|
Please address the following:
1. What approach does Council currently have
toward the management of the African Olive, and other invasive weed species
in Leacock Regional Park, and other parks and green spaces in Liverpool?
Response
Leacock Regional Park is the tenure of National Parks and Wildlife Services.
Council’s management of invasive
weed species varies depending on the category of land. Informed by the Biosecurity
Act 2015 and regional plans of management, Council takes a risk
management approach to the control of pest species, which balances management
objectives with cost effectiveness.
Much of Council’s approach to weed
management can be classified as asset protection, containing existing threats
and prioritising those that impact the function of a given asset. High
priority weeds, particularly those emerging in the region, have been identified
for eradication (e.g., Frogbit).
With regards to natural assets, such as
bushland and waterways, Council has a number of operational programs
targeting weeds. Council’s Aquatic Weed Program targets a suite of
species that impede recreational use and impact ecosystem functions in
Council waterways. The Environment Restoration Plan (ERP) program works to
restore and maintain areas of high conservation value. Weed management forms
a significant part of these activities; however, it is limited to established
ERP sites.
Weed treatments on Council’s
remaining natural assets take a reactive management approach in response to
Councillor and Customer Requests. Whenever possible, Council officers
leverage grant funding opportunities to target an area of concern or add
value to existing approaches.
Where Council actively manages weeds,
such as African Olive, priority is given to areas of high conservation value.
These areas have remnant native vegetation and greatest capacity to
regenerate following removal of weeds. Areas with significant infestations
require a greater input of resources to effectively restore than more
resilient areas. Where large infestations are treated, best practice requires
a staged ‘mosaic’ approach to the removal of weeds, ensuring there
is adequate habitat for fauna and that soil stability is maintained. This
also ensures that no area is over cleared.
Council is currently developing an
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) policy and strategy which will provide
priorities and guidance on the management of weeds and other pests. The
draft IPM policy was presented to the June 2021 Council meeting. A
draft IPM strategy is due to be presented to the February 2022 Council
meeting.
2. What resources are currently allocated to
manage the problem and prevent these invasive weed species from impacting the
natural biodiversity of the area, especially in the ever-reducing Cumberland
Plain Woodland?
Response
The on-ground management of Council’s environmental assets falls under
the jurisdiction of the Environmental Operations Unit of City Presentation.
Council’s Biosecurity Officer is
primarily responsible for the execution of relevant biosecurity duties, which
include priority weed control and investigation of high-risk pathways. The
biosecurity portfolio also delivers the Aquatic Weeds Program, with an annual
operating budget of $40,000. Council leverages Weed Action Plan grant funding
for the delivery of the Kei Apple Eradication Program.
The ERP program is a package of projects
and programs, funded by Council’s Environment Levy permanent special
rates variation, for the improvement of Liverpool’s natural environment
for the long-term benefit of the community. The ERP program manages
approximately 200ha of bushland. Projects are managed by a dedicated project
officer. The on-ground works component consists of a series of ecological
restoration projects and their subsequent management by Council’s ERP
Bush Regeneration team. The ERP program engages two bush regeneration teams
totalling 8 staff for the ongoing management of ERP sites. Projects featuring
the targeted removal of African Olive in the Casula locality have been
included in the last two rounds of ERP projects.
Council does not have a dedicated officer
for the management of natural assets. Reactive management of these areas is
programmed by Coordinator Environment Operations. Reactive works cost
$270,000 in the 2020-2021 financial year. This has included short term
treatments for African Olive and exotic vines in waterways and all other natural
areas and environmental operational issues.
3. Is the current level of allocated
resources sufficient to adequately address the issue?
Response
It is important to note that weed management is an ongoing process.
Ecological restoration can take upwards of 20 years to remediate degraded
bushland when actively managed. Adequate resourcing depends on the management
outcomes sought for a particular area or weed species, and the extent and
severity of weed infestations.
