factors play a major role in how various parts of the reserve are managed and in what sequence works are done. The Health Assessment considered these factors and these were major considerations when developing the Action Plans for individual sites.

5.3.3 Neighbourhood factors This category deals with both the connectedness of the reserve as well as the social aspect of human neighbourhood relations. Both play important roles in the Action Plan.

5.4 Species and keystone species: missing or under-represented In the past, many of the reserves that have come into the Council’s reserve estate have done so after a long period of neglect at best (usually no weed control) and at worst decades of active management designed to eliminate the native biodiversity (e.g. mowing, grazing, burning etc.). This is one reason why each Health Assessment requires the assessor to nominate a more natural area as a reference site, so that the land manager can appreciate what exactly it is that is being restored.

One of the results of the past management of bushland being hostile to biodiversity is that in some cases, structure, flora and fauna have been disturbed, altered or lost. Some of these losses are affecting ecological function and biodiversity values as well as long-term viability. The next sections highlight some of these issues.

5.4.1 Palms Three species of palms are native to the area surveyed: Bangalow Archontophoenix cunninghamiana, Walking Stick Palm Linospadix monostachys and Cabbage Fan Palm Livistona australis. Each appears to be drastically under-represented in the peri-urban reserves managed by the Council. There are likely to be two reasons behind this scarcity: fire and poaching. The first two species are fire sensitive and the last is not.

Bangalow Palm is fire sensitive, but should be a major component of Swamp Sclerophyll Forest and the drier areas of Swamp Oak Floodplain Forest. As many of the drainage line restoration sites were bushland remnants in former grazing properties, it seems highly likely that these were frequently burnt to control weeds (Lantana) and to open up grazing for cattle. This species is largely absent as adult plants in these reserves, but is making a phenomenal come-back following the removal of fire and grazing and the elimination of transforming weeds (Blair Reserve is an example). The other compatriot species in these




Page 17

habitats Cabbage Fan Palm is both grazing and fire resistant and other causes for its elimination are more likely.

Walking Stick Palms and Cabbage Fan Palms are highly desirable horticultural subjects. As such many populations of Walking Stick Palms are likely to have been decimated by collection by home gardeners; whilst the fire-resistant Cabbage Fan Palm has been commercially garnered as mature plants for instant landscaping solutions.

5.4.2 Pioneer and/or secondary species on restoration sites The lack of pioneers and secondary species in some restoration sites is of concern (see Plant community succession for the process and Implications for bush regeneration for the problem). The planting lists for reserves takes this into account (Appendix 5) and where appropriate, new plantings should contain an appropriate proportion of pioneer and secondary species. This will vary according to the starting condition, the number of these species present, their diversity and the EC involved.

5.4.3 Coast Banksia Coast Banksia is critical in the development and recovery of low carbon soils. Low carbon soils can occur as the result of natural processes erosion (landslips on cliff systems etc.) or as the result of newly deposited marine sands. This species adds up to 30% carbon by volume to soils from their original mineral state and thereby allows for important successional processes to take place from bare sand through Coast Banksia Woodland to Littoral Rainforest. Other species are also important (usually pioneer and secondary species). See Soil carbon for details.

Coast Banksia is adept at colonising grassy areas in the absence of fire. Whilst this is an advantage in agricultural areas of old pasture, it is a threat to Themeda Headlands. This is because this invasion shades out the Themeda and sets the successional trajectory towards Littoral Rainforest. Given the threatened status of Themeda Headlands, Coast Banksia must be managed and kept at bay on these headlands through the use of fire or other means.

5.4.4 Mistletoes: why they are missing and should they be replanted? The mistletoe group is are keystones in local ecosystems because they produce nectar throughout the year and fruit at other times. This sustains many important bird species (including many that disperse berry-bearing species) fundamental to the good health and renewal of several rainforest and eucalypt ecosystems.

During the health assessments it became very apparent that the keystone species group comprised of mistletoes was missing from many reserves that had a significant disturbance history. Mistletoes are indicative of old undisturbed forest because they require mature hosts and are sensitive to frequent fire and wholesale land clearing.

A diverse assemblage of mistletoes is usual for a number of ECs and EECs in the study area including: Swamp Oak Floodplain Forest, Swamp Sclerophyll Forest, Subtropical Floodplain Sclerophyll Forest, Subtropical Rainforest and Littoral Rainforest. Mistletoes were regularly observed in reserves (Sea Acres, Calwalla Reserve, Wilson River, Hastings River, Camden Haven River etc.) and older areas of forest (in the hinterland between Port Macquarie, Wauchope and Telegraph Point). They were however noticeably absent or in low numbers or species diversity in many reserves with a significant disturbance history.




Page 18

Three types of disturbance seem to have had the largest impact:

• Sand mining where large-scale clearing of native vegetation occurred (impacting on Wallum, heathland, Swamp Sclerophyll Forest, Coastal Banksia Woodland and Littoral Rainforest). In these areas species such as Amylotheca dictyophleba, Benthamina, Muellerina celastroides are missing;

• Bitou invasion (same as for sand mining); and • Land clearing and subsequent frequent burning as a result of agricultural grazing

land management: particularly of creek lines and swampy areas (impacting on Swamp Oak Floodplain Forest, Swamp Sclerophyll Forest and Subtropical Coastal Floodplain Forest. Species missing from these areas include: Amyema cambagei, Amyema congener, Nothothixos incanus and Notothixos subaureus.

Suggested hosts by mistletoe species are provided in Appendix 3 Mistletoes. 5.4.5 Figs Figs are a major component of many ECs in the study area ranging through: Subtropical Rainforest, Littoral Rainforest, Gallery Rainforest, Subtropical Floodplain Forest and Swamp Sclerophyll Forest. Being thin-barked they are sensitive to high intensity and/or regular fire.

They provide a number of resources that go way beyond the individual tree. All species provide abundant fruiting resources over long periods of time; the strangler figs (Ficus obliqua, Ficus rubiginosa, Ficus macrophylla and Ficus watkinsoniana) are physically huge and dominate large areas of habitat. They provide shade, shelter and attachment sites for a wide range of epiphytes.

Their absence or low numbers in some reserves that were previously farms (e.g. Blair Reserve etc.) in areas Swamp Sclerophyll Forest is likely to be the result of past burning practices to increase grazing areas.

The reinstatement of figs across the landscape is a major component in the recovery of Coxen’s Fig Parrot where by increasing the extent, quality and connectivity of its habitat as section 10.4.3 Rehabilitate habitat of its recovery plan (EPA 2001) shows:

“Restoration of degraded habitats to form healthy viable ecosystems is the primary objective of rainforest rehabilitation. Restoration includes staged weeding and replanting programs to achieve a self-perpetuating ecosystem that is maintenance free. Liaison with relevant rainforest recovery teams and community groups such as Landcare, Bushcare and Greening Australia is recommended to facilitate selection of methods and species, and to co-ordinate with other rainforest restoration projects. Spatial continuity and diversity of probable food resources need to be enhanced by expanding the area of suitable habitat and by providing interconnecting habitat corridors, especially along watercourses. Lowland rainforest areas and potential forest links are a priority, especially in localities where Coxen’s fig-parrot is currently known or suspected to occur. Outcome A major threatening process will be ameliorated by increasing the availability of healthy, viable habitat for Coxen's fig-parrot and other threatened species.”

5.5 Site, social or institutional constraints Institutional barriers to good weed management (particularly with regard to method or staging) should be challenged. A good example is the Bitou Threat Abatement Plan (TAP) (DECC 2006) whose associated funding constraints can hamper local sensible local management of associated weeds (Thor Aaso pers. comm.). A secondary problem is inadequate mapping of Littoral Rainforest and other threatened species at the local scale which determines the allocation, priority and timing of funding. This needs to be turned




Page 19

around so as to facilitate sensible and staged control of Bitou (and other weeds) at a pace and location where natural regeneration will follow: “there is no Bitou in mature rainforest!”

The recommended sequence for this stretch of coast based on the condition of the native vegetation and extent of the Bitou infestation is:

1. Continue both Bradley Weeding in the native bush (Littoral Rf and headland communities), and other weed control (in preparation for full aerial spray of Bitou) by moving north along Shelly’s Beach to the northern end to the steps; whilst at the same time:

a. Begin preparing the intersecting Shelly’s Beach-Nobby’s Beach; Nobby’s Beach Flynn’s Beach Headlands by Bradley Weeding the native bush (Littoral Rf and headland communities) for future aerial Bitou control;

b. Begin preparing the intersecting Flynn’s Beach Rocky Beach Headland by Bradley Weeding the native bush (Littoral Rf and headland communities) for future aerial Bitou control of Bitou at Flynn’s Beach and Rocky Beach.

Do not begin aerial spraying until Littoral Rainforest and Themeda Headlands are in good nick and largely free of other weeds.




Page 20

6 RESULTS

6.1 Bushland reserve ranking The Bushland Reserve Ranking is provided in Appendix 2: 2c. Following the ranking process, seven categories have been erected as a means of grouping sites that have a similar score based on an aggregate composed of: EC diversity and health, presence of EECs or threatened species, and overall health. Because of the nature of the analysis and the aggregate that contributes to the score, the categories are somewhat heterogeneous.

In practical terms, this means that sites that are currently not in the Benchmark Category may leap-frog and enter this higher level faster than others in the same category. So for example Blair Reserve that is more than 50% complete (but low in EC diversity), is actively and well managed by Landcare, will probably reach the Benchmark Category before Central Road which is equally as well resourced and managed by Bush Regenerators, but at an earlier stage of intervention than Blair. In any event the rate of progress will depend on how targeted the management is, the amount of work undertaken, its quality, the timeliness of interventions and consistency in follow-up.

6.1.1 Health Score rankings Forty-eight reserves were assessed (some have been consolidated into a single site) and these have been ranked on their Health Scores alone (Appendix 2: 2b). As a result each health category has a different Action Plan goal and attendant management requirements:

• LEVEL 1: ECOLOGICAL MAINTENANCE (4 reserves: 8% of the total) Management: maintain health and deal with small-scale issues as they arrive;

• LEVEL 2: NEAR TO ECOLOGICAL MAINTENANCE (7 reserves: 15% of the total) Management: nearly there keep at it;

• LEVEL 3: ACHIEVING ECOLOGICAL MAINTENANCE (14 reserves: 29% of the total) Management: maintain momentum, stay focused and strategic;

• LEVEL 4: REQUIRING CONSOLIDATION (10 reserves: 21% of the total) Management: significant work required;

• LEVEL 5: STATUS QUO (13 reserves: 27% of the total) Management: keep on life support until reassigned; and

• NOT SAMPLED (3 reserves): no action at this time.




Page 21

6.1.2 Site conservation significance The relative site significance was based on health score, significance of vegetation (and a few taxa), condition, connectivity and resources. Until there is a comprehensive survey for threatened species these results are only preliminary:

BENCHMARK (3 reserves; 7% of the total): are comprised of large and diverse sites with most ECs and most of their area in good health (Grants Beach, Kooloongbung and Settlement Shores). Interestingly this group includes: a largely natural area, the site worked on for the longest period and a substantially reconstructed site;

VERY HIGH (12 reserves; 25% of the total): these reserves are a variable group comprised of: large reserves with variable, but mostly good health (e.g. Christmas Bells Plain); medium-sized reserves of moderate health (e.g. Lighthouse Beach);;

HIGH (15 reserves; 31% of the total): all have threatened ECs but fall into different health groups: those that are being systematically recovered and making good progress (e.g. Talong Drive, Saltwater Creek, Central Road etc.) and those that have had their recovery delayed by botched weeding (Tacking Point and Windmill Hill to Nobbys Bitou TAP etc.); or smaller reserves in a good state of repair (e.g. Blair, Mahogany Hill etc.),

MODERATE (14 reserves; 29% of the total): these reserves have fewer ECs present than higher conservation status rankings (e.g. Sancrox Reserve, Vendul Crescent etc.), and their health scores vary considerably; and

LOW (4 reserves; 8% of the total): these reserves are united by being in poor health and having a small size and poor connectivity.

6.1.3 Comparison of effort (health) vs. priority (conservation significance)

By comparing the health of Bushland Reserves (Appendix 2: 2d) against their conservation significance a judgement can be made as to the appropriateness of past prioritisation of effort. On the whole, the prioritisation of high conservation sites in the past has been justified as most are at an achievable level in terms of their recovery and are now either in good health or on their way.

Looking at those in poorer health, it is obvious that there are a number of sites that require reassignment on the basis of their low health rating but a higher conservation significance (Appendix 2: 2e: column A).

6.2 Individual Bushland Action Plans These have been derived as a result of the site findings of the Health Assessments and are presented there as Recommendations for the Action Plan. An Acton Plan template for the site’s future management is provided in each site’s Health Assessment spreadsheet.

6.3 Specific management actions: priorities by reserve (short-term goals) Whilst the actions for the Action Plan have been set as a result of the Health Assessment process, the priorities have not yet been allocated. This task requires a discussion between the Council and each of the sites’ stewards or work groups (see General 7.2.1).

6.3.1 Weeds and their treatment Currently the Council approach to weed management in bushland reserves has been to have Bush Regenerators (contractors and volunteers) working on some reserves and not others. Bush regeneration takes place all year and is matched to the growth and




Page 22

quiescence cycles of the species involved. Council workers (have to date) very effectively concentrated on landscape-scale priorities and undertake knockdown of large scale or large infestations of transforming weeds. This involves a winter program concentrating on Bitou (and other winter-susceptible weeds), largely using glyphosate. The summer program uses mostly Brush-off ® for Asparagus Fern, Senna and Lantana.

The two approaches are appropriate for different situations and should be seen as complimentary: each applied according to a sliding scale of weed cover, growth stage and susceptibility to the technique. Some sites will require only knockdown (foredune infestations of Bitou remote from urban weed dispersal); others will require both (knockdown sites with other transforming weeds); whilst other reserves or parts of reserves in good health only require bush regeneration (Pelican Point Littoral Rainforest).

Increasingly, it is becoming apparent that there needs to be a greater integration between these two approaches as there are obvious synergies if this is achieved. Whilst foliar spraying of adult plants in larger infestations is an effective technique, hand-pulling or scraping and painting their seedling offspring is much more effective on sites that have already had a knockdown treatment (thus preventing weed succession), and for sites with smaller or more diffuse infestations. Bush regeneration techniques allow for natural regeneration which conserves the native species recruitment potential of the site. Other synergies include: integrated weed management, better communication of issues, ideas and techniques between Council and bush regenerators, more appropriate and timely interventions by the two groups to provide integrated control on all actively managed sites.

Bush regeneration should be employed either when there is a: small but high cover weed infestations in or near good quality bush (the control program should ensure natural regeneration repairs the damage); or where there are lower levels of infestations or small stature weeds over much larger areas (the earlier phases of weed invasion). It is particularly important as a follow-up to knockdown programs and before aerial spraying. In contrast, knockdown weed control is appropriate where the first stage of landscape-scale weed control is required and weed infestations are either large and/or dense. Each site should be assessed on its merits and the appropriate technique combinations applied.

Where large-scale weed control is contemplated, such as aerial spraying, it is imperative that there are sufficient resources available to effectively undertake the follow-up control of target weed regeneration as well as other weeds that may step into the vacant niche left by the knockdown program. A good example is Bitou, where the initial control must also deal with any other transforming weeds that might emerge as a result of the control of Bitou. If there is only limited funds, Bitou control should be staged across the reserve to reflect the funding, rather than expose the whole reserve to a rampant secondary growth of other weeds that cannot be controlled. Instead in these situations, continue to hold the line (geographically) and in sites currently under control until funds become available to tackle the next section of coast. Remember that a dense Bitou infestation holds the line against both natives and other transforming weeds, and a few years delay until the necessary resources are marshalled will not be the end of the world.

There is an obvious synergy here. Strategic assessment of the risk of landscape level weed control of (for example) Bitou should involve an assessment of the risk of weed succession so as to be able to provide appropriate staging and resources to be delivered to specific sites if problems are identified (e.g. Christmas Bells Plain Health Assessment and Action Plan, and many others). Then the disparate roles of knockdown and bush regeneration can be logically and tactically assigned as required.




