Key Threatening Process Nomination Form - invasion of ...€¦ · Web viewKey Threatening Process...

Key Threatening Process Nomination Formfor amending the list of key threatening processes under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act)

2012 Assessment Period

Note – Further detail to help you complete this form is provided at Attachment A.If using this form in Microsoft Word, you can jump to this information by Ctrl+clicking the hyperlinks (in blue text).

Nominated key threatening process

1. NAME OF KEY THREATENING PROCESS Ecosystem degradation, habitat loss and species decline in arid and semi-arid Australia due to the invasion of buffel grass (Cenchrus ciliaris and C. pennisetiformis)

2. CRITERIA UNDER WHICH THE KEY THREATENING PROCESS IS ELIGIBLE FOR LISTINGPlease mark the boxes that apply by clicking them with your mouse.

Criterion A

Criterion B

Criterion C

Evidence that the threatening process could cause a native species or ecological community to become eligible for listing in any category, other than conservation dependent.

Evidence that the threatening process could cause a listed threatened species or ecological community to become eligible for listing in another category representing a higher degree of endangerment.

Evidence that the threatening process adversely affects two or more listed threatened species (other than conservation dependent species) or two or more listed threatened ecological communities.

3. 2012 CONSERVATION THEME: Corridors and connecting habitats (including freshwater habitats)

Is the current conservation theme relevant to this key threatening process? If so, explain how.

Corridors and connecting habitats, including freshwater habitats, are extremely relevant to the nominated threatening process (referred hereafter as the “invasion of buffel grass”) on a number of levels, including:

- Recognised landscape scale corridors.- Biological corridors and connecting habitats.- Physical corridors.

Landscape corridorsBuffel grass is the most significant threat to biodiversity in a number of nationally recognised landscape scale habitat corridors, as identified in the Draft National Wildlife Corridors Plan), including:

- “Trans-Australia Eco-Link”, linking northern and south Australia, and - “East meets West”, linking the shrubland and woodlands between Eastern and Western Australia.

This nomination form is designed to assist in the preparation of nominations of threatening processes consistent with the Regulations and EPBC Act. The listing of a key threatening process under the EPBC Act is designed to prevent native species or ecological communities from becoming threatened or prevent threatened species and ecological communities from becoming more threatened.

Many processes that occur in the landscape are, or could be, threatening processes, however priority for listing will be directed to key threatening processes, those factors that most threaten biodiversity at national scale.

For a key threatening process to be eligible for listing it must meet at least one of the three listing criteria. If there is insufficient data and information available to allow completion of the questions for each of the listing criteria, state this in your nomination under the relevant question.

The management of the invasion of buffel grass along these corridors will be a key platform to ensure these corridors facilitate the maintenance of biodiversity and the provision of resilience against climate change.

Biological corridorsUnassisted invasions of buffel grass typically occur along roads and watercourses. These features are important introduction pathways whereby buffel grass can spread into new landscapes. Ephemeral watercourses and “desert rivers”, which are key biodiversity corridors in arid Australia, are the preferred environment for the establishment and spread of buffel grass in arid Australia (Albrechts and Pitts 1997). In northern South Australia and central Australia, the initial invasion of buffel grass often occurs along red-gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) lined ephemeral watercourses, prior to spreading out into the surrounding area (M. Ward pers. obs.). Rivers and creeklines in arid Australia provide refugia for many plant and animal species due to their enhanced nutrients, water and habitat complexity, and each of these benefits can be negatively affected by dense buffel grass infestations (Humphries et al. 1993). Furthermore, the invasion of buffel grass is very detrimental to many plant and animal species which rely on corridors in facilitating their dispersal. Recently, proposals have been submitted to the Australian Government’s Biodiversity Fund focusing on managing buffel grass along “desert rivers” in the Finke IBRA region, and across the Alinytjara Wilurara NRM Region.

The impact of Buffel grass on arid ecosystem function is significant. This is because creek lines typically act as a blockade to the spread of fire, even when dry, because the soils within the creek do not support the growth of dense, fire-fuelling grasses. Anecdotal evidence indicates that Buffel grass thrives along creek lines in dry environments (Miller et al., 2010). Thus, a feature that should prevent the spread of fire can now transport it, effectively acting as the “wick for the fire” (Humphries et al., 1992 as cited in D’antonio and Vitousek, 1992) and the fear, however sensationalised, is that Buffel grass will transform arid environments such as the Sonora Desert into African-style savannas (e.g. see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQtIVzSrqZY)

Where it occurs, buffel grass is also filling in much of the usual bare-ground spacing between native grasses, shrubs and trees. This bare-ground spacing is a feature of most arid and semi-arid Australian ecosystems, in most years, and helps to stop most wildfires from becoming too extensive and from occurring too often. Buffel grass is significantly altering this ecosystem feature and enabling more catastrophic fires to occur.

Control of buffel grass along invasion pathways is therefore a priority for preventing colonisation of new regions and for limiting the ecological impacts of buffel grass both in key connecting habitats and the adjacent broadscale environment.

Invasion pathwaysMan-made corridors, including roads, railways and pipelines, are significant pathways for the introduction of buffel grass (Cenchrus ciliaris and C. pennisetiformis) into un-infested regions. Buffel grass seed is spread by graders and other earthmoving equipment and the wind created by vehicles along these corridors (Griffin 1993). Disturbed ground within the corridors, particularly where increased runoff occurs, is able to be rapidly colonised by buffel grass. These corridors can therefore provide a stepping stone for buffel grass infestation into the wider environment once suitable conditions are available.

4. THREAT STATUSIs the key threatening process listed under State/Territory Government legislation? Is the threat recognised under other legislation or intergovernmental arrangements?

Although several regional Natural Resource Management (NRM) Boards and Catchment Management Authorities (CMAs) have identified buffel grass as an important natural resource management issue (South Australian Arid Lands, Alinytjara Wilurara, Western Australian Rangelands, Northern Territory, Friedel et al. 2006), buffel grass has not been declared as a registered weed under relevant legislation in any state (Grice et al. 2011). However, recent studies have demonstrated sufficient common understanding amongst a range of stakeholders that the threats posed by buffel grass to the conservation estate warrant the development of consistent policy for management of buffel grass (Friedel et al. 2011).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQtIVzSrqZY

Despite not being listed under any state’s legislation, the threat posed by buffel grass is considered ‘very high’ in both the arid rangelands and native vegetation land uses of Australia, with 68% of Australia considered suitable to highly suitable for the establishment of significant buffel grass populations (Lawson et al 2004). As a result, there is currently a range of plans and strategies which identify and target the risk of buffel grass to EPBC matters of environmental significant at a more local scale. Examples include:

- The Draft South Australia Buffel Grass Strategy 2012-2017 identifies the significant threat of buffel grass, outlines a range of management zones to facilitate management, and promotes the formation of a state-wide taskforce to (i) coordinate and facilitate the exchange of information on control initiatives around the State, (ii) provide a clearer overview and better evaluation of the risk to the State from buffel grass, and (iii) recommend better coordination of buffel grass policy.

- The Draft Alinytjara Wilurara Fire Management Strategy identifies buffel grass as the single biggest risk to biodiversity (EPBC listed and otherwise), life and property in the Alinytjara Wilurara NRM region which constitutes about 25% of the land area of the State (Alinytjara Wilurara NRM Board 2012).

- A risk assessment performed for the biodiversity of the Olympic Dam region considered the risk posed by buffel grass to be extreme, resulting in management targets of eradicating all populations in that region (BHPB 2007)

- Buffel grass has been identified as a threat to both the natural and cultural values within the Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park (UKTNP) and a comprehensive containment and removal policy has been developed for this World Heritage area (UKTNP 2009).

- Buffel grass has been identified as a significant threat in a range of threatened species recovery plans (EPBC listed or otherwise, see Sections 10 – 15).

Whilst not specific to buffel grass, there are parts of state plans and legislation which can have influence on the threat of buffel grass. In South Australia, for example:

- Section 4(b) (ii) of the SA Pastoral Land Management and Conservation Act, 1989, provides legislative basis for preventing the introduction of non-indigenous plants such as buffel grass in order to “prevent degradation of the land and its indigenous plant and animal life”.

