Land Management Plan 2004 - 2050 Flinders University South ...

Connell Wagner Pty Ltd 

ABN 54 005 139 873 

124 Waymouth Street 

Adelaide 

South Australia 5000 Australia 

Telephone: +61 8 8231 4766 

Facsimile: +61 8 8231 4765 

Email: cwadl@conwag.com 

www.conwag.com 

Land Management Plan 2004 - 2050 

Flinders University South Australia 

August 2004 

Reference E169.07 

Revision 4

Flinders University Land Management Plan Flinders University 

2004 - 2050 South Australia 

Table of Contents 

List of Tables 

Section 

Page 

Table Page 

1. Executive Summary iii 

2. Introduction 1 

2.1 Study Area 1 

2.2 Methodology 1 

3. Existing Conditions 3 

3.1 Site History 3 

3.2 SWOT Analysis 5 

4. Risk Identification and Management 6 

4.1 Fire Prevention and Management 9 

4.2 Access Trails 9 

4.3 Pest Plants 11 

4.4 Catchment Management 12 

4.5 Pest Animals 12 

4.6 Legislative Requirements 12 

5. Sustainable Management Practices 13 

5.1 Removal of pest plants and environmental weed species 13 

5.2 Revegetation 14 

6. Future Management Direction 15 

6.1 Precinct Priorities 15 

7. Partnerships 24 

7.1 Assistance With Implementation 24 

7.2 Implementation Monitoring 25 

7.3 Medium and Long-term Planning 25 

Appendix A 

Flora and Fauna Species Lists, Weed Control Techniques and Recommended 

Revegetation Species Lists 

Appendix B 

Consultation Summary 

Appendix C 

Legislative and Policy Review 

Appendix D 

Budget Estimator 

Appendix E 

Significant Tree Audit 

Table 1 Flora species of Regional Conservation Significance observed within the study area 4 

Table 2 Likelihood and Consequences: definitions and ratings 6 

Table 3 Qualitative risk analysis matrix 6 

Table 4 Risk Management Schedule 7 

List of Figures 

Figures Page 

Figure 1 Existing Conditions Plan 2 

Figure 2 Aerial view of Bedford Park with Initial Development superimposed 3 

Figure 3 SWOT Analysis 8 

Abbreviations 

AMBC Adelaide Mountain Bike Club 

CFS Country Fire Service 

DEH Department for Environment and Heritage 

GC Green Corps 

LMP Land Management Plan 

MC Mitcham Council 

MFS Metropolitan Fire Service 

MLRGA Mount Lofty Region Greater Adelaide Natural Resource Management Board (to replace the PCWMB from 2006- 

07) 

NPWSA National Parks and Wildlife South Australia 

NVC Native Vegetation Council 

OH&S Occupational Health and Safety 

ORS Office for Recreation and Sport 

PCWMB Patawalonga Catchment Water Management Board 

PSA Planning SA 

UFP Urban Forests and Biodiversity Program 

Rev 

No 

Document Control 

Date Revision Details Typist Author Verifier Approver 

1 25/5/2004 First Revision BKC BKC/TH PBJ PBJ 

2 1 June 2004 Draft For Client Review PKS BKC/TH PBJ PBJ 

3 24 June 2004 Draft Plan issued for Stakeholder Review BKC BKC/TH PBJ PBJ 

4 4 August 2004 Final Plan BKC BKC/TH PBJ PBJ 

A person using Connell Wagner documents or data accepts the risk of: 

⏐ AUGUST 2004 ⏐ PAGE i



a) Using the documents or data in electronic form without requesting and checking them for accuracy against the original hard copy version; 

and 

b) Using the documents or data for any purpose not agreed to in writing by Connell Wagner. 

Glossary of Terms 

Environmental weed Non-indigenous plant with the ability to spread quickly and out-compete local 

indigenous flora, thereby significantly diminishing the biodiversity of an area 

Herbaceous weed Bulb or grass that is a pest plant or environmental weed 

Introduced species Flora species which did not naturally occur in the area prior to European 

settlement (this may include species native to Australia but not local to the 

project area) 

Local indigenous flora Species that naturally occurred in the Eucalyptus microcarpa +/- Eucalyptus 

leucoxylon and Eucalyptus camaldulensis Woodland vegetation associations 

that characterised the study area prior to European settlement 

Pest Plant Proclaimed species within the Mitcham Council under the Animal and Plant 

Control (Agricultural and Other Purposes) Act 1986 

Woody weed 

Tree or shrub that is a pest plant or environmental weed, and is usually 

perennial and characterised by woody plant tissue and its ability to self seed 

⏐ AUGUST 2004 ⏐ PAGE ii



1. Executive Summary 

Flinders University was established in the 1960’s and now comprises two distinct campus areas (Main and Sturt), 

both of which are close to full development. There is also student accommodation between the campus areas, with 

formal sportsgrounds in the lower areas of the site. A significant proportion of the site is undeveloped, largely due to 

the steepness of terrain, and is intended to remain in that state. 

The focus of the Land Management Plan, which has been prepared by Connell Wagner and Environment and 

Biodiversity Services, is to outline the management actions required for the ‘undeveloped’ areas of the campus over 

a 46 year timeframe. This Plan has been developed following an initial investigations period, which focused on 

documenting the values of the study area, and the issues identified by key stakeholders during the consultation 

process. 

The Vision is to enhance the environmental performance and the indigenous biodiversity of the site whilst allowing 

for the recreation and education needs of students, staff and the wider community. 

Objectives for the study area are: 

• Enhance the area’s natural biodiversity as part of the Adelaide Hills Face Zone; 

• Minimise the risk for fire to impact on the University and neighbouring properties; 

• Allow for safe and environmentally sustainable access to property boundaries; 

• Provide for appropriate recreational activities, and 

• Encourage participation from the University and community in management activities. 

Management actions of high priority include: 

• Creation of fuel reduction zones along property boundaries in Precincts 5, 6 and 7; 

• Eradication of proclaimed pest plants, and environmental weed species from areas of highest biodiversity value 

in the short term with control of spread across remainder of site: 

• Undertake revegetation, within areas where pest plant and environmental weed removal has occurred, using 

locally occurring indigenous species; 

• Construction of access trails through Precinct 7 and to the lower slopes of Precinct 5, primarily for maintenance 

purposes but with the opportunity for recreational use; 

• Construction of a stormwater detention basin in Precinct 6, for improved catchment management outcomes, and 

• Installation of interpretative signage to improve the visitor experience in Precincts 1, 2 and 7. 

The Plan provides a clear direction for which to manage the study area for the benefit of all users. Importantly, it 

provides an implementation schedule, with indicative cost estimates, to provide a strong case for works-specific 

funding in order to achieve the vision. 

Flinders University Campus Map – main buildings and grounds 

⏐ AUGUST 2004 ⏐ PAGE iii



2. Introduction 

Flinders University commissioned Connell Wagner and EBS to prepare a Land Management Plan (the LMP) to 

address the ‘undeveloped’ areas of the campus (herein referred to as the ‘study area’). 

The LMP will direct the future management of the study area, so that the requirements of relevant legislation and 

policy are met, and the potential of the study area as an ecological, education and recreational asset is realised. This 

outcome is intended for not only the benefit of the University’s staff and students, but also the wider community. 

2.1 Study Area 

The Flinders University campus at Bedford Park occupies an area of approximately 176ha of the Adelaide Hills Face, 

approximately 11 kilometres south of the Adelaide CBD. The geography of the site is a feature, with a prominent 

valley between the two campuses – Sturt and Main, and an even larger valley to the south of Main campus. South 

Road runs to the west of the campus with Sturt Road to the north. 

Adjacent land uses include: 

• Residential development directly abutting the site, notably along sections of the southern and eastern 

boundaries; 

• Sturt Gorge Recreation Park to the south; 

• Flinders Medical Centre to the west; and 

• A variety of institutional and commercial operations to the west. 

As previously noted, the LMP will address all the ‘undeveloped’ land within the campus, which is essentially the 

entire area to the south and east of the Ring Road and south of the accommodation complex. For ease of 

management, this area has been divided into seven ‘precincts’ according to distinct physical geography or vegetation 

communities. These are described as follows: 

Precinct 1. 

Precinct 2. 

Precinct 3. 

Precinct 4. 

Precinct 5. 

Precinct 6. 

Precinct 7. 

Aleppo Precinct (Aleppo pine forest either side of the main valley); 

Native Flora Precinct (east-facing slope from Ring Road to eastern boundary); 

Potential Development Precinct (rear of student accommodation to Aleppo Pine forest); 

South Valley One (SV1)Precinct (northern side of south valley); 

South Valley Two (SV2) Precinct (southern side of south valley); 

South Eastern Precinct (east of electricity easement of south valley), and 

North Eastern Precinct (east of electricity easement of main valley). 

The Existing Conditions Plan (Figure 1, overleaf) indicates the extent of each precinct and an overview of the 

features, accessibility and management issues for each precinct. 

2.2 Methodology 

Development of the Land Management Plan has required detailed site investigations followed by a issue prioritisation 

process, and has included the following tasks: 

1. Site Inspection Full day inspection of the study area, followed by repeat visits to areas of 

interest. 

2. Literature Review of previous campus plans, legislation and policy across all levels of 

Review 

Government. 

3. Significant 

Tree Audit 

4. Flora Fauna 

Survey 

5. Stakeholder 

Consultation 

Audit of significant trees within the developed areas and along site boundaries. 

Relevant data for each tree was recorded via GPS unit, and included girth, 

species, location and estimated height. 

Information was presented in plan and spreadsheet format, for cross-reference. 

Each of the seven precincts was surveyed for plant species, both local 

indigenous and introduced. Vegetation associations were identified and 

mapped, as well as weed infestations (particularly for all proclaimed weed 

species under the Animal and Plant Control Act, 1986 and any other serious 

environmental weeds). 

The fauna survey involved observations whilst undertaking the flora survey and 

searches of fauna databases (maintained by Dept for Environment and Heritage 

and the SA Museum), with the full listings of flora and fauna species in 

Appendix A. Flora species of regional conservation significance observed 

within the study area are listed in Table 1. 