Page 23

6.3.2 Stressors and mitigation actions Stressors (ecological brakes) operate at both the landscape and local scale. Examples of landscape stressors are climate change, habitat loss and fragmentation etc. and local scale stressors include weeds, remnant edge effects and gaps. Because threats operate at different scales, solutions need to also operate at an appropriate scale. Weed control of a riparian-borne weed below the uppermost infestation is a recipe for repetition and no long-term solution. Dealing with urban infestations of weeds (e.g. Ochna), whilst leaving bushland infestations as a second priority leads to an expansion of the weed population in the bush at a more rapid rate than might be expected. This is because the weed populations in the bush are more frequently visited by seed-dispersing birds, than are those in urban situations [Gosper et. al. (2006) cited in Murphy (2008)].

6.3.3 Reserve tasks (based on threats, completed works, likelihood of success) These have been developed as a result of the Health Assessment and the review of techniques within PMHC Bushland Reserves as well as across the LGA. Individual reserve tasks have been listed in Reserve Action Plans. In general these include: being strategic (this assessment and the rankings that flow from it that are used for setting inter-reserve priorities). At the reserve level, it requires taking a catchment approach, sealing edges, prioritising weeds, matching the restoration method (and resources available) to the task at hand and, planning for generational change.

7 RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 Long term goals Management of the Bushland Reserve system assumes that each will eventually be brought to the ecological maintenance stage. The long term goals will help to ensure increased levels of viability and ecological health in these reserves and can be worked on in conjunction with individual Site Action Plans.

Many of the changes require strategic approach as well as a cultural, organisational and social shift towards a collective landscape responsibility for the local environment. As an example of this process consider the following. One of the leading sectors in this process when it comes to attitudinal change is the Council’s Parks and Gardens group that has a profound influence on the local gardening community and by extension as customers to the local nurseries. Because the landscaping of public areas in the LGA is of such a high standard, the decisions of Parks and Gardens in landscaping are noticed by these home gardening enthusiasts and Council’s actions help to shape their horticultural desires and designs.

The long term goals include:

Addressing landscape-scale stressors

• Weeds:

o Continue a strategic landscape scale approach to transforming weed prioritisation;

o Reducing the weed load from transforming weeds;

o Transform the neighbourhood’s weed load in Council, urban or commercial plantings;




Page 24

• Fragmentation: o Through loss of connections due to inappropriate planning and the lack of

an integrated Urban Growth Strategy and Biodiversity Strategy

Connectivity:

• General: o Robust physical connections between reserves (through planning and

active planting);

o Diffuse physical connections between reserves through street tree plantings and urban block plant-me-instead substitutions: effectively expanding reserves into the urban landscape

o Use whatever methods work for the connection context: planting, rezoning, land swaps, planning, Development Application conditions (e.g. Seachange on Flynns Street);

o Improve the health of existing reserves;

o Renovations of existing plantings: when it comes time to replant: use local indigenous species to replace environmental weeds (Appendix 6: worksheet: new and emerging weeds)

• Cooperative community solutions: o Work with local communities: expand reserves using bush gardens

and grow-me-instead;

o Establish bushland garden sections in local nurseries or expand the role of the Landcare Nursery (having set buying times);

• Street and road reserve plantings:

o Work with Council and residents to provide diffuse connections along connector roads or residential streets. Whilst this can potentially bring wildlife and cars into conflict, within urban areas it is also a means of traffic calming by highlighting wildlife on roads.

Recommendations: Reducing the weed load:

• Continue the strategic landscape scale approach to transforming weed prioritisation:

o Continue to work with and encourage community and Council cooperation (Landcare, Friends Groups, Green Gym, Community Services, individuals etc.);

o Identify and eliminate new and emerging weeds (Appendix 6: worksheet: new and emerging weeds);

o Publish LGA weed alerts and place these at local nurseries (e.g. Coreopsis, Agapanthus, Leriope): make it socially unacceptable to be planting these species (Appendix 6: worksheet LGA Alert Weeds);

o Strategic knockdown and invasion fronts e.g. Coasts and Bitou elimination from the Camden Haven to Hastings projects (Bitou TAP and others);




Page 25

o Continue with the ‘landscape weed boils’ approach (e.g. Googleys Island, North Haven Wall, Vendul Crescent etc.);

o Identifying sites at risk of weed succession by treating other transforming weeds before releasing the dominant environmental weed (e.g. Bitou and Flynns Beach and Christmas Bells Plain);

• Use a catchment approach to riparian weeds (e.g. Setaria, Paspalum, Elephants Ears, Trad, Mist Flower, Billygoat Weed etc.);

• Eliminate environmental weeds from Council plantings (Appendix 6: worksheet: new and emerging weeds);

• Target neighbours of Bushland Reserves first for plant-me-instead;

• Begin the education process for domestic gardeners by taking up the plant-me-instead approach;

• Work with local nurseries using a landscape zone and EC approach and have the Landcare Nursery or local wholesale nurseries prepared to use local provenance stock to supply a bushland plant section in each of the retail nurseries in the LGA




Page 26

o

7.1.1 Use of fire (or inability to do so) Fire is an integral ecological factor in most non-rainforest ECs (but not including wetlands). It stimulates regeneration, keeps fuels at appropriate levels and helps to prevent soil nutrient build-ups that favour some weeds and the colonisation of the site by rainforest species. Application of appropriate fire regimes is strongly recommended wherever this is practically possible.

Recommendations:

• Apply fire where it is safe to do so; and

• Accept that unplanned fire in reserves will continue, often having a beneficial result in non-rainforest and non-wetland ECs; and that:

• APZ’s be incorporated into any restoration plans in flammable ecological communities to ensure asset protection.

See also sections: Appendix 1: Overarching Principles: Plant community succession

7.1.2 Nutrient reduction In Dry Sclerophyll Forests, woodlands, Wallum and Heathlands, nutrients (particularly carbon and nitrogen) build with the leaf litter every year that fire is absent from the site. The primary route for achieving nutrient reduction (and natural regeneration) in these ECs is to use fire (if appropriate and safe). If this is not possible, accept that this will mean an altered site trajectory for such sites.




Page 27

Recommendations:

• Understand the role of fire in nutrient reduction and regeneration of sclerophyll ECs and apply if practical;

• If not practical or likely to occur (through unplanned ignition), accept a change of trajectory and work with the site to reach this endpoint.

7.1.3 Storm water Stormwater from hardening or hardened catchments provides a challenge managing Bushland Reserves that must also act as drainage reserves. The volume, frequency and intensity of flows are all increased as a result of a loss of the ‘sponge effect’ of clearing native vegetation and replacing it with hard surfaces (rooves, roads, pavement etc.).

Recommendations:

• Act early and proactively as possible, match plantings (and change the ECs) to deal with the changes in catchment hydrology. Replace the historic EC with plantings from Gallery Rainforest

7.1.4 Water-logging Water-logging is a powerful determinant of vegetation composition and other ecological processing including nutrient processing. If this has occurred on a site and there is no foreseeable or likely physical interventions to return the site to its historic (better-drained state), then the EC and consequent plantings and site management need to be adapted. Such sites are very important for the interception of nutrient pollution (including phosphorus and nitrogen).

Recommendations: Choose the appropriate EC (based on salinity, inundation regimes) and begin restoration on that basis.

7.2 Short to medium-term goals (Bushland Reserve Action Plans) The data collected from each of the 48 reserves that had a Health Assessments, has been analysed and Recommendations for the Action Plan have been formulated. The implementation of these recommendations (following prioritisation) should be recorded in the Action Plan template for each reserve.

7.2.1 General medium term actions

Specific actions have been devised for each reserve (Health Assessment Sheets: Health Assessment Template). Annual Health Assessment templates are also provided for each site. These provide the basis for the Action Plan (worksheet: Action Plan) for each site. Individual reserve priorities have not been stipulated as this is a key process that must now be conducted between the Council (with the actions provided for each reserve) and each site workgroup. These discussions should be cooperative and be based on resources, timing (sequencing and seasonality) and the skills available for each site.




Page 28

Recommendations:

• Follow the suggested Action Plan for each reserve, until changes to the reserve or its circumstances alter: then use adaptive management and the lessons learned to undertake the appropriate action for the site or circumstance;

• Use the Recommendations for the Action Plan for each site as the basis for determining site based priorities for each reserve. When these are agreed, place them on the Action Plan and record the works undertaken on that template.

• Site assessments for the remaining Council reserves:

o There is a need to conduct Health Assessments for the balance of Council reserves to deal with their management requirements and to provide a pool of reserves from which to draw new projects once the existing reserves attain LEVEL 1. Early assessment and intervention will save Council time and resources in the long run.

7.2.2 Timing of aerial Bitou control Aerial Bitou control at Shelly Beach was undertaken by the Council in 2008. The results were dramatic in that there was significant off-target damage to native species in the vicinity of Harry’s Lookout. A review of the circumstances and lessons to be learnt from this outcome was requested by Thor Aaso. The results are provided in Attachment 3. The short to medium term aim should be to understand the circumstances and reasons for these non-target impacts so they can be avoided.

Recommendations: 1. Do not allow logistics to dictate starting times to exceed safe limits when aerially

spraying Bitou; 2. Accept that a patchy result with the correct application rates on the areas

treated is better than complete coverage with over-application on some sites to give a blanket effect;

3. Monitor the dormancy of non-target species before starting (a start in June-July is a guide only) and the trigger for starting is that your most susceptible non-target species are dormant (switched off as much as possible to herbicide uptake);

4. Set up a trial to measure off-target impacts before the next aerial application, so as to be able to detect susceptible species (even when dormant). This would require a species list, locating currently known susceptible species and monitoring the impacts soon after application; 3 months later; and 3 months later (to track recovery or death);

5. Repeat detailed impact observations for the next couple of passes on Shelly Beach (and elsewhere) to determine the actual susceptibility of non-target species for the next round of aerial spraying. This should account for variation in operators and observations of impacts;

6. Compile a list of susceptible non-target species (by incorporating other data from other operators and sources with the data in Attachment 3);

7. Include herbicide susceptibility trials for threatened species: using nursery stock; and

8. Further investigate local NPWS advice that timing is not relevant to off-target damage.




Page 29

7.2.3 Palms Palms are under-represented in Bushland Reserves within the peri-urban area.

Recommendations: Reintroduce palms as appropriate by EC: Bangalow Palm and Cabbage Fan Palm (Swamp Sclerophyll Forest, Swamp Oak Floodplain Forest, Warm Temperate Rainforest, Littoral Rainforest and Subtropical Rainforest; Walking Stick Palm (Subtropical Rainforest).

7.2.4 Mowing encroachment and reclaiming bush Mowing is a major threatening process in Bushland Reserve Management for 2 reasons: it is often used to ‘subdue bush’ and claim it for lawn areas in open space; it is often used as a means of controlling weeds (but also eliminates native regeneration that is trying to reclaim the edge for bushland; and when the mower spoil is sprayed into restoration sites, the restorers are set on an endless cycle because of the weeds that this casts into their sites.

Currently there is a strong desire on behalf of Parks and Gardens to reduce the area that must be mowed. This lines up perfectly with a strong desire on the part of Development and Environment to reclaim some mown areas of reserves for bush regeneration. A three-tiered approach is recommended.

Recommendations: The three tiers are:

• TIER ONE: Immediate cessation of mowing where natural regeneration will transform the lawn back to bush:

Where there are no (or few) transforming weeds present and the natural regeneration is strong and there are adjacent mature plants of root-coppicing species such as: Lightwood Acacia implexa, Maidens Wattle A. maidenii, Blackwood A. melanoxylon, Coast Banksia B. integrifolia, Swamp Oak Casuarina glauca, Brush Kurrajong Commersonia fraseri, Cheese Tree Glochidion ferdinandii etc.;

Example sites: Lake Cathie North Headland (along lakeshore and behind toilet block) Zone: 1; Windmill Hill to Nobbys Beach immediately south of the Windmill Hill Zone: 2; Flynns Beach opposite the shops on the knoll Zone: 5; and

Sites where natural grass colonisers are mature and actively seeding into the lawns or bare areas and will convert the lawn back to bush: Coast Wattle Acacia longifolia ssp. sophorae, Coast Banksia B. integrifolia, Coast Tea-tree Leptospermum laevigatum.

Example sites: Blackbutt Reserve in Wauchope Zone: E (southeast side of creek); Northhaven Wall Reserve (Zones: 4 and 5); Pilots Beach-Trevors Corner (Zones: 1 and M)




Page 30

• TIER 2: Transforming weeds are present and resources are available to do a shade out planting and to maintain it; or to use herbicide-assisted colonisation by root-coppicing species:

Shade out plantings have been effectively used at Blair Reserve and are an option for Flynns Beach Seachange such as: Lightwood Acacia implexa, Maidens Wattle A. maidenii, Blackwood A. melanoxylon, Coast Banksia B. integrifolia, Swamp Oak Casuarina glauca, Brush Kurrajong Commersonia fraseri, Cheese Tree Glochidion ferdinandii etc.;

Example sites: Blair Reserve Zone: 1; and Kooloongbung Creek north entry boardwalk; Settlement Shores Wetland Zone E; Maritime Marker Zones: no-mans land, E and overmown; and

Sites where root-copping species are present adjacent to transforming weed: by using herbicides judiciciously, the transforming weeds can be beaten back in favour of the recolonising root coppicing of species such as: Yellowwood Acronychia oblongifolia, Swamp Oak Casuarina glauca, Brush Kurrajong Commersonia fraseri and Biconvex Paperbark Melaleuca biconvexa.

Example sites: Rushcutters Way Zones: 1 and E2 (where the transforming weed is Setaria and the root-coppicing natives are: Yellowwood, Swamp Oak Biconvex Paperbark); McIntyre Crescent (where the weed is Elephant Grass and the native is Biconvex Paperbark); and

• TIER 3: Identify sites (with transforming lawn grasses: such as Broad-leaf Paspalum, Kikuyu etc.) for future expansion and negotiate extent and timing of the cessation of mowing based on the availability of resources to allow for the transition back to bush. Example sites: Blackbutt Creek (Wauchope) Zone E (northwest side of creek); Wrights Creek (Macquarie Park) Zone: B; Wrights Creek (Flynns Beach Seachange) Zone 3.

See also sections: 7.2.6. Mowing, bush regeneration win wins

7.2.5 Poor mowing behaviour Edge mowing that casts its weed infested spoil into bush regeneration sites is the source of huge frustration for bush reserve managers, professional bush regenerators and volunteers alike. The practice is unnecessary and is an example of one arm of Council creating frustrating and unnecessary work for another.

Recommendations: Ensure that all edge mowing casts the necessary number of edge run waste onto the lawn instead of into the bush regeneration site. Almost all sites investigated had this problem.

7.2.6 Mowing, bush regeneration win wins Currently Parks and Gardens are looking to reduce the area required to be mown. This represents a golden opportunity for Bushland Reserve Management as mowing encroachment is one of the key threatening processes for native vegetation in the LGA.

The Recommendations for Action Plan section of each site’s Health Assessment Sheet details those areas by reserve where the removal of mowing will allow the bushland to expand, reduce edge effects and increase the site’s integrity and long-term ecological




Page 31

resilience. The suggested three-tier approach to reclaiming previously mown areas (see 7.2.4 Mowing encroachment and reclaiming bush) will provide the necessary guidance to land managers as to how and when mowing should cease.

Recommendations:

• That the mowing reduction zones of each site’s Health Assessment be compiled to alert Parks and Gardens as to which reserves will require less mowing in the near future;

• Apply the tiered approach to prioritise the cessation of mowing (see 7.2.4) and compile these results;

• This compilation should provide a basis for consultations with reserve workers (Landcare, bush regeneration companies and friends groups) to finalise the proposed new mowing boundaries;

• These revised mowing boundaries would then be presented to Parks and Gardens and those responsible for management of APZs so as to provide the basis for negotiation and boundary demarcation with Parks and Gardens on new mowing boundaries in Bushland Reserves;

See also sections: 7.2.4 Mowing encroachment and reclaiming bush;

7.2.5 Poor mowing behaviour

7.3 General Actions for threatened vegetation and species There are a substantial number of threatened (and therefore listed) vegetation types found in the Council managed Bushland Reserves and these are compiled in Appendix 4. ECs that are not listed are recorded in each site’s Health Assessment sheet. The number and location of threatened flora and fauna are not fully documented. All threatened vegetation and species (both flora and fauna) are listed in Appendix 4.

7.3.1 Vegetation conservation significance The conservation significance for vegetation, flora and fauna is based on EPBC Act listings (Federal) and TSC Act listings (NSW) and makes reference to the Hastings Council (1999) for any other locally or regionally derived classifications. There are 9 broad vegetation types with 59 vegetation communities (Hastings 1999).