- Also, Goal 4 of the State NRM Plan: Integrated management of biological threats to minimise risks to natural systems, communities and industry

Description of the key threatening process

5. DESCRIPTION Describe the threatening process in a way that distinguishes it from any other threatening process, by reference to:

a. its biological and non-biological components;b. the processes by which those components interact (if known).

Buffel grass (Cenchrus ciliaris and C. pennisetiformis) comprises a suite of species and ecotypes originating from Africa and the Middle East but now rapidly colonising arid ecosystems in Australia and North America. CLIMAX modelling has shown that 25% of Australia, primarily in central Australia, is highly suitable for buffel grass whilst a further 43% is suitable for C. ciliaris establishment (Lawson et al. 2004). Jessop et al (2004) report that “Bates considers that C. pennisetiformis may become a greater threat than C. ciliaris in southern Australia”. Therefore, both species are considered together in this nomination. Recent evidence suggests that climatic tolerances and hence potential distribution of buffel grass are increasing as a result of new cultivars (Hacker & Waite 2001) or hybridisation (Friedel et al. 2006). For example, BIOCLIM modelling predicts that 69.5% of South Australia is highly or very highly suitable, and no part of the State's land area is entirely unsuitable, for establishment of buffel grass (Marshall and Hobbs 2010).

Buffel grass is a long-lived, deep-rooted and high biomass tussock grass that out-competes native vegetation through a number of processes. It is characterised by prolonged flowering/fruiting periods, prolific seed production, high seed dispersal ability, relatively long seed dormancy and tolerance to drought, fire and grazing (Franks 2002; Franks et al. 2000). Unlike many other weeds and native grasses, new buffel grass germinants can grow and set seed in as little as 3 to 6 weeks with sufficient moisture, and re-shooting mature plants can flower within 10 days after a rainfall event (Puckey and Albrecht 2004), especially after wildfires, as the ashes are reported to make good seedbeds (Paul and Lee 1978). Although buffel grass favours creeks, alluvial plains, calcareous areas and rocky ranges (Albrecht and Pitts 1997), it easily naturalises on a range of soil types and quickly forms self-sustaining populations under a range of disturbance regimes (Franks 2002). Buffel grass predominates in areas where summer rainfall ranges from 150-550 mm, winter rainfall is less than 400 mm, mean minimum winter temperatures rarely fall below 5oC, and soil texture is loamy (Cox et al. 1988), however, it has been successful in a broad range of soil types and landscapes.

When buffel grass is dense it can dominate light and space, reducing opportunities for native vegetation establishment (Miller 2003). Even at lower densities, buffel grass reduces soil nitrogen (Humphreys 1967), exhausting the mineral pool (Cavaye 1991) and also inhibits plant regeneration and growth through allelopathic suppression (Cheam 1984). Buffel grass aggressively colonises riparian habitats where it forms dense monocultures, displacing native vegetation. These mesic areas are functionally critical in a landscape where water is limiting to growth. Such mesic areas are also nutrient sinks and tend to support higher flora and fauna productivity, including endemic or rare species (Humphries et al. 1993).

Although buffel grass monocultures pose a significant threat to native vegetation and adapted biodiversity within their own right, it is the subsequent risk that buffel grass poses through fire that is of most threat to biodiversity, indigenous culture, life and property. Buffel grass produces approximately 2-3 times the combustible material of displaced native grasses, which results in hotter, more intense wildfires (Humphries 1993). Buffel grass threatens plant and animal communities that are not adapted to fire, by increasing the intensity and frequency of natural fire regimes (Adair and Groves 1998; NBIIISSG 2005). Unlike most grassy weeds that primarily only affect groundcover vegetation, the invasion of the canopy shadow of trees by highly flammable buffel grass threatens keystone arid zone trees such as river red gums (Eucalyptus camaldulensis), corkwoods (Hakea species) and beefwoods (Grevillea striata, Friedel et al 2006) with flow-on effects to other plants and animals.

For example, the Rare and Threatened Flora Management Plan for the APY Lands of NW South Australia (Paltridge et al. 2009) identifies 12 flora species in that region alone under threat from buffel grass. Buffel grass threatens stands of long-unburnt vegetation, for example red gum and mulga woodlands, hummock and Triodia grasslands, and the fauna that rely on these. High species richness of vertebrates including a suite of hollow-dependent birds, mammals and reptiles is directly threatened by increased fire intensity and frequency in woodland habitats (Neave et al. 2004). Triodia specialist fauna, including grasswrens (Paltridge et al 2009), spinifex bird, and many reptile species also lose shelter/nesting sites and food resources when Triodia is displaced by buffel grass. Granivorous birds and rodents such as delicate mouse, finches and some parrots that do not include buffel grass seeds in their diets declined as the cover of buffel grass increased (Ludwig et al. 2000; Franks et al. 2000). Other localised populations of threatened species (e.g. warru (black-flanked rock-wallaby), malleefowl and great desert skink) are also threatened by buffel grass-driven transformation of their specialised habitats (Paltridge et al 2009). Buffel grass can also affect invertebrates through changes in habitat structure (Best 1998) and fire regimes (Butler and Fairfax 2003).

These biological processes that make buffel grass such a threat in arid and semiarid Australia closely mirror the effects of other high biomass and flammable introduced grasses (e.g. Gamba Grass, Mission Grass) that have already been recognised as a Key Threatening Process in tropical and subtropical regions of Australia. Through its dramatic and sustained ecological transformation, buffel grass invasion poses a far greater threat than all other invasive weeds of central Australia. Other arid zone weeds, including those recognised as Weeds Of National Significance, are either largely restricted to disturbed or fertile patches, are outcompeted by native species in dry seasons, or do not exhibit traits such as the aforementioned fire feedback loop that cause major ecosystem upheaval.

In summary, buffel grass is considered one of Australia’s worst weeds (Humphries et al. 1991) and a ‘transformer weed’ of the Australian rangelands (Grice 2006, Bastin et al. 2008) due to its ability to transform the basic attributes of habitats. It is widely considered to be the most debilitating weed of natural ecosystems in arid and semi-arid Australia and directly or indirectly displaces and threatens a large percentage of native and endemic plants and animals of arid and semi-arid Australia (Best 1998; McIvor 1998; Fairfax and Fensham 2000; Franks 2002; McIvor 2003; Griffen 1993; Latz 1997; Low 1997; Ludwig et al. 2000; Butler and Fairfax 2003; Miller 2003; Puckey and Albrecht 2004; Clarke, et al 2005; Paltridge et al. 2009; Smythe et al. 2009).

Criterion A: non-EPBC act listed species/ecological communities

6. SPECIES THAT COULD BECOME ELIGIBLE FOR LISTING AND JUSTIFICATION Provide details and justification of non-EPBC Act listed species that, due to the impact of the key threatening process, could become eligible for listing in any category, other than conservation dependent. For each species please include:

a. the scientific name, common name (if appropriate), category it could become eligible for listing in; b. data on the current status in relation to the criteria for listing;c. specific information on how the threatening process threatens this species; andd. information on the extent to which the threat could change the status of the species in relation to the criteria

for listing.

Species / Community Scientific Name

Common Name

Category it could become listed in

Data on Current status Specific Information on how KTP threatens species

Information on the extent to which the threat could change the status of the species in relation to the criteria for listing

IUCN category under which it could become listed through ongoing invasion and threats of Buffel Grass

Reference / Information

Melaleuca fulgens subsp. corrugata

Wrinkled Honey Myrtle Endangered

Endemic to Central Ranges IBRA region. All populations surveyed on the APY Lands contain very few individuals and are under threat from inappropriate fire regimes. Total Area of Occupancy in South Australia is less than 5km2. Total number of mature individuals is known to be less than 2500 individuals

Buffel grass promotes inappropriate fire regimes. The ongoing invasion of buffel grass across the Central Ranges IBRA ranges will not only outcompete this species but also increase the frequency and intensity of fires, posing a threat to small and isolated endemic plant species.