Consultation has been undertaken with the following key stakeholders: 

• FUSA Maintenance Team Leaders 

• Ilkari (FUSA student environmental action group) 

• Mitcham Council 

• Patawalonga Catchment Water Management Board 

• Office for Recreation and Sport 

• Planning SA 

• Urban Forests and Biodiversity Program 

• Adelaide Mountain Bike Club 

• Country and Metropolitan Fire Services (CFS and MFS) 

• Timber contractors and community wood-working groups. 

Consultation has focused on key issues pertaining to current and potential 

management of the site. This included a workshop session, which brought 

together key agency representatives for a focused discussion on future 

opportunities, risk management and preferred management direction. The 

outcomes from this process have directed the prioritisation process for the 

implementation plan and long term direction. A summary of the consultation 

findings is presented in Appendix B. 

⏐ AUGUST 2004 ⏐ PAGE 1



Figure 1 

Existing Conditions Plan 

Study Area 

Flinders University is situated within the foothills of the Southern Mt Lofty Ranges, where the pre-European vegetation would have consisted of a Eucalyptus microcarpa +/- E. 

leucoxylon Woodland vegetation association with an open grassy understorey. Along the creeks and valley floors, a E. camaldulensis Woodland would have occurred, with a 

mixed understorey of Leptospermum, Melaleuca and Callistemon. Prior to the establishment of the University, the site was part of a larger grazing and dairy property which, 

combined with vegetation clearance, would have introduced weed species to the site. The University campus is currently characterised by landscaped open spaces between the 

buildings, and is representative of an urban environment. In contrast, the undeveloped areas within the site contain remnant vegetation of varying quality, as well as various pest 

plants, the most prolific of which are Olives and Aleppo Pines. 

Aleppo 

Aleppo Pines planted in 1960’s (at time of University establishment) are the predominant vegetation in the precinct. Removal and 

revegetation in riparian zone has commenced, with postive results. 

Access 

Established and well-used trails, some have steep gradients 

Management Issues 

Progressive replacement of pines, for safety and ecological reasons, with indigenous species 

Erosion on steeper trails and directly below stormwater outlets from Ring Road 

1 – Aleppo 

4 – South Valley One 

3 – Potential 

Development 

5 – South Valley Two 

2 – Native 

Flora 

7 – North Eastern 

6 – South Eastern 

Native Flora 

A variety of native species planted as part of an educational program. Most species are not indigenous and some are now classed as 

environmental weeds. Stable riparian zone with potential for further enhancement through revegetation and upstream work. 

Access 

Established and well-used trails, some have steep gradients 


Some native species that are environmental weeds are starting to self-seed 

Erosion on steeper trails and directly below stormwater outlets from Ring Road and Bellevue Drive 

Potential Development 

Open grassland comprising native and exotic species that overlooks the main campus and southern metropolitan coastline .The area 

may be developed at some stage in the future. 

Access 

Informal trails, some steep gradients toward Aleppo Precinct 


Fire prevention – control of grasses 

Removal of isolated pest plants 

South Valley One 

Degraded native vegetation with some areas of moderate quality toward the eastern end. Considerable weed infestation throughout 

precinct. Very steep terrain hinders access to majority of precinct. 

Access 

One informal trail below Ring Road and Carpark 3. No trails in most of precinct due to steep gradients. 


Fire prevention – grasses and woody weeds 

Pest plant removal and revegetation 

Provision of access trails, where possible 

South Valley Two 

Degraded native vegetation with some small areas of high quality native vegetation. Considerable weed infestations throughout 

precinct. Steep terrain hinders access to creek 

Access 

Via established trail that accesses Sturt Gorge Recreation Reserve. Informal trails exist adjacent residential properties, however no 

linkage to Precinct 4 or 6 due to steep gradients and creeks. 


Provison of access trails 

Fire risk to neighbouring residential property 

Pest plant removal and revegetation 

South Eastern 

Highest quality native vegetation within the study area, with most of precinct either high or moderate quality. Weed species present 

are at lower densities than in remainder of study area. Erosion along creek is quite significant. 

Access 

Established trail that branches from shared use path, but does not continue to South Valley 2 


Pest plant removal 


Erosion in creek and directly below stormwater outlet from Bellevue Heights 

North Eastern 

Moderate quality native vegetation with areas of significant weed infestation, particularly along creek. Excellent views toward the 

southern metropolitan coastline from the southern slopes. 

Access 

Recently established Mountain Bike trail that branches from shared use path and links to Native Flora Precinct. Remainder of 

precinct has no formal access trails 


Provison of access trail 


Continuation of pest plant removal undertaken to date 

Erosion in creek and directly below stormwater outlet 




3. Existing Conditions 

3.1 Site History 

Flinders University is situated within the foothills of the Southern Mt Lofty Ranges. The pre-European vegetation 

would have consisted of a Eucalyptus microcarpa +/- E. leucoxylon Woodland vegetation association. This 

association would have had an open grassy understorey dominated by species of wallaby grass, spear grass and 

kangaroo grass. Along the drainage lines within the rocky gorges a E. camaldulensis Woodland would have 

occurred. This vegetation community would have had a mixed understorey of Leptospermum, Melaleuca and 

Callistemon species as well as a variety of sedge and rush species. 

Prior to the establishment of the campus in 1963, the area was part of a larger grazing and dairy property. Vegetation 

clearance would have been undertaken when the area was first settled and consequently was largely devoid of trees. 

The extensive grazing that occurred over a number of years would also have had a significant impact upon the 

understorey species. This disturbance would have led to numerous weed species being introduced to the area. The 

Site Planning Report notes that there were ‘a few groups of small eucalypts, some scattered olive bushes and a 

plantation of hardy pines’, as evidenced in Figure 2. The report also noted the existence of ‘two small buildings of 

solid construction and a number of wooden chalets’ but did not detail their location 1 . It is likely that one of the 

buildings is the original dairy for southern Adelaide, which is located near the pedestrian/cycle path that connects the 

carpark to Flinders Road. 

Since the campus’ establishment, the number of buildings has expanded to accommodate the increased student 

numbers. This expansion has been contained within three distinct areas, in accordance with the direction set out in 

the Site Planning Report. These areas are the Sturt Campus in the northeastern corner, the student accommodation 

buildings slightly to the south, and the Main Campus contained within the Ring Road. 

The Flinders University campus now represents a modified urban environment with significant built-up areas but has 

also retained a variety of open spaces. These include landscaped areas between the campus buildings and the large 

expanses of undeveloped land, which constitute the bulk of the site, and are the subject of this study 

3.1.1 Flora 

The land owned by the University, which has not been developed, contains a mix of introduced species 

(planted and self-seeded plants) and local indigenous flora species. This area is characteristic of a foothills 

landscape, with undulating hills interspersed by steep rocky valleys, which have been formed by ephemeral 

watercourses. Introduced species have been planted within Precincts 1 and 2. Precinct 1 consists of the 

Aleppo Pine forest that was planted in the 1960’s. Precinct 2 has been progressively revegetated with a 

variety of Australian natives. This area is used by students of the University for different projects and has been 

planted over a number of years with planting in this area continuing. 

Figure 2 

Aerial view of Bedford Park with Initial Development superimposed 

Remnant vegetation, of varying quality, can be found within Precincts 4, 5, 6 and 7. These areas are generally 

the steeper, more inaccessible areas. The remnant vegetation consists of a degraded Eucalyptus microcarpa 

Woodland vegetation association, which is classified as a Priority 4 vegetation community 2 (Neagle 1995). 

The remnant areas contain numerous exotic weed species, some of which occur at relatively high densities. 

Patches of high quality remnant vegetation do occur within these precincts; however, the areas are usually 

small. Complete species lists for each precinct are provided in Appendix A, whilst vegetation associations 

and weed infestations are shown on the Precinct Action Plans that form part of Section 6. 

No plant species of national conservation significance (listed under the Environment Protection and 

Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999) were observed within the undeveloped areas of Flinders University. 

However, one plant species of state conservation significance was observed in a number of the precincts. The 

Flinders Ranges Wattle (Acacia iteaphylla) has a rare state conservation rating but it is a species that is not 

local to the Southern Mount Lofty area. Within the Flinders University site it has been planted and is now self 

seeding in different areas. This species is considered to be a weed species within Flinders University as it has 

the ability to dominate an area and impact upon other local native plant species. Therefore, the conservation 

status is not considered to apply in this area. 

The Flinders University site occurs within the Southern Lofty Botanical Region and a total of 16 plant species 

recorded within the project area are considered to be of conservation significance within this region. A list of 

all the plant species of regional conservation significance which were observed within the study area at 

Flinders University is provided overleaf as Table 1. Species lists, indicating which species of regional 

significance occur within the individual precincts, are provided in Appendix A. 

Source: The University of Adelaide at Bedford Park, Site Planning Report, p.6 

1 The University of Adelaide at Bedford Park, Site Planning Report, p. 12 

2 A Priority 4 rating means that this vegetation association is poorly conserved within South Australia and the area covered by 

this vegetation type has been much depleted although there are still a few large examples still remaining within South Australia 

(Neagle 1995) 




Table 1 Flora species of Regional Conservation Significance observed within the study area 

Species name Common name SL 

Aristida behriana Brush Wire-grass U 

Austrostipa curticoma Short-crest Spear-grass U 

Austrostipa setacea Corkscrew Spear-grass U 

Carex bichenoviana Notched Sedge U 

Chrysocephalum semipapposum Clustered Everlasting R 

Danthonia setacea var. setacea Small-flower Wallaby-grass V 

Dichanthium sericeum ssp. sericeum Silky Blue-grass V 

Eucalyptus microcarpa Grey Box U 

Geijera linearifolia Sheep Bush R 

Goodenia albiflora White Goodenia U 

Goodenia pinnatifida Cut-leaf Goodenia U 

Pelargonium australe Australian Pelargonium U 

Pimelea micrantha Silky Riceflower R 

Pittosporum phylliraeoides var. microcarpa Native Apricot R 

Velleia paradoxa Spur Velleia U 

Vittadinia blackii Narrow-leaf New Holland Daisy R 

SL = Southern Lofty Botanical Region 

V = Vulnerable, R = Rare U = Uncommon 

3.1.3 Indigenous and European Cultural Heritage 

It is unknown whether an archaeological survey has been undertaken on the campus, however there are 

known sites of Aboriginal significance in close proximity to the campus. These include Warriparinga and a 

number of burials and other significant sites along the banks of the Sturt Creek between the Southern 

Expressway, South Road and Sturt Road (Bedford Park Triangle). Yunggorendi First Nations Centre (the 

Indigenous cultural centre within Flinders University) and the Department for Aboriginal Affairs and 

Reconciliation have confirmed there are no sites of Aboriginal significance within the campus. 