Based on the field survey the vegetation types and the status assigned by the Department of Environment Water Heritage and Arts (for EPBC) and Department of Environment and Climate Change websites, are:

• Rainforest dominated by a closed (shady) canopy (restricted to fire refuges, sometimes on inherently fertile geologies, otherwise on poorer fertility geologies (that have become fertile because of a long site occupation by the rainforest itself):

o Subtropical Rainforest (TSC-listed) found at Sancrox Park and Fernbank Creek adjacent to Partridge Creek; and

o Littoral Rainforest (TSC and EPBC-listed) found. in most coastal reserves with fire protection;

o Gallery Rainforest (e.g. Ellenborough Reserve).




Page 32

• Wet Sclerophyll Forest dominated by a tall overstorey of eucalypts with a

moderately dense understorey of mesic and rainforest species, occurring in gullies on southerly facing hillsides or fertile/moist soils and are often associated with rainforest. The understorey is often diverse and sensitive to frequent disturbance. Infrequent landscape scale disturbance from fire ‘resets’ this vegetation. Local vegetation communities in this Broad-vegetation community include:

o Subtropical Coastal Floodplain Forest (TSC-listed) occurs on alluvial flats that experience flooding within a 100 year frequency cycle (DECC 07). It is typified by a eucalypt-dominated overstorey of Forest Red Gum E. tereticornis, and an understorey of Yellowwood Acronychia oblongifolia, Rusty Fig Ficus rubiginosa, Cheesetree Glochidion ferdinandi, Tuckaroo Cupaniopsis anacardioides, Pink Poplar Euroschinus falcata and Paperbarks Melaleuca quinquinerva, an array of vines with a diverse herbaceous (grass and forb-rich) understorey. This vegetation community is TSC Act-listed. A largely intact example occurs in the Henry Kendall Reserve, with good examples in moderate health occupying Bunny’s Corner at North Haven and smaller area at Talong Drive at Lake Cathie at its intersection with Kenwood Drive.

o Another form which is quite common in the Bushland Reserves managed by the Council is Wet Sclerophyll Forest dominated by Brush Box Lophostemon confertus often with a wide range of rainforest canopy species, vines and ferns. This is usually found adjacent to Littoral and Subtropical Rainforests with which it forms a sometimes extensive ecotone.

• Dry Sclerophyll Open Forests and Woodlands are the dominant vegetation of the coastal strip. Their canopies are generally more open than the previous two vegetation types and the understorey is dominated by Sclerophyll species that are dependant for the regeneration and renewal on more frequent fire. They occur on westerly aspects or ridges where the soils are more skeletal than for the Wet Sclerophyll Forests.

• Swamp Sclerophyll Forests (TSC-listed), Woodlands and Shrublands:

Paperbarks are the characteristic dominants of this vegetation type with a limited number of inundation-tolerant eucalypts capable withstanding poor soils. This vegetation is vital in catchment water filtration and is widespread on the coastal plain (behind Grants Beach, on Christmas Bells Plain and in many of the drainage lines of the region found at Rushcutters Way and Blair Reserves etc.;

• Swamp Oak Forests (TSC-listed): Dominated by Swamp Oak, these are generally in brackish areas often behind mangrove zones and along creek lines found at Settlement Shores Wetland, Kooloongbung etc.;

• Coastal Heathlands/Shrublands are restricted to flat land with skeletal or poor soils where floristic diversity is low, or deep soils where floristic diversity is high. Wallum on the coastal sand plains;

• Wetlands and Estuarine Complex consists of many individual formations that are found in conjunction with Swamp Sclerophyll and Mangrove formations where tidal influence is associated with the Hastings and Maria Rivers, as well as along drainage lines and low gradient streams. This include: Rushland Complexes that are typically tall and dense and often colonise disturbed ground that is wet or frequently inundated. Wetlands of the Coastal Floodplain are TSC-listed and include: Freshwater Wetlands, Saltmarsh and Mangroves.

• Foredune Complex is found mostly on fore and hind dunes and is strictly associated with oceanic beaches. This includes shrublands of Coast Wattle on the




Page 33

foredune and Coast Banksia on the hind dune. In time (and with the absence of fire), these will develop into Littoral Rainforest [once the soil organic content exceeds 20% (Peel in press)].

• Headland Complex is the least represented in the coastal strip being restricted to rocky shores on infertile geologies. The unstable nature of these headlands leads to a wide variety of formations from small wetland soaks, through grasslands (Themeda Headlands such as at Tacking Point, Town Beach), shrublands (heathlands such as Bonny Hills), to Littoral Rainforest (both are TSC-listed, the latter is also EPBC-listed).

The conservation status is an amalgam of the following criteria:

• State Environment Planning Provisions (SEPP) determinations under: o Planning Act and include the provisions for Littoral Rainforest (SEPP 26);

and some areas of wetlands (SEPP 14). • Listed EECs under:

o TSC Act (State), EPBC Act (Federal), • Conservation value based on the Conservation Priorities of Hastings (1999):

o PRIORITY 1.0: Regional vegetation status: not conserved; inadequately conserved AND

>20% of total area in UGS area AND Not heavily modified, disturbed or in poor condition;

Reported by Hastings (1999)] and their component EECs (EPBC and TSC Acts) are presented in Table 2.

o PRIORITY 1.1: Old-growth, undisturbed AND not in Priority 1.0 (above);

o PRIORITY 2.0: Regional vegetation status: inadequately conserved AND 15-20% of total

area in in UGS area AND not heavily modified disturbed or in poor condition;

o PRIORITY 2.1: Remaining areas classified as Regionally Significant (Type 1 or 2) AND

not in the categories above; or o PRIORITY 3.O: Remaining Bushland.

7.3.2 Freshwater Wetlands Freshwater wetlands used to be more common on the lowest areas of the floodplains of the major rivers and streams in the LGA. Many have been drained and are now used for agriculture. Drainage has exposed acid-sulfate soils and in many cases has caused them to become brackish or saline (e.g. Partridge Creek). Freshwater Wetlands are listed as an EEC under the TSC Act.

Freshwater Wetlands are national climate change refuge priority. The north coast of New South Wales is likely to be a continental-scale refuge [based on rainfall predictions (CSIRO 2007)] for this ecosystem and the taxa that rely on it for their habitat and continued evolution. Use this information in funding applications for the conservation and management of Freshwater Wetlands.




Page 34

Recommendations:

GENERAL ACTIONS: if acid sulfate soils are an issue, follow the guidelines in Tulau (2000) and Johnston et. al. (2003) by rehydrating the wetland and monitor the changes. If regeneration is insufficient, then plant according to the new water conditions and the inundation regime (as a revised trajectory). Maintain appropriate fire frequency, remove transforming weeds, ensure appropriate water table levels and flooding regimes, maintain water quality, ensure salinity regimes are maintained. Where this is not possible (through climate change and usually increased salinity), ensure that hybrid plantings on the site will be sufficient to seed and assist in the transition to the new EC (if seed sources are not connected to the site) and that these are appropriate for the emerging conditions. Apply successional planting principles. Aim to retain or restore a wetland buffer if the land and/or the opportunities present themselves as a requirement for the conservation of many threatened wetland birds (Appendix 4 Threatened taxa: Threatening processes and Threat abatement);

• Follow the Recovery Actions sensu DECC (Appendix 4: worksheet: Actions for EECs) with reference to the relevant Health Assessment Sheet’s Recommendations for the Action Plan;

• Seek funding for an EIS for the closure of Lake Innes (DEC 2004);

• Seek funding for rehabilitation of Freshwater Wetlands on the basis of their national priority as a climate change refuge and the regions relatively benign climate change outlook with regard to rainfall (CSIRO 2007).

Wherever possible:

• Rehydrate wetlands to control acid-sulfate soils;

• Fence existing or rehydrated/rehabilitated wetlands;

• Reconstruct the wetland itself according to the new hydrological condition and trajectory for the site;

• Reinstate a 200m buffer around the freshwater wetland (Appendix 4: worksheet: Actions for threatened species); and

• Protect these important climate change refuges in perpetuity.

See also sections: Appendix 4

7.3.3 Littoral Rainforest Littoral Rainforests occur (or used to occur) on fire-protected landforms exposed to salt, either through salt haze borne inland by onshore winds and/or through the water tables of Lakes, estuaries and the estuarine reaches of rivers. Significant areas have been cleared for sand mining (Figure 1), agriculture and urban development. Littoral Rainforest is listed in New South Wales as an Endangered Ecological Community under the TSC Act and nationally under the EPBC Act.




Page 35

Recommendations: GENERAL ACTIONS: keep fire at bay, deal with encroachment (including vegetation destruction for views), control weeds, seal edges and gaps, reinstate carbon levels, ensure connections are maintained, supplementary plant or reconstruct if dispersal and natural regeneration are inadequate.

• Follow the Recovery Actions sensu DECC (Appendix 4: worksheet: Actions for EECs) with reference to the relevant Health Assessment Sheet’s Recommendations for the Action Plan; and

• Those that are relevant from Peel (in press) for Littoral Rainforest


7.3.4 Lowland Subtropical Rainforest Lowland Subtropical Rainforest once grew on the fire protected habitats of the fertile floodplains of the major rivers and streams of the region. It grew on well drained levees and floodplain deposits in the fire shadows created by riverine islands, billabongs, tributary streams and other less flammable vegetation such as Gallery Rainforests, Mangroves or Swamp Oak Floodplain Forests. It is listed as an EEC under the TSC Act.

Recommendations: GENERAL ACTIONS: keep fire at bay, control weeds, seal edges and gaps, reinstate carbon levels, ensure connections are maintained, supplementary plant or reconstruct if dispersal and natural regeneration are inadequate.

• Follow the Recovery Actions sensu DECC (Appendix 4: worksheet: Actions for EECs) using Health Assessment Sheet’s and the Action Plans;





Page 36

Table 2. Conservation status. Significant vegetation communities and threatened ECs.

Vegetation type EC Conservation Status* Regional Conservation Status** Localities and reserves

Littoral Rainforest TSC and EPBC Priority 1 Lighthouse Beach, Lighthouse Gully (mouth), Grant’s Beach, Middle Rock Beach,

Formerly more widespread:

Grants Beach (lost to sand mining), Christmas Bells Plain (lost to frequent fire), Lighthouse Beach (lost to sand mining)

Subtropical Rainforest of Coastal Floodplains

TSC Priority 1 Sancrox Reserve also on Fernbank Creek adjacent to Partridge Creek

Formerly: Partridge Creek

Rainforest

Gallery Rainforest - - Ellenborough Reserve

Wet Sclerophyll Forest Sub-tropical Coastal Floodplain Forest

TSC ??Priority On the coastal Floodplain: Queens Walk,




Page 37

Vegetation type EC Conservation Status* Regional Conservation Status**

Localities and reserves

Dry Sclerophyll Forests Priority 1-4 depending on the vegetation community

Swamp Oak Floodplain Forest

TSC 2 Kooloongbung Creek Swamp Forests

Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal Floodplains

TSC - Kooloongbung Creek

Coastal Sedgeland/Rushland Complex

Freshwater Wetlands on Coastal Floodplains

TSC 2 Partridge Creek

Coastal Heathlands/Shrublands

Coastal Saltmarsh - - Kooloongbung Creek

Estuarine Complex - -

Foredune Complex Littoral Rainforest Priority 1.

TSC and EPBC

4 Pelican Point

Headland Complex Littoral Rainforest Priority 1.

TSC and EPBC

3 Sea Acres, Shelly Beach, Nobby’s Beach, Flynns Beach, Rocky Beach

Formerly: Town Beach

*TSC and EPBC Acts and/or SEPP; **Equivalent to the Conservation Priorities of Hastings (1999):

Priority 1 high

Priority 2: medium

Priority 3 Low




Page 38

Figure 1. Port Macquarie-Hastings Local Government Area. Sand mining in the study area has done significant damage with loss of vegetation, soil carbon and the introduction of the transforming weed: Bitou.




Page 39

7.3.5 Saltmarsh Saltmarsh is the first terrestrial EC to develop on the sheltered margins of estuaries and tidal creeks. It has a higher tolerance of saline inundation (and for longer periods) than Mangroves that usually abut this vegetation on the landward side. Saltmarsh is listed as an EEC under the TSC Act.

Recommendations: GENERAL ACTIONS: ensure access is maintained to tidal influences and that cyclic inundation regimes are maintained. Where these are changing as the result of climate change, ensure that there is sufficient space for expansion and adaptation in the existing wetland’s neighbourhood.

• Follow the Recovery Actions sensu DECC (Appendix 4: worksheet: Actions for EECs) with reference to the relevant Health Assessment Sheet’s Recommendations for the Action Plan; and

• Ensure that planning allows for its landward retreat into new habitat as sea levels rises occur with climate change.

See also sections: Appendix 1: Overarching Principles: Plant Community Succession Appendix 4

7.3.6 Subtropical Floodplain Forest Subtropical Floodplain Forest occupies that intermediate fire frequency and intensity zone between Subtropical Rainforest (no fire) and Sclerophyll Forests (frequent fire). As a consequence its structure and composition is transitional between these two ECs with rainforest elements waxing in the absence of fire and receding after a fire event which triggers the regeneration of the Sclerophyll elements of the EC. It is also likely that because of its position on the floodplain; that it is subjected to flooding which is also a major natural regeneration event for both the rainforest and Sclerophyll species of this EC (Peel in press).

Recommendations: GENERAL ACTIONS: maintain appropriate fire frequency, remove transforming weeds, maintain water table levels and flooding regimes, reconnect to other bush wherever possible;




7.3.7 Swamp Oak Floodplain Forest This EEC occurs between the saline landward margins of the Mangrove zone and the freshwater EC further inland Swamp Sclerophyll Forest. It occupies a habitat that has intermediate salinity between these two ECs. It is characterised by a dominance of Swamp




Page 40

Oak, but may also include other rainforest and Sclerophyll species as well. Old stands are rich in Needle Mistletoe Amyema cambagei and Golden Mistletoe Notothixos subaureus. Both species are very important for honeyeaters (including the endangered Regent Honeyeater) and other frugivorous birds. This vegetation is listed as a EEC under the TSC Act.

Recommendations: GENERAL ACTIONS: maintain appropriate fire frequency, deal with encroachment (including vegetation destruction for views), remove transforming weeds, maintain water table levels and flooding regimes, reconnect to other bush wherever possible.




7.3.8 Swamp Sclerophyll Forest This vegetation occupies the margins behind the more saline habitat of Swamp Oak Floodplain Forest and the treeless wetter habitat of Freshwater Wetlands. It is frequently inundated and may also contain strangler figs and Swamp Mahogany. The former are keystone species in the landscape for frugivorous species and the latter is an integral food tree for Koalas. This is an EEC listed under the TSC Act.

Recommendations: GENERAL ACTIONS: maintain appropriate fire frequency, remove transforming weeds, maintain water table levels and flooding regimes, reconnect to other bush wherever possible.




7.3.9 Themeda Headlands Low grass and forb dominated vegetation on the most exposed headlands above the spray zone. Found on Headlands from Tacking Point to Flagstaff Hill and between Town and Oxley Beaches.

GENERAL ACTIONS: maintain the status quo for the time being until trials indicate specific grassland management actions. In addition ensure that the extent and quality of the grassland areas is maintained until specific management actions to increase the health and quality of the grasslands can be instituted. To do this ensure that exotic grass and woody




Page 41

weed (Coast Banksia, Coast Wattle and Swamp Oak) invasion does not increase in area or number of populations before grassland management per se begins.

Recommendations:


• Management should be based on a thorough literature review followed by local trials;

• The trial local trial results should be adapted into appropriate management that meets the DECC actions; and

• Local action on this EEC will require cooperation with NPWS


Appendix 1: Plant community succession: implications for bush regeneration

7.3.10 Flora conservation significance The location of rare or threatened plants was not attempted during the Health Assessment field work. There were anecdotal reports of threatened species on some sites. These have not been recorded, because the process was not systematic or thorough enough to do this issue justice.

To augment this process however, the DECC website was interrogated (and based on habitat requirements and distribution) a preliminary list of candidate threatened species has been compiled, threats to them and actions that will help to recover them for each reserve. This will allow reserve managers and workers to become aware of the possibility of their presence as well as giving further meaning and reinforcement to their works in the bushland reserves.