Warrants a current listing. Ongoing invasion of Buffel Grass and associated fires could see a population size reduction of >50% in next ten years.

Endangered: A.3. B.1.b.i.

APY Rare and Threatened Plant Management Plan(Paltridge et al 2009)

Acacia tenuiorCentral Ranges Wattle

Critically Endangered

Currently only two populations of A. tenuior known, the combination of small population size and disjunct population means that this species is at risk of extinction form catastrophic events posed from Buffel Grass


Warrants a current listing. Ongoing invasion of Buffel Grass and associated wildfires could see a population size reduction of >80% in next ten years.

Critically Endangered: A.3.B.2.b.i.


Eremophila willsii subsp. indeterminate

Musgrave Ranges Fuschia

EndangeredCurrently only one population known from Australia, in APY Lands.


Warrants a current listing. Ongoing invasion of Buffel Grass and associated fires could see a population size reduction of >50% in next ten years.

Endangered: A.3. B.1.b.i.


Species / Community Scientific Name

Common Name

Category it could become listed in

Data on Current status Specific Information on how KTP threatens species




Calostemma abdicatum

Everard Garland Lily Vulnerable Three known populations. Area

of occupancy 0.04km2

Few known populations. Although known populations have many individuals, they are highly clumped in distribution making them vulnerable to major perturbations. Major buffel grass fire could see this species negatively impacted upon.

Warrants a current listing. Ongoing buffel invasion and associated inappropriate fire regimes could see current Area Of Occupancy of less than 2000km2 continue to decline (P. Lanf pers. comm.)

Vulnerable:B.2.b.


Acacia ammobiaMount Connor Wattle

VulnerableRelatively abundant but restricted to Mt Connor / Uluru district of the Central Ranges Region

Highly sensitive to fire - killed by the mildest of fires and populations would require a fire frequency of less than 25 years. Buffel grass promotes very hot fires. Ongoing invasion of buffel grass in Central Ranges, therefore, poses a threat to this species in the long-term

Ongoing buffel invasion could see current number of individuals of >30% over next three generations

Vulnerable: A.3.


Goodenia brunnea

Central Ranges Goodenia

VulnerableLimited distribution - endemic to Central Ranges region. Total extent of occurrence 27,523km2

Goodenia brunnea is a primary successional plant following fire. If Buffel grass becomes the dominant successional species, it will outcompete Goodenia brunnea.

Ongoing buffel invasion and outcompeting Goodenia brunnea could see Extent of Occurrence to reduce less than 20,000km2

Vulnerable: B.1.b.i


Teucrium reidii Showy Germander Endangered

Small population sizes and limited distribution to APY Lands in Central Ranges region. Total known population size probably <5000 individuals nationally

Buffel Grass currently known to be significantly encroaching on two largest known remaining populations. Fire sensitive plant. Inappropriate fire regimes and competition from Buffel Grass will significantly affect this species status.

Ongoing buffel invasion and associated fire effects could see population size remain at fewer than 10,000 mature individuals and an estimated continuing decline of at least 10% within ten years

Vulnerable: C.1

NATIONAL RECOVERY PLAN FOR Olearia macdonnellensis, Minuria tridens (Minnie Daisy) and Actinotus schwarzii (Desert Flannel-flower)

Sminthopsis longicaudata

Long-tailed Dunnart Vulnerable Very scattered populations

Distribution limited to rocky ranges where buffel colonises rapidly. Vulnerable to habitat destruction through inappropriate fire regimes

Uncontrolled buffel invasion and associated fire effects could see population size remain at fewer than 10,000 mature individuals and an estimated continuing decline of at least 10% within ten years

Vulnerable: C.1

7. ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES THAT COULD BECOME ELIGIBLE FOR LISTING AND JUSTIFICATION Provide details and justification of non-EPBC Act listed ecological communities that, due to the impact of the key threatening process, could become eligible for listing in any category. For each ecological community please include:

a. the complete title (published or otherwise generally accepted), category it could become eligible for listing in;b. data on the current status in relation to the criteria for listing;c. specific information on how the threatening process threatens this ecological community; andd. information on the extent to which the threat could change the status of the ecological community in relation

to the criteria for listing.

Common Name Category it could become listed in

Data on Current status

Specific Information on how KTP threatens species




Desert Rivers of the Central Ranges and Finke region

Vulnerable

In a state of rapid decline due to invasion of feral animals and plants

Desert rivers of the Central Ranges and the Finke River system are threatened by the invasion of buffel grass, which initially colonises in the ephemeral creek beds, from where it spreads out to surrounding areas. Uncontrolled, hot wildfires from this buffel grass invasion then destroys significant Red Gum Eucalyptus camaldulensis woodlands which are important habitat for birds and mammals.

Uncontrolled spread of buffel grass will cause a rapid decline in desert river systems

Vulnerable

Criterion B: Listing in a higher category of endangerment

8. SPECIES THAT COULD BECOME ELIGIBLE FOR LISTING IN A HIGHER CATEGORY OF ENDANGERMENT AND JUSTIFICATION

Provide details and justification of EPBC Act listed threatened species that, due to the impacts of the threatening process, could become eligible for listing in another category representing a higher degree of endangerment. For each species please include:

a. the scientific name, common name (if appropriate), category that the item is currently listed in and the category it could become eligible for listing in;

b. data on the current status in relation to the criteria for listing (at least one criterion for the current listed category has been previously met);

c. specific information on how the threatening process significantly threatens this species; andd. information on the extent to which the threat could change the status of the species in relation to the criteria

for listing. This does not have to be the same criterion under which the species was previously listed.

Species Scientific Name

Common Name

Current Listing Category

Category it could become eligible for listing






Petrogale lateralis MacDonnell Ranges Race

Black-footed rock-wallaby / Warru

Vulnerable Endangered Declining populations across its range.

Buffel grass promotes hot wildfires which can destroy fire sensitive vegetation on which warru rely, such as Figs (Ficus) and Spearbush (Pandorea sp.). Uncontrolled spread of buffel grass will threaten remaining populations of warru

Uncontrolled buffel grass encroachment on warru habitat and associated negative impacts could see a population size reduction of > 50% over the next ten years

Endangered: A.3

Warru Recovery Plan(Read and Ward 2011)

Liopholis slateri slateri

Slater's Skink Endangered Critically

Endangered

Very few remaining populations. Restricted to alluvial plains in central areas of the MacDonnell region of the Northern Territory. Total population thought to be 200-300 individuals

Reduced food and feeding success in buffel dominated habitats. Increase in fire frequency.

Uncontrolled buffel grass invasion could see population size drop to fewer than 250 mature individuals and a continuing decline in numbers of mature individuals and no subpopulation estimated to contain more than 50 mature individuals

Critically Endangered: C.2.a.(i)

http://www.nt.gov.au/nreta/wildlife/animals/threatened/pdf/herps/egernia_slateri_en.pdf

Liopholis slateri virgata

Liopholis slateri virgata

Endangered Critically Endangered

Only known from four individuals and not seen since 1914

Reduced food and feeding success in buffel dominated habitats. Increase in fire frequency.

Uncontrolled buffel grass invasion could see population size drop to fewer than 250 mature individuals and a continuing decline in numbers of mature individuals and no subpopulation estimated to contain more than 50 mature individuals


Liopholis kintorei

Tjakura / Great Desert Skink

Vulnerable Endangered

Seven isolated populations spread across WA, NT and South Australia totalling approximately 6000 individuals

Ongoing spread of buffel grass will change the structure of preferred open feeding grounds of Tjakura, as well as promoting frequent wildfires which will completely change the structure of preferred vegetation.

Uncontrolled spread of buffel grass could see a reduction in population size over >50% over the next ten years.