Mitcham Council have confirmed there are no known sites of European heritage significance on the campus, 

however the ‘Sturtbrae’ home on Bellevue Drive is adjacent the campus and listed on the Register of the 

National Estate (refer http://www.heritage.gov.au/ahpi/index.html ) 

3.1.2 Fauna 

Native fauna species in the area have been severely impacted upon since European settlement. The 

clearance of vegetation, the introduction of pest species (flora and fauna) and the fragmentation of habitats 

have had a negative impact on most native fauna species, particularly mammals. Some native bird species, 

such as magpies, galahs and rosellas, appear to be thriving under the altered conditions and populations 

have probably increased since European settlement. It is also worth noting the altered conditions have 

created favourable habitat for a number of introduced bird species, which have become pest species, such as 

pigeons, and starlings. A full list of fauna species which may utilise the Flinders University area are included in 

Appendix A. 

The use of the Flinders University by fauna species would vary depending on the habitat. For example, within 

the Aleppo Precinct, species such as the Yellow-tailed Black Cockatoo and the Sulphur-crested Cockatoo 

feed extensively on the cones of the Aleppo Pine trees. These species are less common in the other precincts 

however, a range of honeyeaters and woodland birds can be found within the patches of remnant vegetation. 

A number of the Eucalyptus microcarpa trees contain hollows which would be utilised for nesting by a number 

of the bird species. Some of the bird species likely to be found within the site are of conservation significance, 

especially within the Mt Lofty Ranges. 

There would be few native mammal species utilising the area with bats likely to be the most common. 

Kangaroos and koalas may occasionally frequent the area as well as echidnas and water rats (within the 

creek areas). There would be a variety of reptile species within the different precincts including Brown 

Snakes, Sleepy Lizards, Bluetongue Lizards and numerous small skinks. There would also be several frog 

species occurring in the creek lines within the project area such as the Common Froglet and the Painted Frog 

(refer to Appendix A for a full list of fauna species). 

Rainbow lorikeets and other native bird species utilise nesting hollows in 

Grey Box (Eucalyptus microcarpa) throughout the study area. 


P:\E169.07\Admin\Reports\Draft LMP\Action Plans\ 

precinct1_oppsandconstraints_final.jpg













3.2 SWOT Analysis 

The SWOT analysis (Figure 3, below) identifies the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats for the study 

area, summarises the issues and/or ideas derived from the site inspection, and the targeted consultation with key 

stakeholders. 

Threats • Continued spread of pest plants. 

• Uncontrolled fire, and potential impacts to adjacent residential areas. 

• New access may increase environmental damage through inappropriate use, if left 

unmonitored 

• Pollution and erosion resulting from flows via upstream suburban catchment 

The Opportunities and Constraints Plans are provided for each precinct, on the pages following the SWOT Analysis, 

is a graphical representation of the key findings from the site investigations phase. 

Figure 3 SWOT Analysis 

Strengths • Significant landholding in southern metropolitan Adelaide – 176ha 

• Areas of remnant vegetation – Eucalyptus microcarpa vegetation association 

• Linkages to adjacent residential area of Bellevue Heights and access from Metropolitan 

Adelaide 

• Scenic landscape with panoramic views across the Hills Face and Metropolitan Adelaide 

• Recreational trails within the Aleppo and Native Flora precincts that are relatively easy to 

access for both students and public. 

• Commitment from FUSA management and staff to improving the environmental amenity of 

the area. 

• On-campus environmental action group - Ilkari, with enthusiasm to assist implementation 

of LMP 

• Opportunities to view native fauna - educational value 

The Aleppo link between Main and 

Sturt Campus’ is a 30 metre bridge 

suspended over “Forest’ Creek. 

The Aleppo Pines are a valued 

food source to a range of bird life 

including Sulphur Crested 

cockatoo’s and the Yellow tailed 

black cockatoo’s 

Weaknesses • High level of pest plant infestation, notably Olives and Aleppo pines. 

• Low level of visitor amenities (signage, seating). 

• Potential for uncontrolled fire, which could affect adjoining properties 

• Steep terrain restricting potential for access trails 

• Erosion along some creek lines 

• Electricity easement traversing site from north to south 

Opportunities • Improved fire prevention and control opportunities 

• Removal of pest plants, coupled with continued revegetation of indigenous species. 

• Extension to Sturt Creek Linear Park, in conjunction with Government agencies 

• Interpretative trail – adjacent ‘forest creek’, for educational value and to increase public 

appreciation of the campus’ undeveloped areas. 

• Improved opportunities for active and passive recreation (eg. mountain-biking, walking, 

bird watching, and nature appreciation). 

• Incorporation of wetland into school curriculum. 

• Potential funding opportunities from Commonwealth, State and Local Governments. 

• Catchment management – including construction of sediment detention basins, erosion 

control, weed removal and revegetation along riparian zone for invertebrate habitat. 

• Ongoing control of pest animals. 

• Involvement from adjoining neighbours in implementation of LMP. 

• Assist with the creation of a landscape corridor linking the Hills Face to the coast through 

adjacent reserves, including Shepherds Hill and Sturt Gorge Recreation Reserves, 

assisted by the “Marion South” concept. 




4. Risk Identification and Management 

This section summarises the major issues and risks relevant to the LMP, as identified from the site inspection, florafauna 

survey, targeted consultation, SWOT Analysis and subsequent stakeholder workshop. Many of the issues 

have commonalities that will allow the identified management actions to achieve multiple-outcomes. To summarise 

these risks and the potential mitigative actions, a Risk Management Schedule has been prepared, and is provided as 

Table 4. Monitoring procedures to manage these risks have also been prescribed. It will be the responsibility of the 

University to undertake the monitoring, and advise and seek assistance of relevant agencies as necessary. 

Residual risk is expressed as likelihood and consequence, in accordance with the Australia/New Zealand Risk 

Management Standard (AS/NZS 4360-1999: Risk Management) as displayed in Tables 2 and 3. The detailed 

descriptions that are provided in Table 2 have been adapted to suit this particular project in an environmental sense 

so that the description directly relates to this Land Management Plan. Table 3 provides the qualitative measures of 

consequence or impact, likelihood, as detailed in the Standard. 

Table 2 

Likelihood and Consequences: definitions and ratings 

Qualitative measures of consequence or impact 

Qualitative measures of likelihood 

Level Descriptor Detailed description Level Descriptor Detailed description 

1 Insignificant Very low significance A Almost 

certain 

The event is expected to occur in most 

circumstances 

2 Minor Consequences can be readily B Likely The event will probably occur in most 

absorbed but management effort is 

circumstances 

still required to minimise impacts 

3 Moderate Significant event that can be C Possible The event might occur at some time 

managed under normal operating 

procedures 

4 Major Critical event, which with proper D Unlikely The event could occur at some time 

management, will be endured 

5 Catastrophic Disaster, extensive loss of flora 

fauna, property or human life 

Table 3 

Likelihood 

Qualitative risk analysis matrix 

Insignificant 

1 

Minor 

2 

Consequences 

E Rare The event may occur only in 

exceptional circumstances 

Moderate 

3 

Major 

4 

Catastrophic 

5 

A (almost certain) H H E E E 

B (likely) M H H E E 

C (possible) L M H E E 

D (unlikely) L L M H E 

E (rare) L L M H H 

Risk management issues on the western boundary 

Stormwater erosion in 

Precinct 1 has begun to be 

addressed though riparian 

revegetation, and the 

construction of gabion 

structures to slow water 

flow along the creekline. 

Legend 

E: extreme risk; immediate action required 

H: high risk; senior management attention needed 

M: moderate risk; management responsibility must be specified 

L: low risk; manage by routine procedures 




Table 4 

Risk Management Schedule 

Issue Related Issues Risk Event Environmental 

consequences 

Fire Prevention 

and Control 

Access; and 

Pest Plants 

Wildfire from 

FUSA affecting 

Main Campus 

Wildfire from 

FUSA spreading 

to neighbouring 

property 

Loss of flora, fauna. 

Property damage. 

Human Casualty 



Human Casualty 

Impact / 

Consequences 

(see Table E1) 

Likelihood 


Risk Rating Mitigative Actions Preferred Option Residual Risk Monitoring Partnerships# 

Major (4) Unlikely (D) High a) Maintain vegetation clearance 

either side of Ring Road 

Catastrophic (5) Possible (C) Extreme Understorey clearance, and 

branches to 2m height, within 5m 

of boundary to create a fuel 

reduction zone along property 

boundary 

a) Major 

Unlikely 

Extreme 

a) Catastrophic 

Unlikely 

Extreme 

Vegetation clearance must be initiated 

prior to summer and maintained during 

summer 

Provide residents of neighbouring 

properties information RE property 

maintenance for fire prevention 

MC, MFS and CFS 

MC, MFS, CFS and 

neighbouring 

residents 


Pest animals 

Legislative 

responsibility 

Fire Prevention 

and control 

Further spread of 

non-indigenous 

plants 

Council issuing 

enforcement 

notice under 

A&PC Act - 

requiring 

immediate action. 


increase fuel load 

Reduction in indigenous 

plant species and 

overall site biodiversity 

Reduction in indigenous 

plant species and 

overall site biodiversity 

Financial - Council may 

engage contractors and 

recover costs later 

Fire can spread more 

easily, Property damage 

Moderate (3) Likely (B) High a) Bradley method 3 

b) Targeted weed control 

c) Use of local provenance seed 

in site revegetation works 

Moderate (3) Likely (B) High Formal adoption of LMP by 

FUSA and Mitcham Council, with 

annual audits to ensure work 

requirements are being met 

As stated 

As stated 

Moderate 

Unlikely 

Moderate 

Moderate (3) Possible(C) High a) Targeted weed control a) Moderate 

Unlikely 

Moderate 

Minor 

Rare 

Low 

Ongoing maintenance is necessary. 