Given that many sites offer the prospect of providing habitat for threatened species and there is funding to support these populations, targeted surveys should be conducted for those most likely to occur in the reserves. This along with good incidental list records for these sites would prove very useful in funding applications in the future to support restoration and management works in addition to the current bush regeneration (such as feral animal control).

Recommendations:

• Follow the Recovery Actions sensu DECC (Appendix 4: worksheet: Actions for threatened species) with reference to the relevant Health Assessment Sheet’s Recommendations for the Action Plan; and

• Notify land manager if threatened species are recorded;

• Undertake targeted surveys for threatened species with a good chance of being on the site (but maintain a watchful eye for others that are less likely to be there); and

• Use current threatened species data and future records to support new funding bids for the recovery and maintenance of the Council’s Reserve network.





Page 42

7.3.11 Fauna conservation significance Whilst the health assessment has identified the ECs and EECs on the sites examined, location of rare or threatened plants and animals requires a much more time-consuming targeted survey approach.

To augment this process however, the DECC website was interrogated (and based on habitat requirements and distribution) a preliminary list of candidate threatened species has been compiled (Appendix 4), threats to them and actions that will help to recover them for each reserve. This will allow reserve managers and workers to become aware of the possibility of their presence as well as giving further meaning and reinforcement to their works in the bushland reserves.

Given that many sites offer the prospect of providing habitat for threatened species and there is funding to support these populations, targeted surveys should be conducted for those most likely to occur in the reserves. This along with good incidental list records for these sites would prove very useful in funding applications in the future to support restoration and management works in addition to the current bush regeneration (such as feral animal control).

Recommendations:

• Undertake a systematic rare and threatened fauna survey for all Bushland Reserves managed by Council;

• In general the following taxonomic groups with threatened species require the following recovery actions:

Shorebirds: predator control (fox baiting, cats and dogs), management of visitor pressure (give way to birds) will ensure that migration refuges remain useable habitat and breeding can occur successfully; Wetland birds: predator control (fox baiting, cats and dogs), retaining or repairing terrestrial buffers around wetlands (up to 200m for the larger species); Insectivorous bats: maintain habitat, retain hollow-bearing trees and plant for these species for the next generation of hollows, ensure that mistletoes are present in the remnant (for eucalypt species) so as to initiate this hollow development;

Frugivorous and nectivorous bats: maintain and protect foraging areas and species as well as roosting sites, nectar and fruiting species-rich ECs and individual trees across the landscape (figs, Banksias etc.) even in urban areas;

Frogs: rid wetlands or headwaters of streams of Plague Minnows (as has successfully been achieved at the Lily Pond Spring), maintain appropriate burning regimes, reinstate populations of some species where Chytrid Fungus is not active but other threatening processes have been addressed (e.g. brackish wetlands for Green and Golden Bell Frogs);

Frugivorous birds: maintain and protect foraging areas and species, fruiting species-rich ECs and individual trees across the landscape (figs, Palms and other species, especially remnant areas, restore degraded or dying rainforest areas to improve tree health and fruit production) even in urban areas; Ground mammals: predator control (fox baiting, cats and dogs), maintain landscape connections between remnants, apply appropriate fire regimes to ensure food resources and shelter (including maintaining fallen woody debris);




Page 43

Arboreal mammals: predator control (fox baiting, cats and dogs), maintain landscape connections between remnants, apply appropriate fire regimes to ensure food resources and shelter (including maintaining fallen woody debris). Retain hollow-bearing trees and plant for these species for the next generation of hollows, ensure that mistletoes are present in the remnant (for eucalypt species) so as to initiate this hollow development;

Reptiles: predator control (fox baiting, cats and dogs), maintain landscape connections between remnants, apply appropriate fire regimes to ensure food resources and shelter (including maintaining fallen woody debris and leaf litter);

• Maintain good incidental species lists (for all taxa) with notes on location, numbers and habitat use for each reserve;

• Notify land manager if threatened species are recorded;

• Undertake targeted surveys for threatened species with a good chance of being on the site (but maintain a watchful eye for others that are less likely to be there); and

• Use current threatened species data and future records to support new funding bids for the recovery and maintenance of the Council’s Reserve network.

See also sections:

• Appendix 4

7.3.12 Koalas Koalas are an iconic species that are widespread (even still) in urban areas of the LGA, although their numbers and condition are suffering significantly. This is as the result of loss of habitat and connectivity due to development, road deaths and predation by domestic pets. Many are reported injured and starving. Koalas occupy a wide range of habitat in their movement through the landscape between feeding areas, requiring a range of high quality favoured species for food, quiet resting places, connection between feeding areas and a range of sub-optimal ‘survival’ food tree species to see them through bad periods.

To date there has been no comprehensive assessment, documentation and protection of Koala habitat in the LGA (Thor Aaso pers. comm.). Protected areas of habitat are instead set aside on an ad hoc basis at the time of development. This fragmented approach has led to a poorly coordinated approach to the conservation of this iconic species within the municipality and consequently, their future remains bleak.

It is fair to say the species is in crisis in the LGA and this is leading to desperate measures by those trying to conserve the species in the area. This includes inappropriate (out of EC) plantings of food trees that consequently fail to thrive; and repeated pruning of new plantings, that damages the form and future productivity of the planted trees.

Recommendations:

• Follow the Recovery Actions sensu DECC (Appendix 4: worksheet: Actions for threatened species) with reference to the relevant Health Assessment Sheet’s Recommendations for the Action Plan; and

• Locally undertake a comprehensive assessment of remaining habitat and linkages required to conserve the species in the LGA.





Page 44

7.4 Climate change Organisms and their communities and guilds face three scenarios with the forecast rate of climate change: they can migrate to reachable alternative habitats (i.e. migration barriers can be breached); they can stay and adapt; or they can stay and become extinct. Migration and migratory routes are going to be fundamental to the survival of many taxa in the coming decades and centuries. Similarly, places to go and room to grow are also going to be important. It is therefore imperative that such needs are anticipated and any actions that can reduce other stresses on these sites and routes should be undertaken wherever possible.

Here is a quick example. Littoral Rainforest at Middle Rock south of Port Macquarie has taken a hit from both sides: on the landward margin significant areas were cleared for agriculture and this cleared land is now ear-marked for urban development. On the seaward side, the area is decreasing because the coast is being steadily eaten away at the rate of 0.2m year-1 as the result of beach recession [linked to climate change by SMEC (2008)]. If there is no requirement on the developer to provide some room for expansion of this remnant, (and beach recession continues), there is nowhere for this nationally significant Littoral Rainforest stand to go. Land management will have failed if the only actions for the site are to keep the existing (and rapidly disappearing) remnant weed free. Whilst this action is important, it is not enough. At this strategic scale provision MUST BE MADE FOR EXPANSION OF THIS REMNANT because, although we may succeed and stabilise climate change in the centuries to come, if the remnant fell into the sea (because we did not allow for expansion) and it had no room to move, then today’s efforts at weed control and stand rehabilitation are worthless. Both tasks are equally important, each requires different players and different levels of decision-making, but both are absolutely vital. Recommendations:

• Maintain migration corridors: by reinforcing or repairing known or suspected movement or dispersal pathways (coastal reserve network);

• Identify refugia (coastal and riparian): maintain and expand where possible until climate change has been brought under control;

• Allow for adaptation and expansion: where cleared open space adjacent to climate change sensitive ECs is present, convert as much as possible back to the EC (Littoral Rainforest, Riparian and Wetland ECs).

See also sections:

• 7.10.1 Weakest links

• Recommendations for Action Plans that identify the site as a climate change refuge or migration route.

7.4.1 Climate change (fire risk, rising sea levels, increasing temperatures) Climate change has many elements. Each element requires addressing in the context of the site, the EC and its vulnerability to the element of climate change that is likely to act on the site. Individual elements are easier to address than the possible synergies that may arise from the interaction of the elements. Not all climate changes can be managed or mitigated, and the recommendations listed here are mostly about adaptation. The key elements that are relevant are listed below.




Page 45

Recommendations:

For reduction of fire risk will require appropriate burning of fire-dependant ECs and protection of fire-sensitive ECs:

• Protect rainforest from fire by managing APZs and any trash piles (from bush regeneration), illegal dumping, controlling illegal fires.

• In the case of larger reserves where ecological burning will is necessary for other ECs, ensure that these burns do not adversely impact on rainforest (or past rainforest values: e.g. Christmas Bells Plain and Grants Beach);

• Ensure appropriate fire regimes for Sclerophyll communities;

For rising sea levels the major impact will be on the location and migration of wetlands associated with estuaries:

• Monitor changes and intercede only if there is insufficient natural regeneration;

• Plan for inundation of neighbourhood of existing wetlands (allow for extension of wetlands);

• Assume and accept change of EC based on changes to flooding regime and salinity;

• Look to hinterland for more secure refugia for representative samples of Freshwater Wetlands;

• Freshwater Wetlands (at a continental scale are in decline), but the climatic outlook for this region is excellent. Look to rehabilitate as many of these current wetlands and their past habitat as possible within the LGA as it is of NATIONAL IMPORTANCE. This is especially important for the conservation of a wide range of freshwater-dependant flora and fauna.

Biodiversity Strategy

• The Biodiversity Strategy should be contain a climate change adaptation component that should specifically address the needs of groups of reserves based on their composition, conservation status, their exposure to climate change and the degree of threat.

• The Biodiversity Strategy should identify climate change refugia and climate change freeways for biodiversity so that resources and planning can take account of these factors for biodiversity conservation and management in the LGA.

7.4.2 Prioritisation actions by category Context: climate change migration, routes, destinations and refugia

There are four climate change scenarios that relate to the PMHC Bushland Reserves:

1. Loss of beaches affecting geographically restricted, or inherently rare vegetation), 2. Continental-scale contraction of freshwater wetlands as a result of reduced

rainfall and increased frequency, severity and duration of drought; 3. Changes in composition, distribution and 4. A re-activation of sea cliffs and marginal bluffs to wave-based erosion;

The immediate impacts of climate change are already being manifest in altered beach accretion and recession patterns between Camden Haven and Lighthouse Beach. The vegetation associated with these dunes is highly mobile and able to migrate to reach new habitat as it becomes available as a result of weed control and/or beach accretion. Some of




Page 46

this coastal vegetation (Littoral Rainforest) is of national and state significance and its listing under the EPBC Act and the TSC Act. These listings require action to address threats to its continued survival and evolution. Much of the Council’s focus on restoring these areas [particularly (though not exclusively following sand mining)] is counteracting several of the EPBC Act listed threats to this EEC.

Similarly the rehabilitation of freshwater wetlands that is taking place in many of the council’s reserves is also contributing to the protection of refuges for a broad range of freshwater-dependant flora and fauna.

To date, there has not been a widespread re-activation of sea cliffs and marginal bluffs, but clearly there needs to be action undertaken to provide escape routes and sites for migration of Littoral Rainforest associated with headlands (Tacking Point to Mrs Yorks Garden) and these are usually poorly used areas immediately in the hinterland.

Status: High

The coastal chain of reserves from Googley’s Lagoon-Pilots Beach to Pelican Point form a critical link in the coastal migration route for vegetation during climate change. Those in bold below are likely to act as refugia (being elevated, protected or part of sand systems that are currently accreting): either because of the resistance of the site to erosion (rocky or sheltered) or if landward expansion is planned and/or implemented.

Reserves that could be affected by changes to beach depositional processes:

• Grants Beach; • Rainbow Beach; • Middle Rock (all of the Japana Street section gone by 2100), but an equal width

remaining at Middle Rock itself: more if developer replants on landward margin); • Lake Cathie (Sthn Headland); • Lake Cathie (Nthn Headland); • Christmas Bells Plain; • Lighthouse Beach; • Pelican Point

Reserves likely to be affected by re-activation of seacliffs and marginal bluffs

• Tacking Point; • Sea Acres; • Shelly Beach; • Nobby’s Beach; • Flynn’s Beach; • Rocky Beach • Oxley Beach; • Town Beach;

The work undertaken by PMHC, bush regenerators and landcare is making a significant contribution to this evolutionary process and ensuring that adaptation to climate change is possible. If managed appropriately in the future: these actions should see this vegetation survive, adapt and reside in refuges until climate change is addressed on a planet-wide basis and brought under control.




Page 47

Recommendations:

• Strengthen links to allow migration (reinforce weak spots) by: o Widening the coastal vegetation corridor wherever possible o Continue weed control; o Formalise access; o Remove encroachments; o Repair damage;

• Ensure migration corridors can operate effectively by: o Maintaining important Littoral Rainforest stands; o Repairing and extending existing stands (Pilots Beach, Googley’s Lagoon,

Googley’s Islands), Grants Beach, Rainbow Beach, Middle Rock, Christmas Bells Plain, Lighthouse Beach);

o Removing transforming weeds along the corridor (Bitou, Lantana, Asparagus etc.);

• Support climate change refuges by: o Repairing refuges; o Continue weed control; o Re-establish stands from previously cleared areas (Pilot Beach, Wall Reserve,

Grants Beach, Lighthouse Beach, Shelly’s Beach, Flynns Beach, Rocky Beach-Windmill Park; Oxley Beach, Mrs Yorks Garden, Historic Maritime Marker, Settlement Shores and Pelican Point.

• Demonstrate climate change actions to the community by: o Erecting appropriate interpretive signage; o Badging planting days as climate change action events

Riparian and Freshwater wetland refugia Some species (birds, insects) are highly vagile and can travel to these wetlands even if they are not physically connected to waterways or intact bush. Others (frogs and reptiles) are much less mobile and would benefit from physical connections to the wider environment.

Status: High

These reserves contain significant repaired or intact freshwater wetlands or associated ECs that have regular inundation:

o Pilots Beach; o Grants Beach; o Christmas Bells Plains; o ??Lilypond; o Central Road; o Kooloongbung Creek; o Partridge Creek; o Sancrox Park

Recommendations:

• Strengthen links to allow migration and colonisation (reconnect) by: o Reinstating missing links; o Improve quality of existing links (weeding, maintenance); o Widening corridor wherever possible o Remove encroachments; o Repair damage;




Page 48

• Ensure migration corridors can operate effectively by:

o Maintaining water quality; o Repairing and extending existing stands;

• Support climate change refuges by: o Repairing refuges; o Continue weed control; o Re-establish stands from previously cleared areas (Central Road, Partridge

Creek, Sancrox Park). • Demonstrate climate change actions to the community by:

o Erecting appropriate interpretive signage; o Badging planting days as climate change action events

7.5 Planning: getting ahead of the game The LGA is awash with environmental and transforming weeds, with no fewer than 88% of the regularly controlled weeds in Council Bushland Reserves coming from horticulture and domestic plantings!

Currently there is no cogent advice to the Council or the populace on plantings that at a minimum do no further harm to the wider environment and at best assist it by using local provenance native species. Three obvious and quick solutions could be set in place to address this deficiency.

7.5.1 LGA Weed Alert process There is already a red alert weed listing process set up under the Mid-North Coast Weeds Committee. However, many of the locally serious transforming weeds appear to be overlooked by this process. If it fails to meet local needs then a local approach consisting of a representative committee of Council, Landcare and local nurseries (or their representative) may be necessary to act as a clearing house for weed alert nomination and assessment to put more pressure on the regional weeds committee. The local committee would be responsible for designating LGA Weed alert species and promulgating information sheets to the public and governmental organisations.

Recommendations:

• Investigate the red alert nomination process;

• If it fails to provide support for locally serious transforming weed listing: set up a local committee and begin work on LGA Weed Alert species for the shire (incorporating and including State Weed Alert Species);

• Disseminate the findings to the community;

• Institute a cooperative and staged approach to the weeds identified being respectful of resource and institutional limitations until these can be changed; and

• Ensure that Council plantings comply with these decisions.

7.5.2 Hierarchy for Municipal planting decisions A simple hierarchy of action for guiding municipal planting is required. This will ensure that no more harm is done to the wider environment and help to guide the removal of these environmental and transforming weeds from the municipality over the medium to long term. Planting these species needs to become unfashionable at worst and socially undesirable at best.