The responsibilities of Council as a land
manager are identified in the Local Government Act 1993 and described
core business. Other legislation, such as the Biodiversity Conservation
Act 2016 and Biosecurity Act 2015, identifies additional statutory
requirements of land managers for the conservation of biodiversity and the
management of invasive species.
The Local Government Act 1993 (the
Act) requires Council to prepare Plans of Management (PoM) for land under its
care and control, determining the use and management objectives for a given
location, and set service standards for those areas. This defines the
performance targets and operating budget.
Natural Area is one category of community
land identified under the Act and pertains to areas of conservation value.
This includes bushland, watercourses, and wetlands. With a few exceptions,
the majority of Council’s environmental assets fall under a Generic
Plan of Management for Parks. As such, the management objectives for Natural
Areas identified under the Act are not applicable, and service standards are
inadequate. Those sites that are exceptions have a site-specific PoM, where
Natural Areas are identified on a portion of the site. However, these plans
are generally out of date and operational management programs have not been
developed to achieve the stated objectives.
The reliance on reactive management is a
product of incorrect categorisation and lack of governance for these assets.
Reactive management does not satisfy core business objectives for the
management on these assets, as defined by the Act, and does not produce
long-term biodiversity gains.
The ERP Bushland Project Officer manages
the delivery of the ERP ecological restoration projects using contractors due
to the intensity, frequency, and seasonal nature of the works. Projects are
identified and budgeted for within the operating budget afforded by the
Environment Levy. Two of the eight bush regenerator positions are
temporarily vacant. With the ERP program limited to established ERP sites, it
has been possible to scale up resourcing over time as new sites are added. It
is noted that the ERP program constitutes a prescribed set of outputs that
sit outside Council’s core business. While the objectives align, the
ERP program and the Environment Levy were not established to satisfy core
business delivery. The Environment Levy provides adequate resourcing for the
ERP program.
Resourcing is considered adequate for the
current service standard, though this is below stakeholder expectations and
statutory requirements. Without dedicated officers and operational funding,
it is not possible to address the issue in a way that would be deemed
satisfactory. Without Plans of Management and an operational management
program it is not possible to systematically and effectively reduce the
presence of a broad spectrum of weeds and improve the conservation outcomes
of Council’s environmental assets.
Operational management of natural areas
includes weed treatment as an activity. However, this is undertaken
holistically and typically without regards to priority weed concerns.
Priority pest programs are another layer of management that target a particular
species for management. The aquatic weed program in the biosecurity portfolio
is an example of this.
The Biosecurity Officer role is a
dedicated position, though it covers all public and private land within the
LGA. The position has a limited operating budget and relies on external
funding opportunities to build capacity. Programs are restricted to a limited
number of priority species. The current capacity satisfies statutory
requirements but does not represent best practice or align with community
expectation.
The IPM policy and strategy that is
currently being developed will consider a range of weed and pest animal
species that may be suitable for a priority pest management program.
City Presentation is in the process of
reviewing operational expectations and resourcing requirements of the Parks
and Open Spaces business unit. The review and recommendations are expected to
be completed in six months.
4. How does Council interact with other
levels of government, agencies and volunteer groups in relation to this
issue?
Response
Council officers work with relevant
stakeholders and agencies, and with all levels of government.
Council works with Local Land Services
and Department of Primary Industry on biosecurity matters, particularly managing
new incursions. Council works with Department of Planning Infrastructure and
Environment on matters pertaining to biodiversity conservation.
Council is actively involved in the
regional Weed Committee.
Council and its officers are active
members of the Georges Riverkeeper Combined Councils Catchment Management
Group. Council receives support in return for its participation, including
weed control and litter collection.
The ERP program facilitates the
Environment Volunteer Program, consisting of 10 groups of volunteers that
meet monthly to undertake weed control on their local bushland areas. Weed
management techniques are limited in scope due to lack of vocational
qualification and restrictions on the use of power tools and pesticides.
Council applies to external agencies for
grant funding opportunities when they arise.
|