FUSA and Ilkari responsible for flora 

surveys 

Link with specific committees targeting 

certain weed species at regional scale 

FUSA to plan work program to ensure 

all tasks are completed according to the 

schedule 

Council to conduct annual audit of study 

area to ensure obligations are being 

met 

Ilkari 

Coolatai Control 

Steering Group 

Bridal Creeper 

Group 

MC 

Provision of 

Access Trails for 

Maintenance and 

Recreation 

Fire prevention 

and Control 


Public Liability 

# It is implied that FUSA will be a Partner in all actions 

Environmental 

damage through 

soil erosion and 

subsequent loss 

of biodiversity. 

Fire due to 

recreational or 

maintenance 

related mishap. 

Weed and fungus 

invasion 

Personal injury to 

site users of 

tracks 

The removal of 

indigenous flora species 

to create access. 

Recreation access may 

create vandalism and/or 

erosion issues. 



Death 

Loss of indigenous 

species due to weed or 

fungus invasion. 

Introduction of further 

weed of fungus species 

to the site 

eg. Phytophthera 

Minor (2) Possible (C) Moderate Have proposed route inspected 

by ecologist to ensure impact on 

indigenous flora is minimal. 

Provide well-defined, graded 

tracks and signage promoting 

environmental awareness 

Major (4) Unlikely (D) High Provide signage warning the 

community of the fire hazard risk 

Moderate (3) Likely (B) High a) Monitor disturbed areas for 

weed colonization and control 

outbreaks along trail edges. 

b) Install advisory signage, 

similar to those on DEH land 

c) Install hygiene stations at 

strategic locations 

None Minor (2) Unlikely (D) Low Signage advising users 

accessing site do so at their own 

risk, FUSA accepts no 

responsibility for any injury 

As stated 

As stated 

a) as part of 

monitoring program 

b) and c) to follow trail 

development, in 

conjunction with 

adjacent land 

managers 

As stated 

Minor 

Rare 

Low 

Moderate 

Unlikely 

Moderate 

Moderate 

Unlikely 

Moderate 

Minor 

Unlikely 

Low 

Once the tracks are established, track 

repair and maintenance is necessary 

only if the track is damaged 

Only require attention if the signage has 

been stolen or vandalised 

General field inspections and as part of 

annual auditing process 

None required 

MFS, CFS 

Office for Recreation 

and Sport 

MFS, CFS 

Office for Recreation 

and Sport 

3 “Bradley Method” is described in section 4.3 




Issue Related Issues Risk Event Environmental 

consequences 

Impact / 

Consequences 


Likelihood 


Risk Rating Mitigative Actions Preferred Option Residual Risk Monitoring Partnerships# 

Catchment 

Management 

Pest plants Soil erosion Increasing erosion 

along drainage lines in 

upper reaches and 

sediment load increase 

at lower reaches – 

impacting on flora and 

fauna. 

Water Pollution – 

through litter or 

spill in upstream 

catchment 

Harm and or death of 

aquatic fauna and flora 

due to toxins or 

decreased water quality 

Moderate (3) Likely (B) High a) Where feasible, construct 

small detention basins 

directly below stormwater 

outlets 

b) Remove pest plants and 

environmental weeds and 

revegetate using 

indigenous species along 

drainage lines 

Moderate (3) Unlikely (D) Moderate Where feasible, construct small 

detention basins directly below 

stormwater outlets 

a) and b) Minor 

Rarely 

Low 

As stated, will allow 

some pollutants to 

settle and not enter 

waterway 

Minor 

Unlikely 

Low 

Ongoing monitoring and maintenance 

of basins will be required to ensure 

effectiveness of this solution. 

Ongoing pest plant and environmental 

weed control will ensure effective 

establishment of indigenous species. 

Continue to undertake annual water 

quality monitoring in “Forest creek” 

(Precinct 1) and commence in southern 

creek (Precinct 6). 

PCWMB 

PCWMB 

Pest Animals 

Pest plants 

Foxes and cats: 

threat to native 

fauna 

A reduction in native 

fauna species 

Moderate (3) Unlikely (D) Moderate FUSA staff currently control cats 

through trapping 

Foxes are controlled on regionwide 

basis 

Staff continue to 

control 

Moderate 

Unlikely 

Moderate 

Any indication of foxes or feral cats onsite, 

then necessary controls need to be 

enforced 

NPWS (fox control) 

MC - Local A&P 

Control Officer 

# It is implied that FUSA will be a Partner in all actions 

Rabbits and 

hares: threat to 

native flora 

Feral birds: threat 

to native bird and 

flora species 

Native bird 

species that are 

over abundant, 

eg. honeyeaters 

Feral honeybees: 

threat to native 

bird species 

Rabbits and hares 

browsing seedlings thus 

reducing success of 

revegetation efforts 

Disease transmission 

and their droppings kill 

some grasses 

Exclusion of other 

native species due to 

territorial behavior and 

loss of resources. 

Compete for tree 

hollows and food 

sources, causing native 

bird species to relocate. 

Moderate (3) Unlikely (D) Moderate FUSA staff currently install tree 

guards around seedlings to 

minimise browsing by rabbits and 

hares. Use of repellants may 

help further reduce risk 

Minor (2) Unlikely (D) Low FUSA staff currently control feral 

pigeons through trapping and 

roost elimination 

Minor (2) Possible (C) Moderate Potentially adjust planted habitat 

(plant species selected and 

spatial arrangement) to 

advantage a wider variety of local 

fauna species. 

Moderate (3) Unlikely (D) Moderate Removal of hives, where they 

pose a threat to native birds 

As stated 

As stated, and 

implement for other 

feral bird species 

As stated 

As stated 

Moderate 

Unlikely 

Moderate 

Minor 

Rare 

Low 

Minor 

Unlikely 

Low 

Moderate 

Unlikely 

Moderate 

On-going control of both rabbits and 

hares is necessary 

On-going control of pigeons and other 

feral bird species will ensure their 

population numbers do not build up 

significantly to cause major disturbance 

Close liaison with partner is required in 

planning for revegetation. 

Annual bird counts should be 

undertaken to gauge success. 

On-going control of hives will ensure 

that feral honeybees do not cause 

major disruption to nesting sites 

Birds for 

Biodiversity 

UFP 




4.1 Fire Prevention and Management 

Fire prevention is the most critical risk management issue requiring action; to not only protect life and assets within 

the campus but also on neighbouring properties. The upgrade and extension of the access track servicing Precincts 

4 and 5 will improve the ability of maintenance crew to undertake work for fire prevention and associated tasks, such 

as pest plant removal. 

The current lack of an access track for Precinct 7 makes the maintenance of fuel reduction zones and removal of 

woody weeds very difficult. This is a liability risk for FUSA, should a fire that originates within, or passes through, the 

campus spread to adjacent properties. Therefore, the provision of adequate access to this precinct is a high priority 

and is addressed in detail in Section 4.2.1. The Country Fire Service has published a set of guidelines for the 

construction of firebreaks, fuel reduction zones and access trails; this has been referenced as part of the planning 

phase for the proposed trail development. 

Section 40 of the Country Fires Act requires landowners take reasonable steps prevent or inhibit the outbreak, or the 

spread of fire through the land. The creation of fuel reduction zones, of at least 5 metres width, along property 

boundaries is a key action in achieving compliance with the Act. This does not require removal of all trees within the 

fuel reduction zone but that all undergrowth and branches are to be removed to a minimum height of two (2) metres 

above natural ground level. After discussions with Mitcham Council’s Bushfire Prevention Officer, and Natural 

Resource Manger, it has been agreed this approach to fire prevention in the study area, rather than creating a 

standard firebreak that would entail the removal of all vegetation within the 5m wide strip. It is recommended that 

council’s BPO be invited on site prior to undertaking fuel reduction, to ensure there is a common understanding of 

what is necessary to comply with Council’s requirements. 4 . 

This fire prevention approach would require an initial clearance of understorey shrubs and branches below 2m along 

property boundaries which abut residential areas, with annual follow-up (or biannual, depending on seasonal rainfall 

and growth). The planned removal of exotic tree species, particularly olives, and slashing of exotic grass species, 

such as Phalaris, that create a high fuel load and replacement with indigenous woodland species is the most 

effective long-term means of reducing the fuel load, and therefore the fire risk. 

Where steep terrain constrains the ability to remove all vegetation, it has previously been piled and burnt, under 

supervision of the relevant fire brigade. This preventative technique can continue - where there is minimal threat of 

fire escaping to endanger life or property - preferably at distances of greater than 50 metres from the nearest 

residence. 

4.2 Access Trails 

As noted above, the provision of access trails is critical for fire prevention work to be undertaken. In some areas, the 

access trail may be constructed along the property boundary, and thus also serve the purpose of a firebreak. This will 

depend largely on terrain, as it may not be sustainable to construct trails where the slope exceeds a 10 percent 

gradient, as they would be more susceptible to erosion and require regular maintenance. 

Public access is unrestricted throughout the undeveloped areas, however anecdotal evidence suggests the 

established trails in Precincts 1 and 2 attract the majority of recreational users. This is most likely due to their 

proximity to both the Main campus and student accommodation. The provision of visitor facilities, such as seats, and 

the amenity of the landscape would also be significant contributory factors. These trails also facilitate vehicle access, 

and in general there are few concerns in these two precincts regarding access. A number of trails exceed the 

preferred gradient of 1 in 10, making them susceptible to erosion from water and resistance (skidding), which is 

evident in the form of small gullies within or adjacent the trails 

There are a few informal trails on the upper, flatter section of Precinct 3, which facilitate access from the adjoining 

residential area of Bellevue Heights to the student accommodation, and the campus area beyond. One of the main 

trails also joins with the lower trail, adjacent the creek in Precinct 1, to form a circuit. This particular trail has a 

gradient that is likely to exceed 1 in 10 in sections, making it susceptible to erosion. 

Access to Precinct 4 is virtually nonexistent, as the steep slopes essentially preclude the construction of a level trail. 

At present, this south-facing slope can only be accessed on foot, and the difficulty of the terrain creates a number of 

issues relating to OH&S. As this precinct generally has a low biodiversity value (apart from the eastern end) it is the 

lowest priority for intensive weed control and revegetation, therefore the creation of an access trail is not considered 

a high priority. 

Precinct 5 is accessed via a recently extended trail from Precinct 6, which has rectified the problems with former 

access via the Sturt Gorge Recreation Reserve from The Boulevard. As a medium-term action the construction of a 

recreational trail is recommended adjacent the creek line, to link with the Sturt Gorge and Linear Park and also 

continue through Precinct 6 to connect with the shared-use path. 