Page 49

Recommendations: Using the preliminary emerging weeds list (Appendix 6) initially and ultimately the recommendations of the LGA Weed Alert Committee apply the following hierarchy of actions to the LGA:

1. Do no more harm: do not plant environmental or transforming weeds any more;

2. Species to be eliminated:

a. Initially use the preliminary Council weed potential worksheet in Appendix 6 to guide the staged removal of environmental weeds from municipal plantings; and then

b. Ultimately use the state Weed Alert List and the LGA Weed Alert list to guide future plantings;

3. Immediately draw up plans for the removal of Weed Alert Species in Municipal plantings;

4. Ensure that Weed Alert Species are widely known and not planted or recommended for planting (including their removal from nurseries);

5. As a matter of course choose local provenance native species that are appropriate to the site and the role that they are to play (Appendix 6: worksheet: Plant me instead);

6. Aim to replace environmental or transforming weeds (as and when) resources and planning dictate plantings are to be renovated;

7.5.3 Planting by land zone for Council, domestic and commercial sites If the use of local provenance native species in municipal, domestic, commercial and industrial plantings is to become common place, the right plant for the right site needs to be the first step. Such planting recommendations need to take into account growing conditions (sourced initially from a pre-1750s EC map for the whole of the urban area) as a basis for producing a planting guide that includes a literature review of the ease of propagation and suitability of each species in horticultural applications sensu Peel (in press) Appendix 6 of the Manual. Putting the wrong species in the wrong place and using it for the wrong job is a recipe for disaster in this regard.

The pre-1750s map and the grow-me-instead lists could be used for:

• Landscaping requirements for new development when Development Applications are assessed

• Retrofitting existing urban landscapes (Appendix 6: worksheet: Plant-me-instead, local bush sections at nurseries, promotion of Landcare plants, free plants on public info days etc.)

o Residential o Industrial o Commercial

• Assisting home owners to select appropriate local indigenous species for their gardens (this has the additional benefit of expanding the effective area of local Bushland Reserves); and

• Street tree guides




Page 50

Recommendations:

• Produce a pre-1750s vegetation map for the urban areas based on the Port Macquarie Coastal Quaternary Geology mapsheet (Troedson and Hashimoto 2008). This is ten minutes work using the new geology map for the LGA; and

• Produce a local provenance planting guide for indigenous species for the urban areas of the LGA.

See also sections: 7.6.2 Hierarchy for Municipal planting decisions

Appendix 6

7.5.4 Soil carbon If soil carbon is low, nutrient cycling is reduced, water-holding capacity also declines and plants may fail to establish or thrive. Increasing soil carbon is usually relatively easy in forested and wetland ecosystems (Figures 2 and 3) through the use of mulches that allow plant establishment and so soil carbon builds as they shed leaves. Mulches also have the added benefit of keeping soils cool (a major aid to plant establishment. On skeletal soils on headlands, low carbon soils are appearing as the result of mowing and foot traffic.

Recommendations:

• Use weed-free mulches;

• Utilise successional planting principles (first planting pioneers and secondary species) as these plants are better adapted to hot low carbon soils;

• For Themeda Headland Grasslands undertake some trials at Town or Oxley Beach to uncover a method for healing sites where topsoils have been lost and the subsoil is exposed (suggest natural mulches and/or combination with nitrogen-fixing or pioneer grassland species (Chamaecrista maritima, Galactea tenuiflora, Glycines, Hardenbergia, Pultanaea maritima, and Vignia marina) followed by direct seeding with grasses. Any other ideas are welcome.

• Because of the importance of Coast Banksia in soil carbon recovery, monitor its colonisation, and if it is found to be under-recruiting, then take steps to see that it does establish on these sites (both sand systems and headlands).

See also sections: Appendix 1: Overarching principles: plant community succession

5.4.3 Coast Banksia




Page 51

Figure 2. Grants Beach and the loss of soil carbon. The use of large woody debris on this sand-mined site has two roles: to provide a wind-fence to catch windblown organic materials and seed, which enables seedling establishment; as well as acting as a deterrent to trail biker users that were destroying any natural regeneration. Over time the emerging vegetation itself supplies the necessary organic enrichment to the soils that will enable plant community succession.




Page 52

Figure 3. Grants Beach. Establishment of wetland and Swamp Sclerophyll Forest species on previously bare sand mined area. Note the increased levels of leaf litter trapped by the plants (and produced by them) as well as the establishment of algae on the wet sands which is helping to stabilise them and reduce the amount of sand blowing in the wind.

7.6 Threatening processes There are a number of State-wide listed threatening processes that are relevant to the management of Bushland Reserves in the Port Macqaurie Hastings LGA (Appendix 4 Threatened taxa vegetation and threatening processes: worksheet: key threatening processes).

7.6.1 State and national level threatening processes The threats (and their type) include:

• Invasion and establishment of exotic vines and scramblers (weeds)

• Invasion of native plant communities by bitou bush (weed)

• Invasion of native plant communities by exotic perennial grasses (weeds)

• Invasion, establishment and spread of Lantana camara (weed)

• Herbivory and environmental degradation caused by feral deer (pest animal)

• Invasion and establishment of the Cane Toad (pest animal)

• Predation by feral cats (pest animal)

• Predation by the European Red Fox (pest animal)




Page 53

• Predation by the Plague Minnow Gambusia holbrooki (pest animal)

• Alteration to the natural flow regimes of rivers, streams, floodplains & wetlands (habitat loss/change).

• Clearing of native vegetation (habitat loss/change)

• Ecological consequences of high frequency fires (habitat loss/change)

• Human-caused Climate Change (habitat loss/change)

• Loss of Hollow-bearing Trees - key threatening process (habitat loss/change)

• Removal of dead wood and dead trees (habitat loss/change)

• Infection of frogs by amphibian chytrid fungus causing the disease chytridiomycosis

• Infection of native plants by Phytophthora cinnamomi Where threat abatement plans are in place: follow these guidelines where possible and adapt them to the local priorities, needs and issues. In the absence of threat abatement plans: apply common sense and the relevant overarching principle (Appendix 1). Use the best practice management guidelines to deal with all of these threatening processes [e.g. Johnston et. al. 2003 for acid sulfate soils and Broese van Grenou and Downey (2005); Winkler et. al. (2008) for Bitou control etc.]

7.6.2 Council mediated threatening processes There are a number of locally operating threatening processes, some of which are within the mitigation purview of Council to address. These can be categorised under:

Connectivity

• Planning that does not ensure the application of ecological or landscape planning principles to ensure the connectivity of existing bushland and Bushland Reserves is maintained as much as practical when development proposals change rural landscapes into urban landscapes;

Climate change adaptation and planned retreat

• Planning that does not ensure migration, adaptation and expansion options for listed EECs are maintained as much as practical when development proposals change rural landscapes into urban landscapes;

LGA plantings of environmental weeds

• Council plantings that use environmental or transforming weeds;

Mowing

• Mowing bushland fringes as a management technique (in contexts other than APZ maintenance).

Recommendations: Landscape level planning

• Ensure as much as possible that planning and development decisions incorporate landscape connectivity and climate change principles into land use allocation and management;




Page 54

Reduction of environmental weed loads in LGA plantings

• Discontinue the use of environmental and transforming weeds in Council plantings and Development Application planting lists (if the latter still occurs);

• Apply the Decision Hierarchy for municipal plantings to both Council plantings and Development Application planting lists;

• Renovate Council plantings using local indigenous species as the first choice and non-spreading benign exotic species as the second choice;

• All new Council plantings should use local indigenous species as the first choice and non-spreading benign exotic species as the second choice;

See also other sections: Appendix 6: Council weed risk and grow-me-instead.

7.7 Reinforcing existing works A great deal can be done to increase resilience for existing sites where works have been done, that in the medium term should greatly reduce the cost of ongoing ecological maintenance.

7.7.1 Edge plantings This is one of the most effective and low cost means available to reduce maintenance (Figures 4 and 5). Irrespective of whether it is a soft or hard edge, these plants need to be established early on in any project to help prevent lateral reinvasion of the works site by weeds. A list of suitable species by EC is provided in Appendix 5 planting species lists: Edge species. Species are included on the basis of their ability to close edges with dense foliage. This is usually as a result of their architecture, but in some cases, the use of a combination of life-forms will be necessary to achieve a ground to canopy result. For example, Paroo Lily+Spiny-headed Mat-rush+Lilly Pilly+Small-leaved Fig for a rainforest edge. The list is annotated to indicate EC, light niche and moisture niche.




Page 55

Figure 4. Blair Reserve. A ‘traditional’ Spiny-headed Mat-rush Lomandra longifolia edge. The time-consuming establishment of these edges is specifically undertaken to ward off over-zealous mowing and to define an edge between the lawn environment and the bushland. Better agreements between different arms of the Council will reduce the need for this time-consuming practice (opening up the possibility of creating more EC-specific edge treatments (Figure 5).




Page 56

Figure 5. Blair Reserve. A less ‘traditional’ edge where the rainforest EC can come out to the lawn. This is possible because there is good cooperation between bush regenerators and lawn mowers, that does not require the physical barrier of Mat-rush.

7.7.2 Supplementary plantings

Recommendations:

• Supplementary plantings should be undertaken where natural regeneration is inadequate. This is necessary when the quantum of regeneration for individual species is poor; as well as for species that are not recruiting, but for which there is a strong likelihood they were either there in the past or should be there now (i.e. altered trajectories);

• Floristic community species lists must be developed for each EC being restored so that appropriate species are reintroduced to the restoration sites;

• Plant propagation material should be sourced from equivalent ECs, from the meta-population (populations that are genetically connected by pollen and/or seed). Suggested distances by categories are:

o Grey-headed Flying Fox, Figbird and rainforest pigeon-dispersed: up to 15-20km distant;

o Intra-stand bird-dispersed (Lewins Honeyeater, Silvereyes etc.) within the stand or from stands that would have been connected in the past;

o Wind-dispersed: heavy seed 5-10km, lighter seed 50km

o Stream-dispersed: within the catchment;




Page 57

o Estuary-dispersed (within the estuary);

o Ocean-dispersed: respect the geographic limits of the species involved, collect winter seeding species to the south of your site (the source of species blown north by winter storms); and summer seeding species from the north (the source of species blown south by prevailing summer trade winds).

• If seed sources are poor (low seed set, low viability), remnants are small, flowering is inadequate, the previously enunciated dispersal distances can be modified and seed can be sourced from a wider area, BUT EC and landform/geology principles must still be followed;

See also sections:

• 6.9.1 Landcare nursery

7.8 Strategic threat mitigation (weeds, fragmentation) Recommendations:

• Weeds: be clear about what weeds are tackled, why and when:

o Timing: remember a cover of a monoculture weed (such as Bitou) may be visually and ecologically offensive, but it is better than tackling it without adequate follow-up as has been the case at Flynns Beach. The cost of undoing such poor management will (in most cases) far-outway any ecological cost of delaying control action until there is certainty of follow-up funding.

o Always practice integrated weed management: never just spray or pull a weed if you are unable to replace it with a functioning plant community except where:

The weed is a transforming species that is an outlying population and you will achieve eradication and prevent further seeding and spread

• Consistency: always aim to return to a site and finish the job that was begun with the initial control. There is a major mismatch here between the organisational arrangements (ad hoc grant-based funding) and the need for consistent and timely weed control. This mismatch consistently leads to weed relapses which cost a great deal more to control whilst the biodiversity and community gains are lost;

• Be strategic: control water-borne weeds from the top of the catchment (unless keeping a very important site on life-support);

• Choose your targets carefully: match your control method to the situation (site, density, life-form, time of year etc.)

• Only control transforming weeds: use other methods to deal with background weeds (restore the area to the original vegetation, use other processes such as fire or rehydration etc. to make the site unsuitable for these species).

Recommendations

• In order to retain and maintain the gains achieved by knockdown and bush regeneration, there is a clear need for an in-house bush regeneration team employed on recurrent funding to meet undertake the ecological maintenance of Council Reserves.




Page 58

7.8.1 Acknowledge limitation of resources: SAY NO If Council is unable to service a request for help to control weeds or other problems on the reserve, then acknowledge the Council’s limitations and say no. Turn it around to say, if you can make a start then Council will support you in any way that it can, since it is already fully committed with other sites.

If you continue to increase your area of responsibility and number of sites without gaining efficiencies in methods or additional resources, you will over-reach yourselves, lose sites and support.

Recommendations:

• Redirect people to existing Council priority sites (and/or tasks) as per this report;

• Be plain and up-front regarding limitations to Council (and volunteer) resources and priorities; and

• Accept a new site and provide support only if there is a proviso that work is done on catchment or other priorities (e.g. in riparian situations a proportion of site works’ time is spent on water-borne weeds at the uppermost infestation site in the catchment)

7.8.2 Successional planning for expert staff One of the major reasons that the existing program of reserve management is so successful is the division of responsibility and the hard work of experts in their field (both within the Council and its contractors). Bushland management has four phases:

Prioritisation: selecting the right reserve in the right order for attention based on conservation values and the reserves role in supporting biodiversity, ecosystem health and water quality (this report);

Initial knockdown or landscape-scale weed control: where the big yards are gained upfront with expert application of herbicides over large areas in a targeted way that conserves the native vegetation entangled within the infestations (Council staff);

Bush regeneration: taking on sites where the major infestations have been controlled, but have given way to low population levels of these weeds or have set off the germination or expansion of sleeper weeds on the site (Bush Regenerators). This action allows the site to naturally regenerate and become strong again. Without this intervention the site dies;

Ecological maintenance: this is the end stage that keeps Bushland Reserves in good condition. This costs very little if site health is monitored and actions are undertaken regularly and at the right time

The need for successional planning is related to the Initial knockdown phase and the excellent work undertaken by Graeme Guy (with assistance from Landcare). The essential nature of this phase requires high skill levels and dedication, a role that Graeme has undertaken for more than a decade. Now is the time to ensure that he has an understudy so that when he retires, that this essential role (and the gains in land management already achieved) are not lost to Council.

Failure to take account of this successional imperative will mean a delay in filling the position and getting the replacement up to speed when Graeme retires. This will lead to substantial areas of the Council’s Bushland estate undergoing rapid collapse and the costs of recovering these areas will be very substantial.




Page 59

7.8.3 Grow me instead

Recommendations:

• Use the data in Appendix 6: worksheet: Grow-me-instead as the guide for Council plantings, commercial plantings, urban plantings and expansion of reserves into the residential back yards that abut bushland reserves.

See also sections: 7.1 Long term goals

7.9 Community initiatives and support The Port Macquarie Hastings Council LGA is blessed with regard to the level of cooperation between Council and volunteer groups. The quality of this cooperation is reflected in the excellent work already done (and planned) across the Bushland Reserve estate.

A number of community initiatives are suggested in this report, that aims to strengthen these links and support, reduce frustration and provide support. Community initiatives that require continued Council support include: the Volunteer Expo, the Landcare nursery, ongoing financial, logistic and technical advice and encouragement to all reserve workers and their sites.

Recommendations:

• Continue to support existing community initiatives;

• Support the community initiatives suggested by this report (including, grow-me-instead; mowing abatement; review and action on Council environmental weed plantings; setting up an LGA Weed Alert process etc.); and

• Undertake appropriate new initiatives on the basis of shared goals and synergies that assist both the reserves themselves and those that are so passionately (and effectively) caring for them.

See also sections: 7.9.1 Landcare nursery 7.9.2 Creating demand for local plants 7,9.3 Working with community 7.9.4 Working with nurseries 7.9.5 Working with Council

7.9.1 Landcare nursery This management plan strongly endorses the propagation and dissemination of indigenous species from local seed provenances. The Port Macquarie-Hastings Landcare Nursery is the primary source of such propagated material and Council wishes to continue its support for this valuable community-based initiative. Where numbers or species cannot be supplied by the Landcare Nursery, other local and regional native plant nurseries will be used to source appropriate planting materials.

Plant selections for restoration works will necessarily be limited by the ability of these nurseries to propagate the species desired for restoration of bushland reserves in the quantities required..




Page 60

Recommendations:

• To reinforce local bush regeneration and community involvement in these works: Council’s indigenous species requirements should be sourced form the Landcare Nursery; and

• This should include a shift in Parks and Gardens ‘plant-me-instead’ renovations of streetscape plantings where environmental weeds are currently used (e.g. Liriope, Singapore Daisy, Indian Hawthorn, Agapanthus, Cocos Palms etc.);

7.9.2 Creating demand for local plants The key to creating a demand for local plants is education regarding environmental and transforming weeds planted in gardens and municipal areas. It needs to become socially and environmentally unacceptable to grow or permit environmental and transforming weeds in your care to continue to grow. This will take time and education, clearly identified and advertised alternatives that are appropriate to the site and the task required of the plant (Plant-me-instead etc.). It will also require a local process for the identification of Weed Alert species for the LGA.