Endangered: A.3

National Recovery Plan

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/recovery/great-desert-skink/index.html








Common Name








Stipiturs malleeMallee Emu-wren


Few remaining populations. Extent of occurrence estimated at The extent of occurrence is conservatively estimated at 3856 km² and declining very rapidly. Estimated population size 1440 to 2814 mature individuals and declining rapidly

Mallee Emu-wrens are restricted to Triodia and heath of particular age since fire. The invasion of buffel grass on the sandy country in which they live would result in an increase in fire frequency and replacement of native vegetation with buffel grass which is inappropriate for mallee emu-wrens replacement by buffel will remove habitat

An uncontrolled infestation of buffel grass with associated wildfire in the primary distribution in western Victoria could see could see population size reduced rapidly to fewer than 250 individuals and a continuing decline with no subpopulations estimated to contain more than 50 mature individuals


http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/pubs/59459-conservation-advice.pdf

Notomys fuscusDusky Hopping Mouse

Vulnerable EndangeredHas a restricted distribution to refuges during dry periods.

The refuges of the dusky hopping-mouse are in fire sensitive habitats which will be destroyed with the large fires that buffel grass monocultures can carry. The distribution of the dusky hopping-mouse corresponds with highly suitable buffel grass habitat, particularly along the ephemeral creeklines of the channel country.

The invasion of buffel grass into refuge habitats and subsequent negative effects could see an observed population size reduction of >50% over a ten year period.

Endangered: A.3


Croitana aestivalDesert Sand Skipper


Four records. The extent of occurrence for the Desert Sand-skipper estimated to be less than 100 km²

The spread of Buffel Grass (Cenchrus ciliaris) is expected to have degraded the habitat at all known locations and it is believed this will lead to the continued decline of the species (Braby et al. 2007; TSSC 2006v) through loss of their native grass larval food plants.

The invasion of buffel grass into Desert Sand Skipper habitat could see the area of occupancy reduced to less than 10km2 and a continuing decline

Critically Endangered: B.2.b.(ii)

http://www.nt.gov.au/nreta/wildlife/animals/threatened/pdf/inverts/desert_sandskipper_EN.pdf.

http://www.nt.gov.au/nreta/wildlife/animals/threatened/specieslist.html










Common Name








Olearia macdonnellensis NA Vulnerable Endangered

Confined to the MacDonnell Ranges Bioregion where it is currently known from several isolated populations, mainly in the central-western portion of the MacDonnell Ranges. Total area of occupancy is estimated to be < 20 km2. All populations are considered necessary for its long-term survival and recovery. Buffel grass listed in Recovery Plan as key threat.

Olearia macdonnellensis is likely killed by fire and recovery time requires low fire frequencies. The invasion of buffel grass is likely to increase the threat of fire and these populations. Once established, buffel-grass has the ability to negatively affect both M. tridens and O. macdonnellensis directly through resource competition. This is likely to be especially intense at early life stages, leading to heightened recruitment failure if germination and establishment requirements can no longer be met. O. macdonnellensis would be particularly affected if, like many of its congeners, it has a light requirement for germination. Both species are additionally potentially threatened by increased fire intensity and frequency in severely affected sites. Buffel-grass produces large amounts of biomass which, when dried, represents a significant increase in site fuel load.

An uncontrolled infestation of buffel grass within the known population could see an Area of Occupancy of less than 500km2 and a continuing decline in extent of occurrence and area of occupancy

Endangered: B. 2. b (i)

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/recovery/pubs/daisies-flannel-flower.pdf

Minuria tridens Minnie Daisy Vulnerable Endangered

Minuria tridens is restricted to approximately 20 scattered populations on south facing slops of the MacDonnell Ranges IBRA region. Area of Occupancy less than 2000km2

Minuria tridens is threatened by the invasion of the exotic perennial grass Cenchrus ciliaris (buffel grass) into core habitat areas. The Alice Springs Municipality sites are most severely affected. Once established, buffel-grass has the ability to negatively affect both M. tridens and O. macdonnellensis directly through resource competition. This is likely to be especially intense at early life stages, leading to heightened recruitment failure if germination and establishment requirements can no longer be met. O. macdonnellensis would be particularly affected if, like many of its congeners, it has a light requirement for germination. Both species are additionally potentially threatened by increased fire intensity and frequency in severely affected sites. Buffel-grass produces large amounts of biomass which, when dried, represents a significant increase in site fuel load.

Uncontrolled buffel grass invasion could see Area of occupancy reduce to less than 500 km2 and continuing decline in extent of occurrence and area of occupancy

B.2.b.i.ii.









Common Name








Acacia undoolyana Sickled-leaf wattle Vulnerable Endangered

Endemic to a small part of the East MacDonnell Ranges. A restricted area of occupancy of <2000 km2. Extent of occurrence <20 000 km2. A continuing and inferred decline due to an increase in fire frequency

Acacia undoolyana is sensitive to fire and requires low fire frequencies, and is therefore threatened by increased fire intensity and frequency from buffel grass fires.


B.2.b.i.ii.

http://www.nt.gov.au/nreta/wildlife/animals/threatened/pdf/plants/Acacia_undoolyana_VU.pdf

Acacia latzii Latz's wattle Vulnerable Endangered

Endemic to the Finke bioregion where it is restricted to two areas about 200km apart. Total known area of occupancy < 2000km2

Acacia latzii is slow growing and sensitive to fire and requires low fire frequencies, and is therefore threatened by increased fire intensity and frequency from buffel grass fires.


B.2.b.i.ii.

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/pubs/r-gloria-medii.pdf

Prostanthera nudula

Naked Mintbush Vulnerable Endangered

Small number of remaining populations endemic to the APY Lands. Area of occupancy < 2000 km2

Prostranthera nudula is sensitive to fire is therefore threatened by increased fire intensity and frequency from buffel grass fires.


B.2.b.i.ii.


Thryptomene hexandra

Palm valley Myrtle

Vulnerable Endangered Small number of remaining populations.

buffel invading limited rocky habitat and increasing fire threat


B.2.b.i.ii.

http://www.nt.gov.au/nreta/wildlife/animals/threatened/specieslist.html).













9. ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES THAT COULD BECOME ELIGIBLE FOR LISTING IN A HIGHER CATEGORY OF ENDANGERMENT AND JUSTIFICATION

Provide details and justification of EPBC Act listed threatened ecological communities that, due to the impacts of the threatening process, could become eligible for listing in another category representing a higher degree of endangerment. For each ecological community please include:

a. the complete title (published or otherwise generally accepted), category that the item is currently listed in and the category it could become eligible for listing in;

b. data on the current status in relation to the criteria for listing (at least one criterion for the current listed category has been previously met);

c. specific information on how the threatening process significantly threatens this ecological community; andd. information on the extent to which the threat could change the status of the ecological community in relation

to the criteria for listing. This does not have to be the same criterion under which the ecological community was previously listed.

Criterion C: Adversely affected listed species or ecological communities

10. SPECIES ADVERSELY IMPACTED AND JUSTIFICATION Provide a summary of species listed as threatened under the EPBC Act, that are considered to be adversely affected by the threatening process. For each species please include:

a. the scientific name, common name (if appropriate) and category of listing under the EPBC Act; andb. justification for each species that is claimed to be affected adversely by the threatening process.

Species Scientific Name Common Name Current Category

ListingJustification for each species that is claimed to be affected adversely by the threatening process

Liopholis slateri slateri Slater’s Skink Endangered

“Total population currently thought to be 200-300 animals. No threatening processes have been positively demonstrated, although degradation of its alluvial habitat as a result of invasion by the introduced buffel grass and associated changes in fire regimes appears the most likely causes of the species’ decline. In particular, the decline and disappearance of Slater’s skink is correlated with the introduction of buffel grass (Cenchrus ciliaris) into central Australia in the late 1960s. This weed has radically altered the vegetation structure and species composition of drainage systems in central Australia. Buffel grass is now the dominant ground cover at the type locality and surrounding alluvial areas.”

Croitana aestival Desert Sand Skipper Endangered

The spread of Buffel Grass (Cenchrus ciliaris) is expected to have degraded the habitat at all known locations and it is believed this will lead to the continued decline of the species (Braby et al. 2007; TSSC 2006v) through loss of their native grass larval food plants.

Minuria tridens Minnie Daisy VulnerableMinuria tridens is threatened by the invasion of the exotic perennial grass, Cenchrus ciliaris (buffel grass) into core habitat areas. The Alice Springs Municipality sites are most severely affected.