Access to Precinct 6 is via a trail that branches from the shared pedestrian/cycle path that connects the rear carpark 

to University Drive. It has been extended through to Precinct 5 in the past year. This follows the contour in a south 

easterly direction until reaching the creek, after which it follows a westerly direction. This trail has Eucalyptus 

microcarpa overhanging it on either side but has sufficient clearance to allow maintenance vehicle access. As 

previously mentioned, the construction of a recreational trail is recommended adjacent the creek line, to continue 

through to Precinct 5. 

As noted previously, there is no vehicular access to Precinct 7, which has made it very difficult for maintenance staff 

to maintain firebreaks and conduct general maintenance. For these reasons, provision of a vehicular trail to this 

precinct is a high priority. Given the steep topography throughout most of the precinct, the trail alignment should 

follow the contours where possible, to ensure an average grade of 10 percent is maintained, thus minimising the risk 

of erosion. The Eucalyptus microcarpa Woodland in the Precinct is of moderate-high quality, therefore the alignment 

should aim to minimise vegetation clearance, particularly in the higher quality area 5 . To ensure this occurs, it is 

recommended that the proposed alignment be confirmed on site by an ecologist prior to trail construction 

commencing. 

4 Pers comm. Malin Watts - Region 1 CFS Headquarters, J Kochergen – Natural Resource Manager and J. Zybek – Bushfire 

Prevention Officer, Mitcham Council. The removal of native vegetation for creation of a fuel reduction zone must comply with 

listed exemptions under the Native Vegetation Act. A 5m width is the maximum allowed, but is not automatically permitted in all 

circumstances, therefore the Native Vegetation Council should be consulted at the planning stage. 

5 Pers comm – Chris Wisson, Native Vegetation Council – the Native Vegetation Regulations permit vegetation clearance for the construction 

of tracks, on the condition that any clearance is minimised. 




4.2.1 Trails Strategy 

In addition to the recommended trail extensions and monitoring / maintenance, the value of trails for 

recreational users can be further developed. 

The Flinders University site, with its prominent location on the Adelaide Hills face and uninterrupted views 

over metropolitan Adelaide, is an excellent site for recreation. Currently, the trails are used casually by both 

students, staff and the general public as well as organised events, such as the mountain bike summer series. 

It is noted that an ‘exercise loop’ is established within the Aleppo Precinct, however the general awareness of 

this is unlikely to be high, due to a lack of signage. 

The potential for an interpretative trail, winding the length of the Main Valley (Precincts 1, 2 and 7), to enhance 

the visitor awareness of the site’s attributes is considered worthy of implementation. This could be developed 

over time, with signage initially explaining the intent and program of pest plant removal and subsequent 

revegetation. This would also provide opportunity for partner agencies to demonstrate their involvement and 

elicit interested persons to assist in the implementation – through weed removal, vegetation etc. Later signage 

should include information about the likely Aboriginal use of the area (Southern Mt Lofty Region), indigenous 

vegetation associations, fauna, geology and catchment awareness. The signage design and content could be 

developed as part of a student project for the design school within the University. 

As previously noted, the lack of adequate access trails to all areas within the study area has made 

maintenance difficult. To address this problem, and provide improved recreational opportunities, the following 

key recommendations are made: 

• Precinct 4 – whilst access to this precinct is probably the constraining factor for management work being 

undertaken, it is not recommended that additional access trails be constructed in the short to medium 

term. The steepness of the northern slope (of South Valley) is particularly problematic for trail 

construction, and it is likely that a recreational trail would be the only achievable option on this slope. 

Given that a recreational access trail has been recommended on the southern side of this valley through 

Precincts 5 and 6, a trail in this precinct would duplicate that facility. 

The weed control techniques recommended for this precinct are cognisant of the accessibility constraints 

and therefore require no physical removal but rather in-situ treatments such as ringbarking and stem 

injection. This precinct has been given the equal lowest priority of the study area, as it is acknowledged it 

has a high weed density in conjunction with significant accessibility constraints. 

• Precinct 5 and 6 – as previously noted, the access track from the shared-use path has recently been 

extended into Precinct 5. Whilst this allows maintenance vehicle access to the upper slope there is 

currently no means of accessing the lower area by vehicle. To rectify this it is proposed that the track be 

extended, via a series of switchbacks, to eventually reach the creek, which will be followed to the western 

boundary. 

Where the track reaches the creek, it is proposed that a recreational trail should continue east, following 

the creek alignment along the southern side, until rejoining the vehicle track in Precinct 6. This trail is 

proposed to provide a more interesting route for recreational users, and also to allow foot access for 

management work along the riparian zone and surrounding high and moderate quality Eucalyptus 

microcarpa Woodland. 

• Precinct 7 – starting from the existing track in Precinct 2, aligned north-south and adjacent the electricity 

easement, this trail should follow the contours as closely as possible on the southern slopes of the valley. 

There is a gain of approximately 60 metres over the approximately 750 metres from the boundary of 

Precinct 2 to Offler Avenue. This would result in a grade average of 8 percent. Due to the topography of 

the valley, in that it gains approximately 40 metres from the confluence of the two creeks before reaching 

the eastern boundary (a straight line distance of approximately 250 metres), it is anticipated at least three 

switchbacks will be required over this section to achieve a sustainable gradient. 

This design approach will increase the length of the trail, to approximately 400 metres, but should 

substantially reduce the risk of erosion. The indicative alignment has been selected to make use of 

already cleared areas, however the route will need to be confirmed on site by an ecologist to ensure any 

loss or damage to native vegetation (including grasses) is minimised. Whilst the loss of some native 

vegetation is regrettable, it is considered that without adequate access it is likely that the area will 

become further degraded through weed infestation. 

It is noted that this option does not provide the double benefit of creating a fuel reduction zone along the 

northern property boundary however the steepness of this alignment is too steep for a sustainable trail to 

be constructed. Access to the northern boundary (for fuel reduction purposes) will still need to be 

undertaken on foot, however it is considered the proposed trail will make this task somewhat easier. 

The recently constructed mountain bike trail in the western end of this precinct has been completed to the 

standards of the International Mountain Bike Association (IMBA) which are world’s best practice for 

recreational trail construction. These standards include an average grade of 10 percent, grade reversals 

and a full bench tread, all of which are integral to ensuring a sustainable trail (refer to www.imba.com for 

further information). This standard should be applied to future trail construction for recreation purposes 

whilst the general principles relating to gradient, drainage and construction should also be incorporated 

into design for vehicular tracks. 

• Sturt Creek Linear Park – Sturt Gorge Recreation Reserve linkage it has been mooted by a number 

of agencies that the potential to provide a continuous trail along the Sturt Creek corridor could soon be 

realised. The major impediment, till now, has been the private ownership of a short section of the river 

adjacent to Flinders University. The possibility of utilising a section of existing track in Precinct 4, to 

complete the connection, has the in-principle support of the University. 

At present, this track terminates at a private driveway, with no continuation through to the Gorge. If further 

access at this point is unable to be negotiated, it is proposed that the trail could be aligned with the 

property boundary adjacent the private driveway and residence where it would join the track from Precinct 

5 before continuing through to Sturt Gorge. 

The creation of a linear trail linking Sturt Creek Linear Park and Sturt Gorge further emphasises the need 

for adequate weed control and Phytophthera hygiene measures within Flinders University land. 

4.2.2 Trail Monitoring and Maintenance 

The majority of formal tracks used for vehicle access have been used over many decades and consequently 

these show few signs of degradation. However, there are a few sections where grades exceed 10 percent, 

and they follow the fall line, and erosion is evident. The placement of imported fill material may temporarily 

alleviate the problem but in some cases an alternative solution, engineered or otherwise, is required. A few of 

the observed problems, and recommended solutions are noted below: 

• Gully erosion (Precinct 2, section of north-south track adjacent electricity easement); 




Due to the gradient of this track through this section, and the alignment down the fall line 6 , water tends to flow 

along the track, rather than across it. Construction of ‘water bars’ (similar to a swale) at an open angle, to 

direct flow to the trail edge, is recommended to alleviate this problem. 

• Backwall slumping (Precinct 2, section of north-south track adjacent electricity easement); 

Where tracks have been constructed across the fall line (as is desirable) in some cases the back wall 

(upslope of the track) has not been battered (graded so there is no abrupt drop). As a consequence the steep 

wall has not been recolonised by plants, leaving it susceptible to slumping. Whilst a graded back wall will 

initially remove more vegetation (particularly grasses) these should re-colonise the batter within a year, 

leaving only the trail bench visible. 

• Corner cutoffs (Precinct 1, numerous locations); 

Where trails incorporate longer switchbacks (as is desirable) there can be a temptation for trail users 

(particularly walkers) to short cut and more directly up or down slopes. Over time, this informed track becomes 

well worn and can begin eroding. In this situation the only management option is closure, usually through a 

barrier such as a permapine post and rail. To improve the effectiveness it is advisable to lay dead vegetation, 

preferably branches, across the closed track, and possibly revegetate a section, to make it obvious the track 

is no longer in use. In extreme cases, it may be necessary to erect signage to educate recreational users of 

the problem and why the solution enacted was required. 

Whilst trails allow essential maintenance tasks to be undertaken, they also require monitoring to ensure they 

do not also contribute to the problem. Therefore, sites disturbed by trail construction should be monitored for 

weed colonisation in the short and long term. It is recommended that the recently constructed mountain bike 

trail in Precinct 7 be monitored for a minimum of two years prior to any additional recreational trail construction 

commencing. 

Additionally, the creation of a formal trail network may increase the risk of Phytophthera being introduced to 

the site. Phytophthera is an introduced fungus that is established in the Mount Lofty Ranges and causes 

dieback in indigenous flora. Whilst its impacts vary amongst Australian natives, with Eucalypt species showing 

a degree of resilience, every effort should be made to prevent its further spread. As a minimum, the 

installation of advisory signage, consistent with DEH information, should be undertaken with the option of 

Hygiene Stations as a medium term action, following trail construction. 

• Trail Drainage Design Plan 

Given the acknowledged design deficiencies with some previously constructed trails, which has contributed to 

soil erosion problems, it is recommended that a Drainage Design Plan be formulated at the detailed planning 

stage for proposed trails. 