Recommendations:

• Facilitate the formation of an LGA Weed Alert process;

• Produce a comprehensive list of environmental and transforming weeds that are still in cultivation;

• Produce a comprehensive list of alternative grow-me-instead local species;

• Advertise the Weed Alert species and the availability of a grow-me-instead local species guide;

• Set up bushland plant sections in local nurseries;

• Allow the Landcare Nursery to sell directly to the public if local retail nurseries do not want to fill this niche market;

• Systematically begin the process of ‘virtual reserve expansion’ into the built neighbourhood abutting Bushland Reserves by offering advice on bush gardens that incorporate local provenance native species and offer these plants to participating households in a trial locality; and

• Apply the results of virtual reserve expansion to other sites.

7.9.3 Working with nurseries WEEDS DO NOT JUST ARISE SPONTANEOUSLY IN THE LANDSCAPE: WE BRING THEM IN! So where do they come from? The great bulk, (88%) of the most regularly recorded transforming weeds that are being managed by Council on its Bushland Reserves, were originally introduced for horticultural reasons. Many are still grown today in urban, commercial and municipal plantings (Queen Palm, Agapanthus etc.). Most of the new and emerging weeds continue to come from old and new nursery lines (Appendix 6: worksheet: New and emerging weeds) and many of these should be the subject of review by the suggested LGA Weed Alert process.




Page 61

Recommendations:

• In setting up the LGA Weed Alert process, offer local retail nurseries a seat at the table;

• Help local retail nurseries to set up bushland garden sections in their displays, using local provenance native species; and

• If this fails, give the task to the Landcare Nursery

7.10 Off-reserve connectivity options (in urban and peri-urban landscapes) Success in this field is a medium to long-term process, requiring understanding of landscape scale natural resource management and ecology. It is currently being undertaken at the site based scale with restoration of bushland areas in preparation for wider landscape connectivity. The options for greater off-reserve connectivity include:

Involving intervening land uses in conservation of biodiversity through the use of indigenous local provenance native plants, soft engineering of waterways and the participation of the whole community (municipal, residential, industrial and commercial) in this process.

The potential benefits to biodiversity, aesthetics and liveability in urban areas are huge. With respect to temperature and water quality: actions taken now will help human adaptation to climate change in the urban environment as it is begins to be impacted by rising temperatures.

There is over 2370ha of public land within the LGA of which currently only ~550ha is current being actively managed for their biodiversity values. There needs to be an assessment of “whats left” to improve the ecosystem health and biodiversity outcomes for the balance of the reserve system in the LGA.

A strategic approach is also required to ensure the conservation of existing remnants outside the reserve system that could be used in increasing the current reserve system’s connectivity and viability. This will require significant data collection through a process such as a Biodiversity Strategy. Such a strategy would include site assessment, mapping, analysis, assignment of significance, strategic planning and recovery actions to meet the Council’s legislative obligations

Recommendations:

• Undertake a comprehensive Biodiversity Strategy to support strategic planning decisions that identify key remnants and sites for rehabilitation. These can then be used at the planning stage for reinstating missing links in both the urban and peri-urban zones of the LGA as well as providing the necessary data to support the implementation recovery plans for threatened species and communities;

• Incorporate linkages as a matter of course in urban planning and Development Applications.

• Consult Health Asssesment Sheet site maps for the neighbourhood links to their nearest reserves;

• Involve all land uses in the adoption and appropriate use of local provenance indigenous species where this does not affect amenity or other risks to the built environment.

See also sections: 7.3.12 Koalas




Page 62

7.10.1 Weakest links Based on narrowness of the corridor, weediness, or loss of habitat, these are the weakest links in the connectivity of Council’s coastal Bushland Reserves important for climate change.

North Shore (Pelican Point) to Pacific Drive Port Macquarie (weeds and other uses of public land);

Central Road to Kooloongbung (other uses of public land);

Central Road to the Airport and Partridge Creek-Hastings River;

Bonny Hills-Wauchope SLSC/Rainbow Beach;

Bonny Hills Headland (views);

North Haven Wall Reserve at the western end (playgrounds);

Queens Lake (encroachment);

Middle Rock (retreating coast); and

Chepana Street and Lake Cathie Headland Sth (retreating coast).

Recommendations:

• Look for opportunities to re-establish or strengthen links between remnants and providing public open space for the restoration of links at the planning level through the Biodiversity Strategy and the Local Growth Management Strategy.

• Reinforce existing native vegetation by weeding, repairing gaps and edges.

• Take any opportunity to expand size (area and width) e.g. Macquarie Park, Wrights Creek;

• Reconnect remnants through replanting current open space; and

• Plan for diffuse connections via road networks (without compromising their primary use).

8 TRAINING

8.1 Reporting results, training and feedback A range of reporting (this report, workshops and constant reinforcement of the process with all stakeholders) was undertaken during the period of this project were undertaken to ensure ownership of the process and its results.

8.1.1 Council officer training for Bushland Health Assessment On the job training of council officers, Landcare and bush regenerators in Health Assessment took place during the field work phase of this project.

8.1.2 Prioritisation workshop On 14-01-09 a workshop on the preliminary results of the Reserve Health Assessment prioritisation was conducted by Ethos NRM Pty Ltd. on behalf of the Council. Attendees included: Landcare (Estelle Gough); Bush Regenerators (Hastings Bush Regeneration Services: Dave Filipczyk; and Wild Things Gardens: Sue Regans); Council (Thor Aaso, Paul O’Connor and Graeme Guy). The workshop conducted by Bill Peel covered:




Page 63

The reasons why prioritisation is used (resources are short, to see how much progress is being made, to meet legal obligations, to look after the best first, to be strategic about where priorities exist).

The method for prioritisation (using the Health Assessment data);

Other factors that could be used (some were presented, others were developed during the workshop).

Criteria for prioritisation:

• Health score rating • Strategic • Site progress • Prospects for success • Viability and resilience • Strategic and/or climate change • Offsite impacts • EECs • Legal requirements • Trumps

Participants were asked to vet the draft prioritisation that was presented (Appendix 2: 2a). The only major concern was the presence of Lighthouse Beach in the Benchmark category. Preliminary inconsistencies were identified (with others of concern to be reviewed by the author). All were addressed during the data entry and finalisation of Health Assessment sheets.

A summary of the outcomes follows:

Koala’s are so widespread in the LGA that they were left out of the prioritisation (i.e. pretty much all bush regeneration on Council sites had a Koala habitat component. The attendees accepted this approach.

The emphasis on Littoral Rainforest in the prioritisation was accepted (largely because it is a high conservation status EC and is under great threat, is common in Council Reserves and requires management (especially now that it has been listed as Critically Endangered) under the EPBC Act. It was qualified by an understanding that the prioritisation had not abandoned other EECs such as wetlands and floodplain forests.

Suggestions on the results of the prioritisation: Manage reserves lower down in prioritisation on a life-support basis until they can be dealt with by removing new and emerging weeds (Appendix 6 worksheet: New and emerging weeds), preventing existing transforming weeds from spreading further.

What levels of protection are afforded the reserves into which huge amounts of public funds and volunteer effort have been invested? The example of the Crown Land at Grants Beach was mentioned. One model may involve covenanting as was done at Pelican Point.

Education of other council sectors (and the broader community) using: policy, mapping, better and more consistent messages, signage and perhaps through rezoning.

Mowing abatement was seen as a major issue and participants were glad that it will be dealt with in this report. However support was qualified: areas should be flagged




Page 64

now (aerially with maps) for areas to go back into the bush estate. The mowing should stop immediately only where there is a high likelihood of success with minimal maintenance requirements (i.e. natural regeneration is likely to be rapid and to control grass areas). Examples cited include where there are non-transforming grasses (Couch) on edges and the presence of root-coppicing species Yellowwood Acronychia oblongifolia, Swamp Oak Casuarina glauca, Kurrajong Commersonia spp. Convex Paperbark Melaleuca biconvexa, Muttonwood Myrsine howittiana etc. or aggressive colonisers such as Coast Wattle Acacia longifolia ssp. sophorae etc.

The converse is true where this scenario does not apply and full reconstruction and maintenances is required (in areas with Kikuyu, Setaria, Rhodes Grass etc.). The latter scenario can be dealt with by progressive (and targeted) herbicide applications on the margins of root-copping species.

The rehabilitation of boggy areas into ‘frog hollows’ (particularly ‘winter-wet’ areas). This would involve delimiting such areas and progressively planting them out with suitable wetland and/or Swamp Oak, Swamp Sclerophyll Forests. This idea has already been discussed on site with the Parks and Gardens Supervisor at Lighthouse Beach

Business sponsorship (dollars and people) for new works or landcare groups was raised as an alternative for funding and increasing community participation.

Consolidation of Pilots Beach picnic and swings area also at Pilots Beach: consider only in couch areas whereby leaving them will not lead to a large weed infestation.

If Lomandras are too time-consuming and expensive then come up with alternatives.

Roadside edge regeneration with low maintenance native species Blady-grass and ground-ferns are alternatives. This is an important issue as many road edges are becoming invasion pathways for transforming species including: Setaria, Vasey grass, Coreopsis etc.

Comment on the draft report: from what the group heard about the progress and content of this report, comment from them seemed unnecessary (particularly as the author offered that to the Council for amendment following its submission). Members of the community did comment including: Ann Eggert (Landcare), Julie Ho (Landcare), Estelle Gough (Landcare) Roy Sach (Landcare), Paul O'Connor (PMHC) Graeme Guy (PMHC), Grant Taylor (PMHC), Liam Bulley (PMHC) David Filipczyk, Sue Reagan, Me, Mike Dodkin (DECC), Cath Le Page (Friends of Kooloonbung Crk), Janet Watson (Landcare).

9 FUTURE TASKS This project is only just a beginning. It sets out many recommendations that need to be implemented on a variety of time scales and levels. Some tasks need to be undertaken in order to realise and implement these recommendations to their fullest extent. These are listed below as future tasks.




Page 65

9.1 Future tasks The future tasks that must be done in order to implement the recommendations of this report include:

• Undertake Health Assessments for all of the Council’s remaining reserve estate as a prelude for redirecting resources once the existing reserves meet LEVEL 1: Ecological Maintenance;

• Threatened flora surveys of all bushland reserves;

• Threatened fauna surveys of all bushland reserves;

• Compilation of bush reclamation by mowing cessation;

• Negotiation of these areas with the community and Parks and Gardens; and

• Undertake a comprehensive study to identify key linkages and strategies for reinstating missing links in the urban and to soon be developed urban areas of the LGA.

Recommendations:

• That those responsible for future tasks undertake them and supply the information to the process to ensure that the report’s intentions are carried out, that new priorities are identified and integrated into the Councils Bushland Reserve management in the future.




Page 66

10 ATTACHMENTS

10.1 Attachment 1: key to the ECs and EECs of the PMHC LGA KEY TO THE ECs OF PORT MACQUARIE HASTINGS SHIRE 1a. The vegetation is rainforest (dense shady canopy………………………………….……………..…….2 1b. The vegetation is not rainforest (more open canopy..…………………………...…………….…..……3 1c. The vegetation is a treeless wetland…………………………………………..……….………...…7 or 8 1d. The vegetation is a grassland…………………………………………………………………………….9 2a. Coastal rainforests influenced by salt (from the sea or an estuary). The rainforest is low in height (Lake Cathie Nth Headland, Rainbow Beach, Middle Rock Beach etc.) and usually grows in an exposed coastal position and may only be centimetres high on the frontline (Lake Cathie Nth Headland), where the wind-sheared canopy may have stags from the previously decapitated canopy (Pacific Drive). This rainforest can also grow around estuaries in more sheltered sites: where they can be taller and have a more uneven canopy (e.g. opposite Settlement City)……………………………………………………………………...……………………Littoral Rainforest 2b. Wet rainforests growing away from the coast, usually in gullies and sheltered slopes or on floodplains (e.g. Sancrox Park). Figs are usually a major element and large epiphytes can be abundant in old, undisturbed and un-poached sites (the sheltered gully in Sea Acres). Palms and ferns are common. Tree boles are large and often buttressed, strangler figs are usual………………………………………….……………..Subtropical Rainforest 3a. The vegetation is a forest on dry land……………………………………………..……………..….…………...…….4 3b. The vegetation is a wetland (including Mangroves and Swamp Oak)……..………… ….…………….……….…5 4a. The vegetation is found on sheltered slopes, gullies and along minor streams and is dominated by eucalypts and angophoras with a ‘wet’ understorey of rainforest trees, shrubs and vines (fire is infrequent)…………………………………………………………………………….....................Wet Sclerophyll Forest 4b. The vegetation is restricted to floodplains and has a grassy and herbaceous groundlayer with scattered rainforest trees (more if fire has been many decades ago (e.g. Bunny’s Corner), fewer if the fire has been more recent…………………………………………………………………..………...Subtropical Coastal Floodplain Forest 4c. The vegetation is found on exposed slopes and ridges and is dominated by eucalypts and angophoras with a ‘dry’ understorey of non-rainforest trees shrubs, grasses and sedges dependant on fire fore regeneration.…………………………………..…………..………..………………………...……..Dry Sclerophyll Forest 5a. The vegetation is periodically inundated by freshwater…………..………………………………...…………..……6 5b. The vegetation is periodically inundated by salt water…………..………………………………...…………………7 The vegetation grows is in saline estuaries being periodically inundated by and is next to open saline water and is a low forest or woodland dominated by one or more species of mangrove………………………………….Mangrove 5c. The vegetation is less often inundated by saline water than Mangroves and is a forest dominated by Swamp Oak………………………………………………..…………..…………………………....Swamp Oak Floodplain Forest




Page 67

6a. The vegetation is a forest and is dominated by Paperbarks and has a sedgy and ferny understorey (it may surround open Freshwater Wetlands (see 8 below)…………………………………...…..Swamp Sclerophyll Forest 6b. The vegetation is a forest and is dominated by Swamp Oak and Swamp Mahogany.....………………………………………………………………………………Swamp Oak Floodplain Forest 7. The vegetation is treeless and occurs on gently sloping flats adjacent to Mangroves……………..…..Saltmarsh 8. Occurs on floodplains, is treeless and is seasonally inundated……………………………....Freshwater Wetland 9. The vegetation grows on headlands and is dominated by grasses, herbs and small shrubs (other than Coast Wattles) with good examples at Tacking Point and degraded examples at the headland between Flynn’s Beach and Rocky Beach, and Town Beach…………………………………………………………….…..Themeda Headlands




Page 68

10.2 Attachment 2: Explanation of Health Assessment categories and how to fill them in

FACTORS TO CONSIDER WHEN UNDERTAKING THE HEALTH ASSESSMENT Fill in the Health Assessment sheet in the following order; taking careful note of the meaning of each category and the process required to fill in each section. Score those section indicated below.

PAGE 1: preliminary assessment RESERVE NAME The official or accepted name for the reserve AREA The area of the currently managed area of the Bushland Reserve in ha (the whole reserve may be the same area or a larger area) P.A.R: perimeter to area ratio, a formula that provides a number that is a measure of site integrity and its risk of edge effects. Cultural site: are there any sites of known (indigenous or otherwise) sites of cultural significance present. Yes, no or NK (not known). Site name: a subset of the reserve (e.g. Grants Beach South, Grant Headland etc. for the larger Grants Beach Reserve). Landscape context: physically connected (bush to bush) Dispersal connectivity: virtually connected (by dispersal mechanisms and dispersal agents: animals, wind, water). Score this section ECs: Ecological Community (see the EC) EECs: Endangered Ecological Community (see EEC keys) ALTERED SITE FACTORS Circle the relevant factor in the field and bold them when filling electronic record) If not altered write in OK following the options. Soils: indicate the factor that has been altered: add notes if necessary Fire regime: indicate the factor that has been altered: add notes if necessary Waterway: indicate the factor that has been altered: add notes if necessary (this is scored later in both the Key processes section under Hydrology and ALTERED SITE FACTORS sections) Soil seed bank: indicate the factor that has been altered: add notes if necessary (this is scored later in both the Key processes and ALTERED SITE FACTORS sections under Soil seed bank) Dumping/vandalism/tracks: indicate the factor that has been altered: add notes if necessary Beneficial edges: are those that are stable and not providing further disruption or weeds to the site Deleterious edges: are those that are unstable and providing weeds to further weaken the site (note that these do not include waterways (which are dealt with under waterway above), but can include internal weed invasion fronts, picnic areas, walking tracks etc.