Olearia macdonnellensis

MacDonnell Ranges Olearia Vulnerable

O. macdonnellensis is threatened by wildfire (Kerrigan et al. 2006). Buffel-grass is highly abundant in run on areas throughout the MacDonnell Ranges and is therefore likely to occupy the creek lines where O. macdonnellensis occurs.

Acacia undoolyana Undoolya Wattle Vulnerable

Decline is inferred due to an increase in fire frequency (Soos et al. 1987; Latz 1992; Pitts et al. 1995). Widespread infestations of theintroduced buffel grass Cenchrus ciliaris may detrimentally affect this species, particularly by increasing fire frequency and intensity in adjacent alluvial land systems, such that fires can morereadily spread into Acacia undoolyana stands.

Leiopoa ocellata Malleefowl VulnerableContinued invasion of buffel grass into arid woodlands will increase the fire frequency, removing key food plants and habitat in which they build their mounds – especially mulga / minyura woodlands and shrublands.

Dasycercus cristicauda Mulgara Vulnerable

For all these species the invasion of buffel grass will significantly change the structure and composition of their preferred habitat and remove key resources through competition and wildfire.

11. ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES ADVERSELY IMPACTED AND JUSTIFICATION Provide a summary of ecological communities listed as threatened under the EPBC Act that are considered to be adversely affected by the threatening process. For each ecological community please provide:a. the complete title (exactly as listed) and category of listing under the EPBC Act; andb. justification for each ecological community that is claimed to be affected adversely by the threatening process.

Threat Abatement

12. THREAT ABATEMENT Give an overview of how threats posed by this process are being abated by current (or proposed) activities. Identify who is undertaking these activities and how successful the activities have been to date.

Consultation through this nomination process and previous survey research has demonstrated considerable common ground across a range of stakeholders and suggestions that a national threat abatement plan should be considered (Friedel et al. 2011, Grice et al. 2011). This would be very timely, because there are currently only three known buffel grass management strategies / procedures, etc., and a national threat abatement plan could lead ongoing management which will no doubt increase in the coming years as the threat of buffel grass continues to spread. Current officially-recognised buffel grass management activities in broader are outlined below.

The DENR Alinytjara Wilurara (AW) Region has recognised buffel grass as a significant threat to its unique biodiversity and cultural assets, and in particular the EPBC listed species which occur within its boundaries. The AW NRM Board are currently investing in the following management

- One Authorised Officer and one dedicated indigenous Buffel Grass Project Officer whose role it is to support the AW DENR's aspirational goal of eradicating buffel grass from the southern two thirds of the region.

- Management activities of these staff primarily exist around mapping and spraying known buffel grass colonies.- AW DENR also support and facilitate training for indigenous land management authorities in order to increase

the capacity to manage buffel grass. - AW DENR is currently preparing a buffel grass operational strategy, which will fall under the South Australian

Buffel Grass Strategy, and outline priorities and workplans to ensure buffel grass is managed strategically within the region

- AW DENR is also supporting research which is investigating better aerial mapping techniques (Marshall 2012).- Overall, there has been good success in the southern part of the AW region, where buffel grass is in low

densities. However, with increasing densities outside the region and on transport corridors leading into the region, there is a strong need for a broader approach.

The DENR South Australian Arid Lands Region has prepared a draft Buffel Grass Management Plan (Greenfield, 2007) with the following objectives:

- Take steps to prevent further deliberate introductions of buffel grass into the SAAL NRM regions. - Stakeholder awareness of buffel grass and its negative impacts improved. - A measurable reduction in buffel grass distribution in key areas achieved. - The impacts of buffel grass across the SAAL region strategically monitored.

Uluru Kata Tjutja National Park (UKTNP), management efforts have included (UKTNP 2009):- Mapping buffel grass distribution at one or both of the monoliths (1991 and 2003)- An on-going control program utilising Conservation Volunteers Australia (CVA) focusing in the past on Uluru and

Kata Tjuta and lately just at Uluru- Opportunistic control activities by operational rangers targeting infrastructure around Uluru- Removal of buffel grass at the women’s sacred site Pulari.

Overall, there are considerable challenges to the control of buffel grass in northern and central Australia: its physiological and ecological characteristics; its widespread geographic distribution; the extensive area infested; the land use present and, the current level of community awareness regarding impacts of this species (Greenfield 2007). In addition, wind and water can potentially move buffel grass seed many kilometres in a single event. Below is a summary

of the major challenges of buffel grass management:- Once established there is no single control method available for the successful management of buffel grass over

extensive areas (Tu 2002). Prevention is the most cost-effective means of weed control. It is important therefore to keep currently un-infested areas free of buffel grass, particularly near high value assets. Information on the distribution of buffel grass, including where control works have been completed, is critical to support planning. The degree of detail required would vary with the scale and purpose of the planning, for example planning in eradication areas with scattered plants requires knowledge down to single plant level.

- As the current extent of buffel grass in northern and central Australia precludes absolute control, effort needs to be guided by decision making based on biodiversity values and other assets potentially at risk, logistics, and available resources.

- Chemical and mechanical methods, and in some situations fire can be used in an integrated control program for buffel grass. All methods may be effective in particular situations depending on the infestation density and extent, terrain, resources, and the management objectives (e.g. eradication or containment). There is potential to improve the effectiveness of control methods for some sites and to then disseminate the knowledge to weed managers and landholders. Control methods should be complementary. Control programs require several years of follow-up that may increase the cost several-fold; in some situations the long-term costs can make control of large dense infestations uneconomic.

- Buffel grass must be actively growing for effective uptake of herbicides. In arid or semi-arid regions of South Australia the period of active growth is unpredictable and may be short-lived and timing is therefore very important for control. Foliar application of select herbicides to young plants or regrowth following rain provides the best opportunity for success. Simple physical removal of buffel grass may be considered for new, small infestations particularly where the plants are bearing seed and the plants are not in an active growth phase. Fire or slashing and herbicides may be integrated to improve foliar uptake and to manage larger infestations. The high cost of herbicides and associated labour is a hindrance to control. All control programs require several years of follow-up treatment and monitoring, which further increases the cost. Control and eradication of infestations must be carried out on all tenures including government and Aboriginal lands.

Given the vast challenges of effective buffel grass management, biological control is considered the single most cost effective management method for dense areas of buffel grass, particularly at sites where species listed under the EPBC Act (1999) are located, and matters of national environmental significance. However, as buffel grass is recognised as a valuable forage species in some parts of Australia, the use of highly mobile biological control agents requires careful consideration. Less mobile agents may however assist with the control, even eradication of buffel grass from areas remote from pastoral activities. These areas typically also coincide with the highest conservation value and hence highest buffel grass risk

13. DEVELOPMENT OF THREAT ABATEMENT PLAN Would the development of a threat abatement plan be a feasible, effective and efficient way to abate the process? What other measures could be undertaken?The nominators and all those consulted through the development of this nomination strongly support the development of a national threat abatement plan for buffel grass, in order to increase our ability to strategically manage buffel grass beyond the boundaries of individual parks or NRM regions. This is best summarised by Grice et al. (2011), who suggested “national recognition of the issues should facilitate interstate collaboration and co-ordination, yield economies of scale and improve access to Commonwealth resources (e.g., to support research)”. A national approach and strategy is the only way forward in tackling the deleterious impacts that buffel grass will have on EPBC listed species.

Other measures which will also progress the management of buffel grass and should be considered include- A feasibility study to determine the possibility of localised biological control in Australia- An awareness raising campaign which highlights to community and landholders the deleterious impacts that

buffel grass can have not only on biodiversity, but also the high risk to life, property and indigenous culture (see below).

- A nation-wide landholder survey to rigorously assess the attitudes towards buffel grass.- Support for action in determining the impact that buffel grass has on carbon storage across Australia.