4.3 Pest Plants 

The proliferation of pest plants poses a serious threat to the long term biodiversity value of the study area, as well as 

increasing the fire risk. A number of proclaimed pest plant species were identified within the study area, the most 

problematic of which include: Olives (Olea europaea), Bridal Creeper (Myrsiphyllum asparagoides), Aleppo Pines 

(Pinus halepensis), Boneseed (Chrysanthemoides monilifera), Sparaxis (Sparaxis bulbifera), Cape Tulip (Homeria 

flaccida), Coolatai Grass (Hyparrhenia hirta) and Salvation Jane (Echium plantagineum). Under the Animal and Plant 

Control Act (as discussed in Section 4.6) the landholder has a legal obligation to control such species. One of the 

purposes of this Plan is to provide the management framework to meet this obligation. 

For the areas that contain remnant vegetation, the ‘Bradley Method’ is the most effective approach to remove 

widespread weed species. This method involves concentrating on removing weed species from the areas of highest 

quality vegetation first. Weed control can then be undertaken working from the high quality area outward. This will 

ensure that the areas of the highest quality are managed and protected first from threats such as weed invasion. This 

will maintain the quality of the remnant vegetation in the best condition, which will help to ensure the long-term 

viability of the vegetation. As a precautionary measure, it is recommended that any areas to be controlled should be 

always be evaluated by personnel with botanical knowledge prior to any weed control commencing, to ensure that 

appropriate methods are used. This is to ensure that species which are difficult to identify or cryptic - such as some 

of the native grasses, lilies and other groundcovers - are not affected. 

For smaller isolated populations (eg Cape Tulip and Coolatai Grass), the best method is targeted weed control whilst 

populations are controllable. Species such as Coolatai Grass can spread very quickly and once established they are 

very difficult to eradicate. Therefore, prompt action controlling these species will prevent them from becoming a longterm 

management issue. It will also prevent them from spreading to neighbouring properties and becoming a regional 

issue. 

The management actions, in Section 5, outline the most appropriate approach utilising the control methods detailed 

above to conserve and enhance the biodiversity values of the undeveloped areas of Flinders University. 

To combat the re-establishment of pest plants in areas where they have been eradicated, it will be necessary to 

conduct follow-up work for several years after the initial control work is undertaken. In the areas with moderate to 

high quality remnant vegetation this will also allow natural regeneration of local indigenous flora species to occur. In 

areas that have minimal or no remnant native vegetation, revegetation will be necessary. For this task, the 

indigenous vegetation within Flinders University should be used as the primary source for the revegetation. 

Revegetation should utilise seed and plant material from the nearest healthy viable population of a particular ecotype 

and take into account soil type, aspect, vegetation association etc. Some species with limited distribution within 

Flinders University ie Callistemon sieberi, may need to be sourced from adjacent reserves containing remnant 

vegetation, such as Watiparinga and Sturt Gorge Recreation Park. Other species that may no longer be present on 

the Flinders University site, but which are likely to have occurred there, could also be sourced from these reserves. 

This also presents the benefit of maintaining some natural variation between populations 

6 Fall line- the natural line of descent between two points on a slope 




4.4 Catchment Management 

There are four stormwater outlets from the suburban catchment of Bellevue Heights into the study area. The high 

velocity of flows that typically follows rainfall events has created gully erosion in the vicinity of these outlets, and 

requires management to prevent it becoming worse. The riparian zones downstream of each outlet have also 

become populated with both woody and herbaceous weeds. 

The Catchment Board has indicated their preferred treatment would be small detention basins, where possible, to 

reduce flow velocity and allow sediments to settle out prior to entering the creek system. 

The outlet at the eastern end of Precinct 6 is regarded as a priority, due to the severe erosion immediately 

downstream of the outlet. Revegetation utilising indigenous species (refer Appendix A), will need to follow the 

construction of detention basins - to assist in bank stabilisation. 

The outlet at the southern end of Precinct 6, discharging from The Boulevard, does have some erosion evident 

however, a detention basin is not considered necessary at this stage. Woody weed removal is recommended as part 

of the establishment of the fuel reduction zone along the boundary line. Revegetation, using aquatic macrophytes 

along the drainage line (refer Appendix A), will need to follow the weed removal - to assist in bank stabilisation. 

Within Precinct 7 there are two outlets at the eastern end, within 10 metres of each other. Woody weed removal has 

been undertaken in the vicinity of this area, however there are still numerous herbaceous weeds. Downstream of the 

outlets, the creek has exposed rocky sections. It has not been determined if this is naturally occurring or is the result 

of stormwater flow. Nevertheless, the terrain in this locality is not conducive to the construction of a stormwater 

detention basin therefore it is recommended that this area be revegetated using aquatic macrophytes from the list in 

Appendix A. 

On the eastern slope of Precinct 3 there is an outlet which discharges from Bellevue Drive. This is located in steep 

terrain and there is dense growth of herbaceous weeds immediately downstream. Due to the topography in this 

location, and the fact that erosion does not appear to be a problem, this outlet is not considered a priority. In the longterm 

it would be desirable to revegetate the area with indigenous riparian species. 

The provision of in stream 

habitat, through 

revegetation, has 

improved water quality 

and resulted in an 

increased occurrence of 

indigenous aquatic fauna, 

such as frogs. 

4.5 Pest Animals 

The management of pest animal species is considered to be a low priority for Flinders University. Pest animal issues 

do arise within the campus periodically; however, effective control requires a regional approach. The pest animal 

species that need to be monitored are predominantly foxes, rabbits and hares. Generally, populations of pest animals 

are kept at levels where their presence is not causing undue concern. It is unlikely that these species will ever be 

eradicated from the area, as they are common throughout the Southern Mount Lofty Ranges. Therefore, without the 

implementation of regional control strategies, these species would continue to re-infest the Flinders University area. 

Ongoing monitoring, and utilisation of appropriate control techniques when required, should be sufficient to prevent 

pest animals becoming a major management issue. 

4.6 Legislative Requirements 

There are a number of Acts, at both Commonwealth and State level that impact upon FUSA land. A summary of 

these and relevant policy documents and guidelines has been prepared and is provided as Appendix C, however a 

few of particular significance are briefly outlined below: 

Animal and Plant Control (Agricultural and Other Purposes) Act 1986 

This Act provides for the control of animals and plants for the protection of agriculture and the environment and for 

the safety of the public. Species that are ‘proclaimed’ are required to be controlled by the property owner. There are 

several plant species that were observed within the project area that are listed as proclaimed under the Act within the 

Mitcham Council area these include; Olives, Aleppo Pines, Bridal Creeper, Salvation Jane and Boneseed. If an 

attempt is not made to control proclaimed plant species, the Animal and Plant Control Commission or delegated 

authority (in this case Mitcham Council) has the power to enforce their control by either issuing fines or undertaking 

the control work and billing the land owner (refer 

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_act/aapcpaopa1986683/ ). 

Country Fires Act 1989 

The Act provides for the prevention, control and suppression of fires, and the protection of life and property in fire and 

other emergencies. Section 40 requires private landowners to take reasonable steps to protect property on the land 

from fire and to prevent or inhibit the outbreak of fire on the land, or the spread of fire through the land. It also permits 

the relevant authority (in this case Mitcham Council) to issue enforcement ‘clean-up’ notices. The Act does not 

prevent individuals from taking civil action against land owners or asset managers in the event they suffer damage or 

loss as a result of fire (refer http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_act/cfa1989182/ ) 

Native Vegetation Act 1991 

The Act aims to provide incentives and assistance to landowners in relation to the preservation and enhancement of 

native vegetation and to control the clearance of native vegetation. The Act applies to land outside the Adelaide 

Metropolitan region (which excludes the Hills Face Zone) therefore all land east of the electricity easement, namely 

Precincts 6 and 7, are covered by the Act. 

Clearance of any native vegetation is prohibited under the Native Vegetation Act, 1991 unless there is an exemption 

that covers the clearance, such as for firebreaks, fuel reduction zones and track construction, or the Native 

Vegetation Council grants specific consent. It is recommended that consultation be undertaken with the Native 

Vegetation Council before any native vegetation is removed for the implementation of actions within this 

management plan. This includes clearance or disturbance of native vegetation for fuel reduction zones, access 

tracks and any other clearance of native vegetation that may be required. The Native Vegetation Council can then 

give advice and direction on what actions are exempt under the Act and what vegetation clearance or disturbance 

requires a clearance application to be submitted to the Native Vegetation Council (refer 

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_act/nva1991194/ ). 




5. Sustainable Management Practices 

5.1 Removal of pest plants and environmental weed species 

Within the precincts that contain areas of moderate and high quality native vegetation (Precincts 4, 6 and 7) 

bushcare principles and philosophies should be utilised when undertaking weed control operations. This involves 

undertaking weed control in a way that minimises the impact on native vegetation. In areas of native vegetation 

where the objective is to enhance and improve the quality of the area, weed control should be undertaken within the 

least weedy areas first. However, some weed control may be undertaken to meet other objectives, such as reduce 

fuel loads, which do not meet the above principle. For the undeveloped areas of Flinders University, part of the weed 

control recommended is to reduce the fuel load along the boundaries of the University whilst other weed control is 

targeted at eradication of particular weeds. Additionally, it is recommended the removal of widespread weed species, 

such as Olives, be undertaken within the high quality areas first. 

5.1.1 Weed control methods 

A number of weed control methods can be utilised to effectively control most weed species. Appendix A 

details five different methods that can be used including cut and swab, drill and fill and hand pulling. The 

methods employed will depend on the targeted species, the accessibility of the site and the number of plants 

to be controlled. 

The types of herbicides used and the rates at which herbicides are used during weed control can also vary. 

For cut and swab, drill and fill, and stump injection a mixture of Garlon and Diesel can be utilised to kill tree 

species such as Olives. When utilising the spraying method a Glyphosate based herbicide, such as Roundup, 

is generally used. If the spraying is to be undertaken in close proximity to a watercourse or riparian zone, 

more water friendly herbicides, such as Roundup Biactive or Weedmaster Duo, should be used. Additionally, 

surfactants can be used with the herbicide when controlling species such as Bridal Creeper, which has a 

glossy leaf surface. The surfactant makes the herbicide more effective. This work should be undertaken in 

Spring when the plant is actively growing and will more readily take up the chemical. It will also reduce the 

likelihood of the herbicide being washed off by rain. 

activities undertaken in early spring before the native species flower should not have an adverse impact on 

their reproduction. 