Page 69

Trajectory altered to: if it is obvious that a key process is missing and that the original ECs are transforming into another EC (for example a Wet Sclerophyll Forest site that is not being burnt at the appropriate frequency or intensity and is succeeding into rainforest). State the original EC and what it is transforming into SITE MANAGEMENT Fill in the appropriate activity that matches the works that have occurred on the site Financial resources: fill in the relevant section that matches the dollar resources applied to the site. Score this section NEIGHBOURHOOD RELATIONS Fill in the appropriate activity that matches the relationships operate on the site. Score this section Human resources: fill in the relevant section that matches the human resources applied to the site. Score this section Transformer weeds: list these, the year that works on them began, the method used and the stage of weed control using the following terms: knockdown: first attack; controlled: not getting larger or worse; eradicated: no longer present on the site Emerging weeds: transforming weeds that are just arriving on the site (small populations or individuals) Threats to the site: list everything major that you can think of, which is threatening the ecological health and integrity of the site (these may be on the site, in the site’s neighbourhood), known (e.g. a development in the catchment) or projected (e.g climate change). INTUITIVE HEALTH PROSPECTS Based on your assessments to date: what health rating do you think would apply to the site? This is a standardisation process that will later be compared to the numerical rating (Appendix 2). INTUITIVE PROSPECTS Based on your assessments to date: what prospects do you think the site has in the future? This is a standardisation process that will later be compared to the numerical rating (Appendix 2). Health score (Part 1): this is calculated automatically in the Excel spreadsheet once you enter your data.

PAGE 2: detailed assessment Site history: provide a brief written history, when works began (why if relevant), what was done. Encroachment: this is a major threat and includes mowing, killing trees for views, unauthorised plantings, buildings etc. Think of the worst site in the LGA (Japana Street) and work back from there. Note this does not include kids building cubbies, BMX tracks etc (seen as a socially and environmentally beneficial grounding in the long term as these kids often return as adults in later life to work in the bush or volunteer for bush regeneration). Score this section Key processes: these are the positive ecological and other processes that benefit or maintain the ecological health and integrity of the site. If each of the categories listed for the site are at full tilt (operating at what you perceive to be their maximum capacity then give them a full positive score). Consider the score as a percentage (out of 100). Refer to your notes in the relevant section back on PAGE 1 to help you with this scoring. Score this section Other: give the reserve 100 points for any major works or trajectory changing act or activity that has helped to save the reserve from oblivion (e.g. a major transforming weed controlled; the formation of a Landcare or friends group that is focused on the reserve)




Page 70

ALTERED SITE FACTORS These are the negative ecological and other processes that bring your site’s ecological health and integrity down. If each of the categories listed for the site are completely degraded (operating at what you perceive to be their maximum impact give them their full negative score). Consider the score as a percentage (out of 100). Refer to your notes in the relevant section back on PAGE 1 to help you with this scoring. Score this section ECs and threatened species (and their health): if these are present and in good health give them full score, mark down for degradation or threatening processes that affect the ECs or threatened species’ health. Score this section Other site factors: score site factors not covered by previous sections (beneficial and deleterious site factors) with a positive and negative score respectively. Score this section Altered site trajectory: if so what?: now that you are now very familiar with the site, revisit your previous assessment of changes in site trajectories and record them here Reference site: what is the locality with the same ECs and or vegetation patterns that is in a largely natural condition that is your benchmark for the restoration and repair being undertaken on the site? List them. Reference site comparisons: use your nominated reference site (as the benchmark) and record how the site comes up to the standard of the natural site. Score this section Transformer weed distribution: choose the relevant category (for the whole site). You get a chance to score individual zones on PAGE 3. Score this section Appropriate weed control: circle the appropriate category and give 100 points for each. Integrated weed management means that more is done than killing weeds: native regeneration is conserved, encouraged or staged to ensure that resilience returns to the site. Planting following weed control, followed by maintenance is included as a type of integrated weed management. Score this section Resilience: how healthy is the site and how resistant is it to the threats that can undermine its ecological health? Score this section HEALTH RATING Summarise what you have found in terms of the site’s health (how the site is now) FUTURE PROSPECTS This is the place to state what needs to be done provided that: (whatever it is that is required to give it the future prospect that you have assigned) RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACTION PLAN This is the section where you provide the actions to be acted upon in the site’s Action Plan. Think carefully and put in the big picture actions that are required based on your assessment and any other information that you can find. ADVICE What advice would you give the reserve manager for the immediate future




Page 71

PAGE 3: Zones and their management (for the Site Action Plan) BUSHLAND CONDITION MAP AND ZONES Mark up the map with management zones (usually areas of uniform weed invasion, vegetation type or task) and include site specific notations for particular problems (dumping, a small infestation of a transforming weed). Edges that require specific treatments can also be placed on this map. This is where Recommendations for Action Plan are mapped to give the reserve managers and workers a guide to where to apply your recommendations. Condition rating classes/Zones/Other management (including APZs): annotate this section with: each zone and its condition; other management required: edges, gaps, rubbish dumping, encroachment.

PAGE 4: Weeds and the zone in which they occur (for the Site Action Plan) Weed species table: annotate this table for the zones (from the BUSHLAND CONDITION MAP AND ZONES) of the weeds found in the reserve. Add species that are not listed under ‘Others’. The balance of the table is to be filled out as works proceed as a part of the site Action Plan.




Page 72

10.3 Attachment 3: Shelly Beach aerial Bitou control review REVIEW OF OFF-TARGET SPECIES DAMAGE BY AERIAL SPRAYING

Conducted by: Grant Taylor and Bill Peel 26-11-08.

Background

The Bitou TAP required aerial control of this species along Shelly Beach northward from the existing control line in Littoral Rainforest, moving towards Nobbys Beach. The method involves the use of half strength glyphosate to which Bitou is extremely susceptible over winter, but non-target species are relatively resistant (some damage is expected for some species irrespective of timing: soft grasses and ground-layer species), with others either apparently unaffected or suffering some burning but no long-term deleterious impact (Grant Taylor pers. comm.).

The normal timing of such control is mediated by the dormancy of the non-target species and the active growth of Bitou and June-July is usual for PMHC area. Because of logistical issues and NPWS requiring spraying before seed set, the site was actually sprayed in March-April.

Considerable non-target damage was recorded anecdotally and this review was undertaken to formalise these observations.

There are a number of possible reasons for the off-target damage demonstrated on the site (based on field observations and discussions with Grant Taylor):

• Timing was wrong and non-target species were likely to still be actively growing; • Mixing was incomplete (some areas getting heavier doses than others); • Flying patterns meant that the desired two pass applications were 3 or more;

Discussions with Grant Taylor indicated a number of compounding factors that led to an earlier than recommended spraying time at Shelly Beach in 2008 and perhaps a poorer result, namely:

• Pressure from NPWS to spray before seed set; the NPWS helicopter and spray crew was available for a 3 day window (which was when the spraying took place);

• The usual highly trusted operator was not available;

Aim

The aim was to: systematically document the impacts of the March-April 2008 aerial Bitou control at Shellys Beach and based on these; to provide an interpretation of what might have occurred; suggest future monitoring to investigate any hypothesis put forward and to recommend protocols for future work.

Methodology

The site was visited in November 2008 at the request of Thor Asso. Bill Peel and Grant Taylor did the visual assessment on a species by species basis across the site and the rating was agreed and is based on field observations.

Definition

Three classes of impact were noted and are defined as:

No impact: any signs of herbicide damage minimal, older leaves intact, actively growing;

Affected but recovering: two classes were identified:

Not Bad: effects obvious such as yellowing, deformation, but little foliage loss, new growth healthy and judged likely to survive;

Bad: badly affected, loss of foliage, loss of vigour, but new growth healthy and judged that the plant is likely to survive; or

Dead: killed, or unlikely to survive.




Page 73

Results

Table 3 lists the observations based on the impact classes defined. Note that individual species may occur in more than one impact class. The results were not uniform for each species across the site. This strongly suggests that the observed differential impacts were the result of additional applications (particularly at the ends of runs and in the gully running up to Harry’s Lookout). For example, good Bitou control was noted at the northern end of the works area with no impact on Blady Grass. Elsewhere, Blady Grass death was associated with the death of other non-target species. The worst impacted areas are marked by the death of Brush Box and Swamp Oak (towards the centre of the treated area).

Discussion

Each of the pieces in this jigsaw are addressed inturn:

Pressure to spray before Bitou seeding

1. The site has been occupied by Bitou for decades. The importance of one more year’s seeding pales into insignificance when compared to the damage that can be done by aerially spraying a site too early so that non-target species are impacted. This approach is not logical;

Complete coverage with damage vs. incomplete coverage with minimal damage

2. It is better to have a patchy result than to overspray more than the target number of times and risk non-target species damage or death;

Timing

3. It is clear that the timing of the spraying was much too early: this compromises any inferences that can be drawn from the impact observations because it is not clear whether the non-target species are inherently susceptible (irrespective of the time of treatment) or whether they were impacted because they were not yet dormant.

Dormancy vs. susceptibility

4. Some species are likely to be susceptible irrespective of timing [Bitou for example, soft grasses and ground-layer species (Grant Taylor pers. comm.)];

5. Other species will be susceptible if not dormant at the time of treatment; 6. Whilst other species could be resistant irrespective of the non-target species’ dormancy

and the timing of the herbicide application. Conclusions

The significant non-target impacts appear to be the result of higher than recommended applications (i.e. >2 passes). However the certainty of this conclusion is based mostly on the variability of the impact on individual species (Blady Grass, Swamp Oak) at different places across the site. Because of the early site treatment, active growth may have been a contributing factor as well. Subsequent advice from Paul O’Connor confirm too many passes on the areas with the most severe off-target species damage.




Page 74

Table 3. 2008 Bitou control non-target impacts

OBSERVED IMPACTS

Dead Life-form

Affected* but recovering Life-form

No impact Life-form

Covered by dense Bitou (so no impact)

Life-form

Sophora Shrub Imperata cylindrica (B) Grass Banksia integrifolia Grass

Oxalis Forb

Pittosporum undulatum Tree Crinum pedunculatum (NB) Lily Dianella caerulea Lily Pseudantherum Forb

Spinefex Grass Lophostemon confertus (B) Tree Cupaniopsis anachardioides Tree Dioscyros Vine

Melanthera biflora Vine Cissus antarctica (NB) Vine Hardenbergia violacea Vine Oplismenus imbecillus Grass

Causuarina glauca ® Tree Casuarina equisetifolia (NB) Tree Ficus rubinginosa Tree

Zoysia macrantha Grass Myoporum boninense (NB) Shrub Casuarina glauca ® Shrub

Lophostemon confertus ® Gahnia aspera Grass

Phragmites austalis Grass

Acacia maidenii Tree

Lomandra longifolia Grass

Wilkea Shrub

Smilax australis Vine

?Pouteria Tree

Alectryon subcinereus Tree

Geitonoplesium cymosum Vine

Imperata cylindrica®




Page 75

*B=bad; NB=not bad; ®=repeated passes suspected (i.e. >2 passes): note that these species may appear in more than to affect columns.

Species in bold are atypical results: i.e. contrary to expectations (based on the experience of Grant Taylor)




Page 76

11 REFERENCES Brouse van Grenou, E. A. and Downey, P. O. (2006). Best Practice Guidelines for Aerial Spraying of Bitou Bush in New South Wales. Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW), Hurstville. CSIRO (2007). Technical Report 2007. Climate change in Australia. Projected temperature and rainfall change in Australia under mid-range emissions scenario for 2000-2100. Animation of the CSIRO Mark 3.5 Climate Model on IPCC SRES A1B emissions scenario: change relative to 1980-1999 average. Sourced from Climate Change in Australia: Animations: <http://climatechangeinaustralia.gov.au/resources.php>.

Department of Environment and Conservation (2004). A Tale of Two Lakes. Managing Lake Innes and Lake Cathie for Improved Ecological and Community Outcomes. Issues and Options. Parks Division. Umwelt Environmental Consultants.

Department of Environment and Climate Change (DECC). (2007). Subtropical Coastal Floodplain Forest.

Department of Conservation (2006). Invasion of native plant communities by Chrysanthemoides monilifera (bitou bush and boneseed). Approved NSW THREAT ABATEMENT PLAN. NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service.

Environment Protection Agency (2001). Coxen’s fig-parrot Cyclopsitta diophthalma coxeni recovery plan 2001−2005. EPA, Queensland <www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/recovery/fig-parrot/pubs/fig-parrot.pdf>

Hastings Council. (1999). Draft Vegetation Management Plan.

Hastings Council. (2001). Natural Area Bushland Plan of Management. Hastings Council. Johnstone S., Kroon F, Slavich P, Cibilic A and Bruce A. (2003). Restoring the balance: Guidelines for managing floodgates and drainage systems on coastal floodplains. NSW Agriculture: Wollongbar, Australia.

Murphy, H. (2008). Habitat management guide: Rainforests: ecological principles for managing weeds in rainforest habitats. CRC for Australian Weed Management, Adelaide.

Peel, B. (in press). Rainforest Restoration Manual for south eastern Australia.

SMEC (2008). Coastal Hazard Study.-Lake Cathie Coastal Zone Management Plan. Report number 3001464-001. Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Corporation.

Troedson, , A. L. and Hashimoto, T. R. (2008). Coastal Quaternary Geology – North and south coast of NSW. Geological Survey of New South Wales, Bulletin 34. Tulau, M. J. (ed). (2000). Acid sulfate Soils Remediation Guidelines. DLWC (unpubl.)

Winkler, M. A., Cherry, H. and Downer, P. O. (Eds.). (2008). Bitou bush management manual. Current management and control options for bitou bush (Chrysanthemoides monilifera ssp. rotundata in Australia. Department of Environment and Climate Change (NSW), Sydney.

Personal communications Thor Aaso (13-11-08): in conversation regarding rescheduling Bitou control along Pacific Drive using the Bitou TAP




Page 77

12 GLOSSARY Canopy attrition The gradual and inexorable pruning of the canopy of coastal ECs on sites

exposed to strong salt-laden winds.

Canopy decapitation

The loss of canopy as the result of a break in a storm shutter. The canopy dies (and often in Littoral Rainforest), it can recover through basal coppicing of the species’ whose canopy has been lost.

Critical Habitat Habitat critical to the survival of species and/or communities.

EC Ecological Community

Ecosystem resilience

The innate ability of biodiversity to repair itself once ecological brakes are removed

Ecological brakes

Processes that prevent recovery of vegetation, populations or ecological processes.

EEC Endangered Ecological Community (listed as such under the TSC Act).

Environmental weed

A species spreading from plantings into the wider environment. Its potential to become a transforming weed may or may not be established.

EPBC Act Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.

Frontline species

Species able to withstand the full force of salt-laden winds.

LGA Local Government Area

Storm shutters The combination of plant species into a dense wind-sheared canopy that protects those behind and beneath the interlocking canopy.

Transforming weed

Weeds that are able to destroy habitat and whole areas of vegetation without any additional threats operating on the site.

TSC Act Threatened Species Conservation Act




Page 78

13 APPENDICES

13.1 Appendix 1. Overarching Principles Adaptive Management This is a fundamental plank that underpins successful reserve management and restoration: without it we are bound to continue both the beneficial techniques that we have applied in the past, as well as to be doomed to follow those that are not working. So to improve the approach to a problem, everything you do in restoration should be an experiment: testing your hypothesis on what is going on and how this can be better integrated into your daily site, community or landscape management of your reserve system.

The lessons that you learn are put into your future work (but continually appraised and monitored) so as to adaptively manage your next job based on what you have learned and are learning.

Setting Restoration Trajectories Aiming for the historic EC for any given site is dependant on the historic conditions still occurring at the site. If some fundamental underlying ecological or physical process has been radically changed (and there is little likelihood of getting it back), then your restoration trajectory has to alter to what the conditions today (and into the future will support). Examples include piping swampy areas (Merinda Drive), an inability to use fire in Sclerophyll environments because of built assets (e.g. Merinda Drive). This site will lose its Swamp Sclerophyll Forest (due to drainage works) and the remnant Wet Sclerophyll Forest will succeed into rainforest in the continued absence of fire and nutrient build-up that will follow. This an example of an imposed change in restoration trajectory.