14. ELEMENTS TO BE INCLUDED IN A THREAT ABATEMENT PLANIf the threatening process is recommended for listing under the EPBC Act, what elements could a threat abatement plan include?A Threat Abatement Plan for Buffel Grass should include- A prioritisation of areas for exclusion, elimination and control of buffel grass across Australia.- Guidelines and stipulations on limiting the spread of buffel grass adjacent to areas of high conservation value- An outline for support of research into optimal techniques of limiting or removing buffel grass from high value conservation areas- Quarantine and Biosecurity measures to ensure that no new varieties/strains of buffel grass are imported into Australia- Recommendation for the formation of a National Taskforce

15. ADDITIONAL THREAT ABATEMENT INFORMATIONIs there other information that relates to threat abatement that you would like to provide?

Indigenous Values

16. INDIGENOUS CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCEIs the key threatening process known to have an impact on species or country culturally significant to Indigenous groups within Australia? If so, to which groups? Provide information on the nature of this significance if publicly available.Because of its distributional overlap with much of central Australia, buffel grass is now distributed across much of the western desert aboriginal lands of central Australia, including:

- Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara (APY) Lands (South Australia)- Maralinga Tjarutja Lands (South Australia)- Mamungari Conservation Park (Co-managed with SA DENR)- Nyaanyatjarra Lands (Western Australia)- Central Land Council (Northern Territory)- Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park

In the APY Lands, buffel grass was deliberately introduced in the 1980’s into Kalka community in order to suppress dust, which was causing health issues. With the benefit of hindsight, the proponents of this strategy now recognise that the costs of buffel grass introduction (considerably increased fire risk within settlements, obstruction of clear ground used for hunting, sitting, camping) outweigh the health benefits that could have also been achieved with native, or less invasive plant species (M. Last pers. comm.). Anecdotal evidence and personal communications in the APY Lands has indicated that buffel grass is currently, and will also in the future, have a significant impact on a number of traditional cultural activities, including:

- hunting for malu (red kangaroos. as the dense monocultures prevent ease of access and clear spaces for hunting)

- threats and access to mulga woodlands where tjala (honeyants) are gathered- threats and access to ilykuwara (Acacia kempeana) woodlands where maku (witchetty grubs) are gathered- threats to communities and homelands posed by the wildfire risk.

Within UKTNP, buffel grass is recognised as a threat to both the natural and cultural values (UKTNP 2009). Sacred sites and other significant cultural areas are at risk due to the grasses ability to increase fire intensity and frequency, damaging rock art and other less tangible cultural assets. Qualitative evidence suggests that this increase in fire intensity and frequency also poses significant threats to native communities, many of which are fire sensitive. Further, buffel grass’s ability to out-compete native grasses and form monocultures in the understorey is thought to destroy habitat for many species of vertebrates and invertebrates within the park (UKTNP 2009).

17. MAJOR STUDIESIdentify major studies that might assist in the assessment of the nominated threatening process.Butler, D.W. and Fairfax, R.J. (2003). Buffel and fire in a Gidgee and Brigalow woodland: a case study from

central Queensland. Ecological Management and Restoration 4: 120-125.

Friedel, M., Puckey, H., O’Malley, C., Waycott, M., Smyth, A. and Miller, G. (2006). Buffel grass: both friend and foe. An evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of buffel grass use and recommendations for future research. Desert Knowledge Cooperative Research Centre, Alice Springs.

Friedel, M., Puckey, H., O‟Malley, C., Waycott, M. and Smyth, A. (2006). The dispersal, impact and management of buffel grass (Cenchrus ciliaris) in desert Australia. Proceedings of the 14th Biennial Conference of the Australian Rangelands Society, Renmark pp 160- 163.

Lawson, B. E., Bryant, M. J., and Franks, A. J. (2004). Assessing the potential distribution of buffel grass (Cenchrus ciliaris L.) in Australia using a climate-soil model. Plant Protection Quarterly 19, 155–163.

Marshall V. M., Lewis M. M. and Ostendorf B. (2012) Buffel grass (Cenchrus ciliaris) as an invader and threat to biodiversity in arid environments: A review. Journal of Arid Environments 78, 1-12.

Miller, G. (2003). Ecological impacts of Buffel (Cenchrus ciliaris L.) in central Australia – does field evidence support a fire-invasion feedback? Honours Thesis, University of NSW, Australia.

18. FURTHER INFORMATIONIdentify relevant studies or management documentation that might relate to the species (e.g. research projects, national park management plans, recovery plans, conservation plans, threat abatement plans, etc.). Best, R. (1998). The effect of introduced Buffel (Cenchrus ciliaris L. Poaceae) on the diversity and abundance of invertebrates in semi-arid central Australia. Honours Thesis, Northern Territory University.

Butler, D.W. and Fairfax, R.J. (2003). Buffel and fire in a Gidgee and Brigalow woodland: a case study from central Queensland. Ecological Management and Restoration 4: 120-125.

Duguid, A., and Schunke, D. (1998). Final Report on Project 290 Acacia undoolyana (Undoolyana Wattle) Species Recovery Plan. (Parks and Wildlife Commission of the Northern Territory, Alice Springs.)

Ford, M. (2009). Foraging ecology, diet and prey availability in a population of the endangered skink,Egernia slateri ssp. slateri (Squamata: Scincidae), at Owen Springs Reserve. Honours thesis submitted to Charles Darwin University.

Franks, A. J. (2002). The ecological consequences of buffel grass Cenchrus ciliaris establishment within remnant vegetation of Queensland. Pacific Conservation Biology 8, 99-107.



Friedel, M., Marshall, N., van Klinken, R and Grice, T., (2009) Quantifying costs and benefits of buffel grass. Defeating the Weed Menace R&D report to the Australian Government. http://lwa.gov.au/files/products/defeating-weed-menace/pn22410/pn22410.pdf

Friedel, M.H., Grice, A.C., Marshall, N.A and van Klinken R.D. (2011). Reducing contention amongst organisations dealing with commercially valuable but invasive plants: The case of buffel grass. Environ. Sci. Policy (2011), doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2011.08.001

http://lwa.gov.au/files/products/defeating-weed-menace/pn22410/pn22410.pdf

Grice, A. C. (2006). The impact of invasive plant species on the biodiversity of Australian rangelands. The Rangeland Journal 28, 27–35.

Grice, A.C., Friedel, M.H., Marshall, N.A. and Van Klinken, R.D. (2011) Tackling Contentious Invasive Plant Species: A Case Study of Buffel Grass in Australia. Environmental ManagementDOI 10.1007/s00267-011-9781-6.

Griffin, G. F. (1993). The spread of buffel grass in inland Australia: land use conflicts. Proceedings I: 10th Australian Weeds Conference and 14th Asian Pacific Weed Science Society Conference, pp. 501-504. Weed Society of Queensland: Brisbane.

Lang, P. J. (2008). Calostemma abdicatum (Amaryllidacaeae), a new species of Garland Lily endemic to the Everard Ranges, and a comparison of the three species within Calostemma R.Br. Journal Adelaide Botanic Gardens 22: (2008) 47–56.

Latz, P.K. (1992). Conservation research statement: Acacia undoolyana Leach. ANPWS Endangered Species programme Project proposal, March 1992. (Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory, Alice Springs.)


McAlpin, S. F. (2000). Nomination for listing a native species as a threatenedspecies under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act1999 – Egernia slateri. Submission to Environment Australia.


Nano, C. and Pavey, C. 2008 National Recovery Plan for Olearia macdonnellensis, Minuria tridens (Minnie Daisy) and Actinotus schwarzii (Desert Flannel Flower). Department of Natural Resources, Environment, The Arts and Sport, Northern Territory.

Paltridge, R. (2010) Final Report on the Loves Creek Slater’s Skink Monitoring Project. Report produced for the Central Land Council and Threatened Species Network, Desert Wildlife Services, Northern Territory, Australia.

Pavey, C. R. (2004). Recovery Plan for Slater’s Skink, Egernia slateri, 2005–2010. Northern TerritoryDepartment of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment, Northern Territory Government, Alice Springs, Northern Territory, Australia.

