Key Threatening Process Nomination Form

11.ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES ADVERSELY IMPACTED AND JUSTIFICATION

1. 
   the complete title (exactly as listed) and category of listing under the EPBC Act; and
   
2. 
   justification for each ecological community that is claimed to be affected adversely by the threatening process.
   

Threat Abatement

12.THREAT ABATEMENT

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.

• 
  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