This allows for all of the winter growth of the introduced species to be removed and therefore reducing the fire 

risk in the area. If required, a second slashing of these areas can be undertaken in early January after the 

native grass species have dropped their seed. 

5.1.3 Timber harvesting 

Several companies and organisations were contacted to ascertain interest in use of Aleppo Pine or Olive 

timber. The Aleppo Pine timber contains a high proportion of resin, making it unsuitable as a building material. 

Larger specimens may be used in the manufacture of pallets, however the current girth and height of the trees 

is insufficient to make harvesting commercially viable. The difficulty of access within the Aleppo Precinct also 

makes commercial harvesting a marginal proposition. In 20 years, the pines may have reached a sufficient 

size, at which time this option should be re-examined 7 . 

Timber from the larger olive trees is often fine grained and therefore has some value for wood-turning. Both 

the Mitcham and Marion Council community centres indicated an interest in using the timber for their senior 

citizen’s wood-carving and wood-burning programs. Prior to the removal of large specimens the 

representatives of both centres should be contacted so that those interested in using the timber can collect it 

soon after removal. 

Additionally, mechanical removal of woody weeks such as gorse and broom, can be achieved through using 

“tree poppers”. The added benefit of this technique is that it ensures no chance of regrowth. 

Hand pulling can be undertaken for herbaceous species, bulbs and smaller woody species. Hand pulling of 

plants is easiest in the wetter months of the year when the soil is soft and therefore easier to pull out. Care 

should be taken not to disturb too much of the soil around each plant. For species that have a bulb, such as 

sparaxis or watsonia, a screwdriver can be used to gently lift the bulb out of the ground. For best results, this 

should be undertaken in late spring when the plant has nearly completed its growing phase, as they are easier 

to extract 

5.1.2 Mowing regime 

The mowing regime in areas where native grasses are present should be altered slightly to promote the 

growth of the native species whilst maintaining the objective of reducing the fire risk in an area. Native 

grasses are present in considerable numbers in all precincts except Precincts 1 and 2. Therefore, any regular 

mowing within the other precincts should be modified. This includes slashing or mowing to maintain fire 

breaks along the perimeter of the University grounds as well as the slashing which is undertaken next to paths 

and roads. 

The regime that should be implemented involves altering the timing of the slashing so that the native grass 

species can go to seed but the fuel load is kept to a minimum. Native grasses usually start to flower in 

October and finish seeding in late December (it can vary depending on climatic conditions), therefore slashing 

7 Pers comm. Neil Hunter – Timber harvest contractor, 21/5/04 




5.2 Revegetation 

The ultimate goal of revegetation is to reinstate the indigenous woodland vegetation associations but shorter term 

goals, such as weed suppression, may influence initial planting strategy. Identification of long and short term 

revegetation objectives, with detailed planning undertaken to guide actions, will assist in meeting the objectives. 

Revegetation will be required in most of the precincts after weed control has been undertaken, but particularly 1, 4 

and 5, which are dominated by introduced species , and their removal would result in large bare areas . Therefore, 

appropriate revegetation plans need to be developed to meet the short and long term objectives for each precinct. 

As previously noted, the dominant vegetation association within the Flinders University area would have been a 

Eucalyptus microcarpa (Grey Box) +/- Eucalyptus leucoxylon (SA Blue Gum) Woodland with a predominantly grassy 

understorey. A mixture of shrubs species, such as Acacia species, would have also been present within the area, 

however they would not have been dense across the whole site. 

All revegetation that is undertaken within any of the precincts should utilise locally collected seed from species that 

would have naturally occurred in the area. The indigenous vegetation within the Flinders University should be used 

as the primary seed source for the revegetation, however nearby reserves, such as Shepherds Hill, Watiparinga and 

Sturt Gorge may need to be utilised, in the case where certain species are no longer found within Flinders University. 

A list of plant species that are suitable to be planted in the precincts has been included in Appendix A. 

Revegetation should only be undertaken after the first soaking rains of autumn or winter have occurred. Typically 

this could be anticipated in May or June, however it will vary from year to year. This will ensure the seedlings have 

the maximum chance of survival, and removes the need for FUSA to water seedlings to assist their establishment. 

The olive covered southern slopes of South Valley 




6. Future Management Direction 

From the site investigations it is clear there are a number of priority areas which require action, in order for the 

University to not only meet its legislative requirements but to build the framework for best-practice land management. 

With commitment from the administration and partner agencies, the campus can become a showcase example of 

how semi-urban environments can be managed for maximum biodiversity value, whilst also allowing complementary 

uses, such as recreation and education, to take place. 

Vision 

To re-establish the indigenous biodiversity of the site whilst allowing for the recreation and education of students, 

staff and the wider community. 

Objectives 

• Enhance the area’s natural biodiversity as part of the Adelaide Hills Face Zone; 

• Minimise the risk for fire to impact on the University and neighbouring properties; 

• Allow for safe access within the site and to property boundaries; 

• Provide for appropriate recreational activities, and 

• Encourage participation from the University and community in management activities. 

6.1 Precinct Priorities 

Within the framework of the overall management actions, specific actions have been developed for each precinct, 

with corresponding plan to highlight the areas for action. The first plan is for the next 6 years - until 2009 / 10, whilst 

the second is a long term plan 2011 – 2050. 

In addition to the detailed actions, recommendations as to when these should be undertaken during the year have 

also been made. Estimates of time and cost have also been provided, to assist the University in forward planning and 

also in applying for funding assistance to undertake particular projects. The cost estimates have been prepared using 

a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, which is provided as Appendix D for reference. 

In preparing the management actions, due regard has been given to the time required for each task, and the 

budgetary constraints of the University. Given the size of the study area, and the extent of pest plant infestation, it is 

considered most effective to concentrate initially on the areas of high and moderate quality indigenous vegetation. 

The control of pest plants is a long-term process; therefore the heavily infested areas will be left until last, which in 

some cases may not be for 20 years or more. 

In addition to these overarching objectives for the study area, a series of specific objectives have been developed for 

each precinct. 

Management Actions 

In order to achieve the Vision and Objectives, a number of management actions have been developed for the entire 

study area (shown in Table 5, overleaf), which generally involve annual or regular maintenance work. These are 

strengthened by specific actions for each Precinct that are prioritised and have accompanying preliminary cost 

estimates 8 . Costs for all work undertaken, such as removal of pest plants and revegetation, has been calculated on 

the basis of contractor rates. Revegetation has been calculated based on pre-planting preparatory work of a 1 metre 

square being sprayed for weeds, tubestock being purchased and a tree guard with stakes being placed around each 

seedling at time of planting. This has been estimated at $3 per plant, which is higher than typically budgeted for in 

other revegetation projects, however it is considered this will ensure a high rate of seedling survival. If seedlings can 

be grown and planted by staff or volunteers, significant cost savings may be able to be realised. 

Agencies that may be able to provide assistance with implementation, either through funding or in-kind assistance, 

have been identified (under the ‘Partners’ column) for specific actions. These partners are further discussed in 

Section 7. 

The residential interface at the southern boundary and along the eastern 

and western boundaries is a key area for management actions in the initial 

years of the LMP implementation, to minimise fire risk and weed 

infestation. 

8 Cost estimates have been calculated on the assumption that work undertaken by staff, students and Green Corps includes 

allowances for fuel, equipment and materials but not wages, whereas work undertaken by Contractors is inclusive of all the 

above. The prices have been calculated at 2004 rates, with no allowance for inflation. 




Table 5 – Management Actions for Entire Study Area 

Management Actions Timing Partners 

Biodiversity 

Eradicate all proclaimed pest plants and environmental 

weeds from areas of highest biodiversity value and 

control over remainder of site in short-medium term, with 

long term goal of eradication. 

Encourage natural regeneration through minimal 

disturbance weed control and, where necessary, 

undertake revegetation utilising indigenous species (refer 

to the list provided in Appendix A). 

Participate in pest animal control programs in 

conjunction with adjoining landholders 

Fire Prevention and Management 

Maintain fuel reduction zones along all site boundaries 

and any other areas requiring fuel reduction 

Slash grasses to reduce fuel loads – modify timing where 

native grasses exist 

Access 

Maintain existing trails at a condition suitable for vehicle 

access 

Ongoing 

Ongoing 

As needed 

Winter - Early 

Spring 

Spring - 

Ongoing - 

PCWMB 

UFP 

MC 

UFP 

NPWSA 

MC 

Design and construct new access trails with average 

gradients of less than 10 percent and drainage design 

plans 

As needed ORS 

PCWMB 

Recreation 

Continue to facilitate public use of access trails Ongoing ORS 

Monitor condition of mountain bike trail for two years and 

decide whether to permit further trail development 

Ongoing AMBC 

Provide interpretative signage to educate visitors about 

site features, biodiversity value, trail network and 

opportunities to assist in site programs 

- Ilkari 

PCWMB 

UFP 

- 

Catchment Management 

Undertake water quality monitoring in both creek 

systems and report to Catchment Board. 

Ensure staff and other site workers have training in 

herbicide and chemical handling, through “Chemical 

Users Project” 4 

Management 

Provide adequate funding to enable priority management 

actions to be undertaken 

Undertake monitoring of actions implemented through 

LMP, and maintain records for future reference (detailed 

in Section 7.2) 

Actively involve School of Population, Geography and 

Environmental Management to incorporate site work as 

practical component of coursework. 

Seek involvement of external agencies and organisations 

in implementation of management actions 

Review the success of actions against stated objectives 

within each precinct, with intent of setting priorities for 

the 2011-2015 period. 

Seek involvement of external agencies and organisations 

in implementation of management actions 

Annual 

Ongoing 

Annual - 

Annual 

Ongoing - 

Ongoing 

PCWMB 

(MLRGA) 

Waterwatch 

PCWMB 

(MLRGA) 

MC 

All 

2008-9 MC 

Ongoing 

All 

4 The Natural Resource Management Secretariat will set a standardised monitoring program for NRM regions in next 18 months. 