Pavey, C. (2007). Slater’s Skink Egernia slateri. In J. Woinarski, C. Pavey, R. Kerrigan, I. Cowie and S. Ward (eds.), Lost from Our Landscape: Threatened species of the Northern Territory, pp. 176–177. Northern Territory Government, Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia.

Paltridge R., Latz P., Pickburn A. and Eldridge S. (2009) Management Plan for Rare and Threatened Flora in the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Lands of South Australia. In: Department for Environment and Heritage, Adelaide.

Pavey, C., Burwell, C. and Nano, C. (in press). Foraging ecology and habitat use of Slater’s Skink (Egernia slateri): an endangered Australian desert lizard. Accepted for publication in Journal of Herpetology.

Pearson, D. J. (2010). Recovery Plan for five species of rock-wallabies: black-flanked rock-wallaby (Petrogale lateralis), Rothschild’s rock-wallaby (Petrogale rothschildi), short-eared rock-wallaby (Petrogale brachyotis), monjon (Petrogale burbidgei) and nabarlek (Petrogale concinna).Department of Environment and Conservation, Perth.

Pitts, B., Schunke, D., and Parsons, D. (1995). Species recovery plan for Acacia undoolyana – recovery action 2.4: GIS analysis. (Parks and Wildlife Commission of the Northern Territory, Alice Springs.)

Puckey, H., and Albrecht, D. (2004). Buffel grass (Cenchrus ciliaris L.) presenting the arid Northern Territory experience to our South Australian neighbours. Plant Protection Quarterly 19, 69-72.

Puckey, H., Brock, C. and Yates, C. (2007). Improving the landscape scale management of buffel grass (Cenchrus ciliaris) using aerial survey, predictive modeling, and a Geographic Information System. Pacific Conservation Biology 13: 1-10.

Read, J. and Ward, M.J. (2011a). Warru Recovery Plan – Recovery of Petrogale lateralis MacDonnell Ranges Race in South Australia. Warru Recovery Team, South Australia., DENR, Adelaide.

Smyth, A., Friedel, M.D. and O’Malley, C. (2009). The influence of buffel grass (Cenchrus ciliaris) on biodiversity in an arid Australian landscape. Rangeland Journal 31:307-320.

UKTNP (2009). Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park Buffel Grass Strategy 2009-2014.

Ward, M.J., Urban, R., Read, J.L., Dent, A., Partridge, T., Clarke, A., vanWeenen, J. (2011). Status of warru (Petrogale lateralis MacDonnel Ranges race) in the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Lands of South Australia. 1. Distribution and decline. Australian Mammalogy 33: 135-41.

19. REFERENCE LISTPlease list key references/documentation you have referred to in your nomination.Albrecht, D., Latz, P and Westaway, J. (2011) Proposed Changes to Conservation Status of Species in the NT – Sporobolus latzii. Department of NRETAS, Darwin.)

Best, R. (1998). The effect of introduced Buffel (Cenchrus ciliaris L. Poaceae) on the diversity and abundance of invertebrates in semi-arid central Australia. Honours Thesis, Northern Territory University.

BHP Billiton Olympic Dam (2007) Weed Risk Assessment. Olympic Dam, South Australia.

Butler, D.W. and Fairfax, R.J. (2003). Buffel and fire in a Gidgee and Brigalow woodland: a case study from central Queensland. Ecological Management and Restoration 4: 120-125.

Carpenter, G. & J.S. Matthew (1986). The birds of Billiatt Conservation Park. South Australian Ornithologist. 30:29-37.

Carpenter, G. & J.S. Matthew (1992). Western records of the Mallee Emu-wren Stipiturus mallee. South Australian Ornithologist. 31:125.

Cheam, A.H. (1984). Allelopathy in Buffel (Cenchrus ciliaris L.) Part 1. Influence of Buffel association on Calotrope (Calotropis procera (Ait). Australian Weeds 3: 133-136.

Clarke, R. (2005). Recovery Plan for the Mallee Emu-wren Stipiturus mallee, Striated Grasswren Amytornis striatus,Red-lored Whistler Pachycephala rufogularis and Western Whipbird Psophodes nigrogularis lecuogaster, South Australian Murray Darling Basin. Department for Environment and Heritage, Adelaide.

Clarke, R. (2007). Surveys for Mallee Emu-wrens Within the Murray Mallee Reserve System, Victoria, Spring 2006. Interim Report - Unpublished report to Department for Sustainability and Environment, Melbourne.

Duguid, A., and Schunke, D. (1998). Final Report on Project 290 Acacia undoolyana (Undoolyana Wattle) Species Recovery Plan. (Parks and Wildlife Commission of the Northern Territory, Alice Springs.)

Eldridge, M.D.B. (1997). Taxonomy of rock-wallabies, Petrogale (Marsupialia: Macropodidae). II. An historical review. Australian Mammalogy 19: 113-122.

Fairfax, R. J., and Fensham, R. J. (2000). The effect of exotic pasture development on floristic diversity in central Queensland, Australia. Biological Conservation 94, 11–21.

Ford, M. (2009). Foraging ecology, diet and prey availability in a population of the endangered skink,Egernia slateri ssp. slateri (Squamata: Scincidae), at Owen Springs Reserve. Honours thesis submitted to Charles Darwin University.

Franks, A. J. (2002). The ecological consequences of buffel grass Cenchrus ciliaris establishment within remnant vegetation of Queensland. Pacific Conservation Biology 8, 99-107.

Franks, A.J., Butler, D. and Fairfax, R. (2000) A weed by any other name. Wildlife Australia 37, 24.

Freeland, W.J., Winter, J.W., and Raskin, S. (1988). Australian rock mammals: A phenomenon of the seasonally dry tropics. Biotropica 20, 70-79.



Friedel, M., Marshall, N., van Klinken, R and Grice, T., (2009) Quantifying costs and benefits of buffel grass. Defeating the Weed Menace R&D report to the Australian Government. http://lwa.gov.au/files/products/defeating-weed-menace/pn22410/pn22410.pdf

Friedel, M.H., Grice, A.C., Marshall, N.A and van Klinken R.D. (2011). Reducing contention amongst organisations dealing with commercially valuable but invasive plants: The case of buffel grass. Environ. Sci. Policy (2011), doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2011.08.001

Garnett, S.T. & G.M. Crowley (2000). The Action Plan for Australian Birds 2000. [Online]. Canberra, ACT: Environment Australia and Birds Australia. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/action/birds2000/index.html.

Gates, J.A. (2003). Ecology of Threatened Mallee Birds in Billiatt Conservation Park: Baseline Distribution and Abundance Surveys, 2003. Unpublished report to Wildlife Conservation Fund, Adelaide.

Greenfield, B. (2007). S.A. Arid lands buffel grass management plan. South Australian Arid Lands Natural Resource Management Board, Adelaide.

Grice, A. C. (2006). The impact of invasive plant species on the biodiversity of Australian rangelands. The Rangeland Journal 28, 27–35.

Grice, A.C., Friedel, M.H., Marshall, N.A. and Van Klinken, R.D. (2011) Tackling Contentious Invasive Plant Species: A Case Study of Buffel Grass in Australia. Environmental ManagementDOI 10.1007/s00267-011-9781-6.

Griffin, G. F. (1993). The spread of buffel grass in inland Australia: land use conflicts. Proceedings I: 10th Australian Weeds Conference and 14th Asian Pacific Weed Science Society Conference, pp. 501-504. Weed Society of Queensland: Brisbane.

Horner, P. (1992). The Skinks of the Northern Territory. Northern Territory

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/action/birds2000/index.html

http://lwa.gov.au/files/products/defeating-weed-menace/pn22410/pn22410.pdf

Government Printing Office: Darwin.

Humphries, S.E., Groves, R.H., and Mitchell, D.S. (1993). Plant Invasions: homogenizing Australian ecosystems. In: Conservation Biology in Australia and Oceania (eds. C. Moritz and J. Kikkawa) pp 149-170. Surrey Beatty and Sons, Chipping Norton.

Jessop, J., Dashorst. G.R.M.,& James, F.M. (2006). Grasses of South Australia, An illustrated guide to the native and naturalised species.