An example of a chosen change in restoration trajectory is where site factors have changed and an number of choices are open to the reserve manager. A good example are the tip sites along Grants Beach that have had their original nutrient poor sands displaced and filled with higher nutrient soils and fills. Restoring the Wallum Heath or Swamp Sclerophyll Forests on this site is no longer possible. It is therefore recommended is to convert old tip sites (dumped soils and rubble that are eutrophic) into rainforest. This choice has a number of advantages: firstly the local flora (on infertile sands will always struggle to grow on such sites; natural selection is already favouring rainforest species; rainforests provide a better opportunity to control sun weeds that will remain a problem on this site for decades to come; the seed production from the rainforest will help to re-seed the Littoral Rainforest destroyed by sand mining behind the foredunes along Grants Beach. In the medium to long-term, this choice of EC will be self-sustaining, whereas a low nutrient local Sclerophyll EC would not establish and would always be highly weedy because the soils are so nutrient-rich.

Reference Sites Understanding your reserve can be difficult if you have not identified one or more reference sites for each of the vegetation communities present in the reserve. Reference sites are used to understand the ecological and landscape relationships of vegetation. It provides a guide as to what your reserve’s vegetation should look like in its mature state and (ideally), across a range of ages and disturbance states. It helps to provide a yardstick for how you are going and where your bushland reserve is headed.

Reference sites usually provide important clues on management, restoration and maintenance. Having a range of such sites with different disturbance types and ages since disturbance illustrates the stages of succession for the EC being managed as well as providing clues to the risks and outcomes of different disturbance types.




Page 79

Site Assessment Site assessment should be undertaken systematically. This is probably the most important task to be undertaken early on in reserve management. It should begin at the landscape level, and move on down in scale until your are actually dealing with your reserve and the restoration site in question. By taking this approach you will minimise the risk of missing any important components. The Reserve Health Assessment undertaken during this project has used this methodology. It helps to set the reserve managers’ approach to both the reserves immediate day-to-day needs as well as where (and how well) it fits into the landscape; what its future prospects will be; and how off-reserve decisions can benefit or detract from its recovery trajectory.

Letting Nature Decide This is a very important principle (Figure 6). It is based on the fact that we can never have complete information on a particular site’s history or potential. Nature deciding is basically acknowledging this fact. This principle is applied by letting the ecological and regeneration processes proceed as much as possible with a minimum of intervention. A good example of this is that over time there will be rises sea level. Whilst a good botanist can tell where the overlap along a creek is between marine and freshwater, this zone will move on a seasonal and climate change basis. Letting nature decide is as simple as undertaking hybrid plantings that include both salt-tolerant and freshwater-dependant species across the overlap zone between these two environments. Whilst we cannot determine the exact location of each of the zone’s extremes (freshwater or salt) and it is likely to change; the sum of the average conditions will determine the survival of the plants that you put into the site.

In philosophical terms this means taking the time to understand your site (through careful observation and experimentation) whilst addressing the ecological brakes that are impeding ecological recovery. Useful techniques include: applying the Framework or Natural Regeneration Methods to your site provided it still has strong ecosystem resilience and natural regeneration and plant community succession is likely to do much of the work of restoration for you.




Page 80

Figure 6. Blair Reserve. Letting nature decide. Here, is a woody species planting which is doing the weed control that would otherwise prevent the colonisation of groundcover species. The groundcover species are not propagated (as this is very expensive), nor they planted because their niches are quite complex and incorrect choices would reduce the success of such an endeavour. It is easier (and more appropriate) to let nature decide, what should establish where and when. Inthis photograph, there are species that have arrived through animal dispersal, wind and water dispersal. The regeneration is not confined only to herbs, with several shrub and tree species also present.

Plant Community Succession A process whereby plant species establish on a site and change the habitat in some fundamental way which in turn makes it unsuitable for their own continued occupation of that space. But in so doing, their time on the site creates a new niche better suited to another species, which ultimately establishes and ‘succeeds’ the previous occupant. Figure 7 illustrates this process: the nursery crop species in this case is the native hibiscus that will only live for a short period. However the shade that it casts, its rapid growth and spiny branches, enable bird-dispersed species to be brought to the plant and deposited beneath its leafy perches. Succession will follow, whilst unwanted human traffic is also kept at bay by its spiny thickets.




Page 81

Figure 7. Blair Reserve. Plant succession: using Native Rosella as a pioneer and a prickly barrier. The seed is very hard-coated and likely to be stored in the soil seed bank for many decades awaiting the next disturbance or canopy gap before germinating and helping to repair the damaged area.

Using an example from rainforest, pioneer species are sun, exposure and frost hardy and colonise open sites after disturbance. They shade and shelter the site from exposure, frost and sun. This provides conditions suitable for secondary species that can establish in the pioneer’s light shade. These secondary species are longer lived (wattles are a good example) and these inturn cast a deeper shade as they grow they. During their life-times




Page 82

they attract birds and mammals that deposit seed, whilst their large structure rakes in wind-borne seed of primary (deep shade tolerant species). In their shadow, these final mature stage rainforest species find niches ideal for their germination and the mature rainforest is born. In time as the secondary canopy senesces, the primary canopy (and mature rainforest) takes over.

Similar processes occur in coastal dune succession, where the changes are to do both with shade, exposure and soils: older dunes being more sheltered and their soils are lower in calcium and iron but richer in organic carbon. These processes lead to plant community succession from Coast Dune Grassland to Littoral Rainforest.

Plant community succession is an important principle to understand because in the face of significant landscape and climate change, land managers will come to increasingly rely on this process as they ‘let nature decide’. The major scenarios where this is occurring or likely to occur have been listed in Appendix 1. Climate change elements and responses. Notwithstanding any other site factors being activated as a result of these changes (such as acid-sulfate soils), succession should occur. The key plant successional examples in the bushland reserves of the PMHC area include:

In the absence of fire: 1. Themeda Headlands

• Will initially be colonised by woody shrubs and trees (Headland Scrub: such as Coast Wattle, Coast Banksia and Swamp Oak);

• In time this will succeed into Littoral Rainforest. 2. Banksia Woodlands:

• Will succeed into Littoral Rainforest 3. Sclerophyll Forests:

• Will succeed into a rainforest type suited to the site

Where there are increased sea levels and saline incursions are move higher and further up estuarine and lower freshwater reaches of rivers:

4. Salmarshes: • Will drown and could become seagrass beds;

5. Mangroves • Will become Saltmarshes (erosion notwithstanding);

6. Swamp Oak Floodplain Forest • Will become Mangroves; and

7. Swamp Sclerophyll Forest of the Coastal Floodplain: • Will become Swamp Oak Floodplain Forest.

Retrograde succession will occur where coastal erosion increases: 8. Littoral Rainforest, Banksia Woodland and Coast Dune Scrub/Coast Dune Grassland:

• Will regress to an earlier successional state than the one currently supported on the site.

Implications for Bush Regeneration On some sites, there appears to be a paucity of pioneer and secondary species being utilised in restoration works. Species in particular include: herbs (grasses, sedges, rushes), daisies, wattles and peas. In some cases these will recolonise the site if it is not over-worked. However, if it is already lost, then the soil seed bank will remain biased in favour of weeds without the weed ‘currency’ having been exchanged for native species. In the absence of this currency conversion, the next major disturbance on that site (fire, flood, soil disturbance, erosion etc.) will see the area affected return to weeds. Appendix 5 lists the species by EC that are most useful and should be encouraged (either through natural regeneration or successional planting). The absence of pioneer and secondary species in plantings will fail to




Page 83

produce resistant vegetation that will continue to remain vulnerable to edge effects, weed invasion and ecological and structural collapse.

Restoration Methods There are three basic Restoration Methods:

1. Natural Regeneration: releasing the ecological brakes on your remnants’ ability to naturally regenerate and allowing nature to do the rest. You know you are on the right track when natural regeneration begins;

2. Framework: planting pioneer and secondary species (which is straight revegetation) but with an additional intention to monitor the site’s ecological health and restoration trajectory. If all is well then in time the framework planting will provide the right conditions for rainforest species to naturally colonize your planting. If not, your monitoring will detect this fact and you will return to the site when the natural regeneration fails (whereupon you will identify and remove any other ecological brakes to allow natural regeneration to occur, do supplementary planting etc.); and

3. Maximum Diversity: all or most of the missing elements are planted to recreate the EC.

Strategic Approaches Being strategic in bushland management aims to build resilient landscapes as well as resistant vegetation that can better withstand the rigours of fragmentation, climate change and ecological collapse. Reserve managers may need to address issues at many scales (landscape, neighbourhood to site) across a range of perspectives (human communities and resources) as well as the physical changes on the site that may alter its restoration trajectory. This should also include a frank assessment of resource limitations. Do not over-reach and always act within the site’s capacity and your ability, if you achieve this then you are much more likely to be successful. This does not mean you cannot be ambitious (since you can expand the area that you do) if you improve your methods and efficiency through adaptive management, then expansion will be possible. Timely, strategic responses can have many benefits (Figures 8-11).

Defining, Establishing and Maintaining Edges Edges can be one of the highest maintenance areas of any restoration site and one that comes with the biggest potential to consume resources and to lose supporters if poorly or inappropriately managed.

When first looking for a reserve for bushland management, edges should be assessed and categorised as resilient, porous or collapsing. Resilient edges are self-maintaining and robust against the current edge effects, porous edges have the potential to allow wind, sun, salt and weeds etc. to enter, which in the short to medium term could result in the edge collapsing.

Collapsing edges are a great threat to native bushland as they will further threaten the integrity and viability of the remaining bush. Further edge degradation must be addressed immediately, as in the long-term this will minimise ongoing ecological management costs and effort.

It is important to note that edges can also be internal to a bushland remnant where there is an internal disturbance (creek edge subject to flood damage; a car park etc.) or weed infestation that can threaten the health of the remnant.




Page 84

Figure 8. Googleys Island. Water-hogging plants kill rainforest by robbing native plants of water. In this case it is a thick infestation of Asparagus Fern A. aethiopicus whose tuberous roots store water and prevent it reaching the roots of Littoral Rainforest trees (Figure 9).

Figure 9. Googleys Island. The dying canopy is that of Tuckaroo Cupaniopsis anachardioides which has resulted from the dense infestation of Asparagus fern shown in the Figure 8. The weed control actions of Council on this site may occur in time to save this specimen and the majority of other canopy species on this island that are suffering the same malaise. Compare to Figures 10 and 11.

Figure 10. Googleys Island. Groundlayer free of Asparagus Fern.

Figure 11. Googleys Island. The intact canopy above the clean ground layer in the figure to the left (compare to Figure 9).

Storm Shutters This concept applies to sites with severe coastal exposure where there are strong, persistent salt-laden winds. The principle here is to identify the front-line species indigenous to the site and the EC and to use them in an in-line-series (based on their growth habit and life-form) to construct a storm shutter that channels these salt-laden winds up and over the vegetation behind (which may be vulnerable to canopy attrition or canopy decapitation). This is especially important when repairing or rehabilitating coastal infrastructure (car parks, walking access) or previous damage, where Littoral Rainforest is involved (Figure 12).

Bushland site health pro-forma and annual bushland assessment Storm shutters are fundamental concept in wind-exposed coastal systems. Some species such as Pandanus P. spiralis, Coast Banksia B. integrifolia are completely adapted to full wind exposure and are frontline or emergent species along the coast. In order for species




Page 85

that are not fully adapted to salty wind exposure (e.g. Coast Wattle and many Littoral Rainforest species), each can only survive as a component of a complete and integrated storm shutter. Think of a louvre window. If one of the slats is removed the window is no longer effective in excluding the weather, and so it is for coastal exposed vegetation. Often coastal rehabilitation is really about repairing these storm shutters.

Figure 12. Shelly Beach storm shutter damage and repair. An intact storm shutter (background) and a damaged shutter in the foreground currently being repaired by Landcare. The full recovery of this storm shutter is hindered by grass mowing (R) and the foot-traffic that this encourages.

Soil Carbon Soil carbon levels vary according to landform, site history and EC and its state of disturbance and recovery time. When soil carbon levels are low for the site and its EC, recovery may be slow or deflected completely and weeds may take over (e.g. Cat’s Ear *Hypochaeris radicata in Themeda Headlands).

In some areas of dune systems that have been sand mined or are reclaimed areas of marine or estuarine sand, carbon levels are low and will remain so for many decades to come. This can be exacerbated if key ecological processes (such as soil carbon recovery) are stalled because of a lack of certain critical species. Coast Banksia was noted to be missing in areas of extensive Bitou invasion in old sand-mining areas (e.g. Christmas Bells Plain, Grant’s Beach, Pelican Point etc.). Sometimes this is because the weeds have yet to be controlled (Christmas Bell Plains), in other cases because mature trees have yet to colonise weeded gaps (Grants Beach), or they have not been planted in areas where adult trees are not available to provide seed (Pelican Point).




Page 86

13.2 Appendix 2. Prioritisation results Refer to separate Excel spreadsheets




Page 87

13.3 Appendix 3. Mistletoes Mistletoe hosts. Mistletoe hosts* by EC for the Port Macquarie Hastings Bush Reserves.

EC or EEC Mistletoe Hosts Notes

Swamp Oak Floodplain Forest

Subtropical Coastal Floodplain Forest

Amyema cambagei Swamp Oak Casuarina glauca Common in both EECs, provides nectar and fruit for a range of birds including the nationally threatened Regent Honeyeaters during periods of drought. Usual host for Golden Mistletoe Notothixos subaureus

Dry Sclerophyll Forest

Wet Sclerophyll Forest


Subtropical Rainforest

Littoral Rainforest (in estuaries)

Swamp Sclerophyll Forest


Littoral Rainforest

Variable Mistletoe Amyema congener Black Sheoake Allocasuarina littoralis

Maidens Wattle Acacia maidenii

Blackwood Acacia melanoxylon

Red Ash Alphitonia excelsa

Willow Bottlebrush Callistemon salignus

Melaleuca biconvexa

Monkey-vine Parsonsia straminea

Lilly Pilly Syzygium smithii

Bonney Hills Community Hall Reserve

Huge nectar producer, often heard (because of honeyeaters: before seen)

Sancrox Park

Sea Acres

Calwalla Reserve Port Macquarie

Sancrox Park

South Coast

Littoral Rainforest


Brush Mistletoe Amylotheca dictyophleba

Yellowwood Acronychia oblongifolia

Celtis C. paniculata

Tuckaroo Cupaniopsis anachardioides Smooth Quandong Elaeocarpus obovatus

Scentless Rosewood Synoum glandulosum

Scotts Head

Sea Acres

Pelican Point (with Golden Mistletoe Notothixos subaureus)

Settlement Shores remnant

Comboyne Plateau




Page 88

EC or EEC Mistletoe Hosts Notes

Littoral Rainforest

Gallery Rainforest


Shiny-leaved Mistletoe Benthamina alyxifolia

Native Quince Alectryon subcinerus

Weeping Bottlebrush Callistemon viminalis

Giuoa G. semiglauca

Sea Acres NR, Shelly Beach

Common in Wauchope on street tree plantings of Callistemon

Coast Banksia Woodland

Littoral Rainforest

Coast Mistletoe Muellerina celastroides

Coast Banksia B. integrifolia

Blackwood Acacia melanoxylon

Yellowwood Acronychia oblongifolia

Noted at Lighthouse Beach, Lake Cathie Nth Headland, Rainbow Beach (where pruned out by PMHC Parks and Gardens staff: Paul O’Connor pers. comm.)

Littoral Rainforest

Swamp Sclerophyll Forest

Notothixos incanus Willow Bottlebrush Callistemon salignus

Melaleuca styphellioides

Noted in Sea Acres NR

Also in Hastings River valley


Littoral Rainforest

Golden Mistletoe Notothixos subaureus

Amyema cambagei

Variable Mistletoe Amyema congener

Brush Mistletoe Amylotheca dictyophleba

Initial host: Swamp Oak Casuarina glauca

Initial host: Wattles Acacia melanoxylon (Sancrox)

Initial host: Tuckaroo Cupaniopsis anachardioides

*NOTE: many other hosts exist (than those listed), but these were observed by the author.




Page 89

13.4 Appendix 4. Threatened taxa, vegetation and threatening processes Refer to separate Excel spreadsheets

13.5 Appendix 5. Planting species lists Refer to separate Excel spreadsheets

13.6 Appendix 6. Council weed risk and grow-me-instead Refer to separate Excel spreadsheets

Documents

PORT MACQUARIE-HASTING COUNCIL BUSHLAND RESERVE … · Electronic File Name 8055_pmhc final report on bushland mgt reform v4.doc Date Last Saved 29/4/2009 Date Last Printed 29/4/2009