Kerrigan, R. & Albrecht, D. (2006a) Minuria tridens. Threatened species profile at www.nt.gov.au/NRETAS/wildlife/threatened/pdf/plants/Minuria_tridens_VU.pdf.

Latz, P.K. (1992). Conservation research statement: Acacia undoolyana Leach. ANPWS Endangered Species programme Project proposal, March 1992. (Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory, Alice Springs.)

Lawson, B. E., Bryant, M. J., and Franks, A. J. (2004). Assessing the potential distribution of buffel grass (Cenchrus ciliaris L.) in Australia using a climate-soil model. Plant Protection Quarterly 19, 155–163.

Low, T. (1997). Tropical pasture plants as weeds. Tropical Grasslands 31, 337–343.

Ludwig, J.A., Eager, R.W., Liedloff, A.C., McCosker, J.C., Hannah, D., Thurgate, N.Y., Woinarski, J.C.Z. and Catterall, C.P. (2000). Clearing and grazing impacts on vegetation patch structures and fauna counts in eucalypt woodland, Central Queensland. Pacific Conservation Biology 6, 254-272.


McAlpin, S. F. (2000). Nomination for listing a native species as a threatenedspecies under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act1999 – Egernia slateri. Submission to Environment Australia.


Mustoe, S. (2006). Assessment of the Conservation Status of Mallee Emu-wren, Stipiturus mallee , A.J. Campbell, 1908, Family Maluridae. Unpublished report to Save the Food Bowl Alliance.

Nano, C. and Pavey, C. 2008 National Recovery Plan for Olearia macdonnellensis, Minuria tridens (Minnie Daisy) and Actinotus schwarzii (Desert Flannel Flower). Department of Natural Resources, Environment, The Arts and Sport, Northern Territory.

Paltridge R., Latz P., Pickburn A. and Eldridge S. (2009) Management Plan for Rare and Threatened Flora in the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Lands of South Australia. In: Department for Environment and Heritage, Adelaide.

Paltridge, R. (2010) Final Report on the Loves Creek Slater’s Skink Monitoring Project. Report produced for the Central Land Council and Threatened Species Network, Desert Wildlife Services, Northern Territory, Australia.

Pavey, C. R. (2004). Recovery Plan for Slater’s Skink, Egernia slateri, 2005–2010. Northern TerritoryDepartment of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment, Northern Territory Government, Alice Springs, Northern Territory, Australia.

Pavey, C. (2007). Slater’s Skink Egernia slateri. In J. Woinarski, C. Pavey, R. Kerrigan, I. Cowie and S. Ward (eds.), Lost from Our Landscape: Threatened species of the Northern Territory, pp. 176–177. Northern

http://www.nt.gov.au/NRETAS/wildlife/threatened/pdf/plants/Minuria_tridens_VU.pdf

Territory Government, Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia.

Pavey, C., Burwell, C. and Nano, C. (in press). Foraging ecology and habitat use of Slater’s Skink (Egernia slateri): an endangered Australian desert lizard. Accepted for publication in Journal of Herpetology.

Pearson, D. J. (2010). Recovery Plan for five species of rock-wallabies: black-flanked rock-wallaby (Petrogale lateralis), Rothschild’s rock-wallaby (Petrogale rothschildi), short-eared rock-wallaby (Petrogale brachyotis), monjon (Petrogale burbidgei) and nabarlek (Petrogale concinna).Department of Environment and Conservation, Perth.

Pedler, R.D. (2007). Bronzeback Legless Lizard and Floodplains Skink Survey: Coober Pedy - Oodnadatta Area, SA Arid Lands NRM Board, Port Augusta.

Pitts, B., Schunke, D., and Parsons, D. (1995). Species recovery plan for Acacia undoolyana – recovery action 2.4: GIS analysis. (Parks and Wildlife Commission of the Northern Territory, Alice Springs.)

Puckey, H., and Albrecht, D. (2004). Buffel grass (Cenchrus ciliaris L.) presenting the arid Northern Territory experience to our South Australian neighbours. Plant Protection Quarterly 19, 69-72.

Puckey, H., Brock, C. and Yates, C. (2007). Improving the landscape scale management of buffel grass (Cenchrus ciliaris) using aerial survey, predictive modeling, and a Geographic Information System. Pacific Conservation Biology 13: 1-10.

Read, J. and Ward, M.J. (2011a). Warru Recovery Plan – Recovery of Petrogale lateralis MacDonnell Ranges Race in South Australia. Warru Recovery Team, South Australia., DENR, Adelaide.

Read , J.L. and Ward, M.J. (2011b). Bringing back warru: initiation and implantation of the South Australian Warru Recovery Plan. Australian Mammalogy 33: 1-7.

Rowley, I. & E. Russell (1997). Fairy-Wrens and Grasswrens. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.

Schlesinger, C.A. & S. Muldoon (2009). Impacts of controlling buffel grass (Cenchrus ciliaris) on native fauna in desert Australia Society for Ecological Restoration International World Conference on Ecological Restoration23-27 August 2009, Perth , Western Australia, Australia.

Schlesinger, C.A. (2011). Research and land management in central Australia – responsiveness, flexibility and patience. Ecological Society of Australia 2011 Annual Conference 21-25th November 2011, Hobart, Tasmania., Australia

Silveira, C.E. (1993). The Recovery Plan for Australia's Threatened Mallee Birds - Addressing Fire as a Threatening Process: Research Phase. Report to Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, Canberra. Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union, Melbourne.

Smyth, A., Friedel, M.D. and O’Malley, C. (2009). The influence of buffel grass (Cenchrus ciliaris) on biodiversity in an arid Australian landscape. Rangeland Journal 31:307-320.

Soos, A. Latz, P.K., and Kube, P.D. (1987). Occurrence of two rare plant populations in the eastern MacDonnell Ranges. Technical Memorandum 87/11. (Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory, Alice Springs.)

UKTNP (2009). Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park Buffel Grass Strategy 2009-2014.

Ward, M.J., Urban, R., Read, J.L., Dent, A., Partridge, T., Clarke, A., vanWeenen, J. (2011). Status of warru (Petrogale lateralis MacDonnel Ranges race) in the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Lands of South

Australia. 1. Distribution and decline. Australian Mammalogy 33: 135-41.

White, M., Albrecht, D., Duguid, A., Latz, P. and Hamilton, M. (2000). Plant species and sites of botanical significance in the southern bioregions of the Northern Territory. Volume 1: significant vascular plants. A report to the Australian Heritage Commission. (Arid Lands Environment Centre, Alice Springs.)

Woinarski, J., Fensham, R., Peter Whitehead, P. and Fisher, A. (2000). Developing an Analytical Framework for Monitoring Biodiversity in Australia’s Rangelands. Background paper 1. A Review of Changes in Status and Threatening Processes. A Report to the NLWRA by Tropical Savannas CRC

Woinarski, J. C. Z., Milne, D. J., and Wanganeen, G. (2001). Changes in mammal populations in relatively intact landscapes of Kakadu National Park, Northern Territory, Australia. Austral Ecology 26, 360–370.

20. APPENDIXPlease place here any figures, tables or maps that you have referred to within your nomination. Alternatively, you can provide them as an attachment.

- map of Australia distribution- anything else? EPBC search tool maps for listed entities???-

21. DECLARATION I declare that, to the best of my knowledge, the information in this nomination and its attachments is true and correct. I understand that any unreferenced material within this nomination will be cited as ‘personal communication’ (i.e. referenced in my name) and I permit the publication of this information.

Signed:

Date:

* If submitting by email, please attach an electronic signature

Where did you find out about nominating items?The Committee would appreciate your feedback regarding how you found out about the nomination process. Your feedback will ensure that future calls for nominations can be advertised as widely as possible.

Please tick

DSEWPAC website Australian newspaper word of mouth

Journal/society/organisation web site or email? if so which one………………………………………………………………….

web search Other…………………………………………………………………………………..

Key Threatening Process Nomination Form - invasion of ...€¦ · Web viewKey Threatening Process...

Documents

Transcript of Key Threatening Process Nomination Form - invasion of ...€¦ · Web viewKey Threatening Process...