6.1.1 Precinct One – Aleppo 

The Aleppo Precinct extends from University Drive in the west to the Native Flora Precinct in the east. The 

precinct is divided by a deep valley from east to west, which contains a seasonal creek fed by the suburban 

catchment of Bellevue Heights. Annual testing generally indicates a high water quality, which has been 

steadily improving. This improvement is likely due to specific works undertaken in recent years to slow water 

flow and improve instream conditions, such as the gabion structures and planting of aquatic macrophytes 9 . 

There has been a corresponding improvement in biodiversity, with a noticeable increase in frogs 10 . 

Aleppo Pines are the predominant vegetation, with some scattered Eucalyptus microcarpa at the eastern end. 

The pines have formed a dense canopy, whilst the fallen needles prevent any understorey growth. As the 

pines are over 40 years old, they will continue to decline in health, and pose a threat to safety. Therefore the 

removal of the pines will be necessary to ensure visitor safety is not unduly compromised. The pine cones 

provide a valuable food source for cockatoos, therefore removal of the pines should be undertaken over a 

long timeframe (25 years is advocated) so that replacement plantings can gradually provide an alternate food 

source. Furthermore, revegetation should include a higher proportion of Allocasuarinas and Hakeas than 

would be typically found in the indigenous Woodland vegetation association, to ensure an adequate food 

source for the cockatoos. A long-term revegetation program will also minimise the visual impact and potential 

for severe erosion that could result if wholesale clearing were to occur. It is recommended to commence 

removal on the northern slope and work from east to west, to allow maximum sunlight to the creek and reduce 

the distribution of seed to the east. 

Objectives 

• To gradually replace the Aleppo Pine forest with an indigenous woodland ecosystem, similar to that 

which would have existed prior to European settlement; 

• To enhance the riparian environment through weed removal and revegetation; 

• To minimise the erosion caused by stormwater disposal and informal trails, and 

• To provide opportunities for informal and organised recreation. 

Proclaimed pest plants and environmental weeds 

Woody weeds – Aleppo Pines, Olives 

9 Macrophytes include rushes, sedges, and reeds 

10 Pers comm. Steve Hoare, FUSA Maintenance Team Leader 

11 Size of proposed parcels shown on accompanying Action Plan are gauged on an estimate of 50 trees, may vary according to site conditions. 

Contractor quotes for 1-10 trees at $800-$1000 per tree, including the removal of tree from site (mulching tree on site will cost more). Cost per 

tree will decrease with increased number of trees (up to 50%). Recommendation is to budget $18,000 per annum and tender for services. 

Year Management Actions Timing Indicative Partners 

Cost 

2004/05 Remove Aleppo Pines from Parcel 1.1 11 Spring- 

Summer 

$18,000 MC 

PCWMB 

Install signage adjacent Parcel 1.1 that 

explains intent of tree removal 

To follow 

above 

$350 MC 

PCWMB 

Remove Olives from riparian zone, working Spring $1,180 PCWMB 

downstream 

Revegetate Parcel 1.1 Winter 5400 UFP 

Revegetate riparian zone (where Olives were 

removed) 

Autumn / 

Winter 

2770 PCWMB 


Cost 

2004/05 Close informal access trails that are causing Any time $3000 

erosion –using permapine barriers to prevent 

access and/or revegetation along trail 

2005/06 Remove Aleppo Pines from Parcel 1.2 Spring- 

Summer 

$18,000 MC 

PCWMB 

Follow-up control for Olives along riparian Spring $865 PCWMB 

zone 

Revegetate Parcel 1.2 Autumn / 

Winter 

$6700 UFP 

Revegetate riparian zone (adjacent Parcel Autumn / $2900 PCWMB 

1.1) 

Winter 


Summer 

$18,000 MC 

PCWMB 

Follow-up control for Olives along riparian Spring $585 PCWMB 

zone 


Winter 

$5150 UFP 

Revegetate riparian zone (adjacent Parcel 

1.2) 

Autumn / 

Winter 

$2900 UFP 

PCWMB 


Summer 

$18,000 MC 

MLRGA 


Winter 

$5050 UFP 


1.3) 

Autumn / 

Winter 

$2950 UFP 

MLRGA 

2008/09 Remove Aleppo Pines from Parcel 1.5 Spring $18,000 MC 

MLRGA 


Winter 

$5050 UFP 


1.4) 

Autumn / 

Winter 

$2950 UFP 

MLRGA 

2009/10 Remove Aleppo Pines from Parcel 1.6 Spring $18,000 MC 

MLRGA 


Winter 

$5050 UFP 


1.5) 

Autumn / 

Winter 

$2950 UFP 

MLRGA 

Long 

term – 

2010 

onward 

• Continue staged removal of Aleppo Pines, in parcels of approximately 50 trees per 

year, followed by revegetation. 

• Continue weed removal as required. 

• Investigate options for redesigning stormwater outlets from Ring Road, to minimise 

gully erosion. 



precinct1_action_plan01_final.jpg


precinct1_ap_long_term01_final.jpg



6.1.2 Precinct Two – Native Flora 

The Native Flora Precinct extends from the Aleppo Precinct and Ring Road in the west, to the site boundary in 

the east. A deep valley defines the precinct with vegetation comprising a variety of native species, mostly nonindigenous, 

which have been planted by the University for teaching purposes. There are indigenous 

understorey species within some areas of this precinct as well as scattered large Eucalyptus microcarpa. 

Some of the planted native species are now classed as environmental weeds, including the Golden-wreath, 

Cootamundra, Coastal and Flinders Ranges Wattles, therefore removal should be undertaken as a priority 

whilst they are not widespread. The remaining native species that are not environmental weeds can be 

retained and incorporated as part of the proposed interpretative trail. Information relating to the origin and 

biology of a selection of the different species should be provided as part of the signage. 

There is an infestation of Coolatai grass adjacent the creekline, at the eastern end of the precinct. The 

complete removal of this infestation is a high priority, as it has the potential to overwhelm the study area, and 

spread to adjacent reserves, if not eradicated. Revegetation of this area, through direct seeding of indigenous 

grass species, is also recommended, to minimise the likelihood of infestation. 

Revegetation within this precinct is not seen as a priority issue as it appears that additional plantings are 

occurring within the area, however future revegetation should be undertaken adjacent to the creek line to 

ensure that water quality can be maintained and, over the longer term, improved. The trails within the precinct 

are adequate for vehicle access however, in some sections the gradient exceeds 1 in 10, which has created 

erosion problems. It is recommended that water bars be constructed at 100m intervals, to direct flow from 

the centre of the trail to its edge, as a means of alleviating this problem. 

Objectives 

• To completely remove Coolatai Grass. 

• To retain the native species which are not environmental weeds and incorporate them as a feature of 

the proposed interpretative trail; 

• To enhance the riparian environment through weed removal and revegetation; 

• To provide opportunities for informal and organised recreation; 

• To enhance the visitor experience through interpretative signage, and 

• To minimise the erosion of access tracks. 


Woody weeds – Golden-wreath, Cootamundra, Flinders Ranges & Coastal Wattle, Olives, Boxthorn 

Herbaceous weeds- Coolatai grass, Nasturtium, Onion Weed and Horehound 


Cost 

2004/05 Remove proclaimed pest plant and 

environmental weed species, focusing on 

Spring $1,740 MC 

PCWMB 

olives and wattles throughout the entire 

precinct. 

Remove Coolatai grass using slash and Autumn / $580 PCWMB 

2005/06 

spray technique 

Install signage adjacent Coolatai grass 

infestation that explains the environmental 

weed problem and removal process 

Construct ’water bars’ at 100m intervals 

along north-south trail (adjacent electricity 

easement) 

Follow-up control work for proclaimed pest 

plant and native environmental weeds 

throughout entire precinct. 

Winter 

Spring $350 MC 

PCWMB 

Spring $2000 

Spring $1,400 

Follow-up control work for Coolatai grass Autumn / $570 

Winter 

Scattered revegetation in areas of pest plant Autumn / $1600 

and weed removal. 

Winter 

2006/07 Follow-up control work for proclaimed pest Spring $585 

plant and environmental weeds. 


Winter 

Revegetation along riparian zone in Parcel Autumn / $3550 PCWMB 

2.2 

Winter 

2007/08 Follow-up control work for proclaimed pest Spring $1775 

plant and native environmental weeds. 


Winter 

Revegetation along riparian zone in Parcel Autumn / $1800 MLRGA 

2.3 

Winter 

2008/09 Revegetation along riparian zone in Parcel Autumn / $2,300 MLRGA 

2.4 

Winter 

2009/10 Revegetation along riparian zone in Parcel Autumn / $2,300 

2.5 

Winter 

Long 

term – 

2010 

onward 

• Continued revegetation along riparian zone, working in an easterly direction. 



precinct2_action_plan_final.jpg


precinct2_ap_long_term_final.jpg



6.1.3 Precinct Three – Potential Development 

The Potential Development Precinct extends from the student accommodation in the north to the Aleppo and 

Native Flora Precinct in the south and the site boundary to the east. Land within the precinct is the only 

remaining parcel within the study area, with a gradient potentially suitable for building development. Given that 

this area may be developed in the future, there are only minor management actions recommended, with a 

focus on maintaining the existing conditions. 

There are no priority issues in regard to weed management or native vegetation management within this 

precinct. The precinct is largely clear of trees, with a mixture of native and introduced grasses being the 

predominant vegetation. There are several Olive plants and some Aleppo Pine seedlings, which should be 

removed, but there are no other woody weed species of particular concern within this area. The pockets of 

native grasses could be promoted by mowing in late winter or early spring. This would allow the native 

grasses to seed successfully and also reduce the volume of seed in exotic species. If a second mowing was 

required, it could be undertaken in mid-late summer when the native grasses have seeded. 

Time Management Actions Timing Indicative Partners 

Cost 

2004/05 Remove isolated pest plants Spring $570 MC 

2005 

onward 

Follow-up control work on isolated pest plants Spring $570 MC 

The action plan includes an indicative ‘Building Envelope’ for the potential expansion of the student 

accommodation or other buildings as the University may require. It is recommended that future building 

development incorporate Ecologically Sustainable Design techniques, to showcase the University’s 

commitment to the principles of environmental stewardship. Where possible, buildings should avoid remnants 

of native grass, and attempt to incorporate them into the landscaping. 

Objectives 

• To maintain the existing grassy woodland and open grassland whilst controlling pest plants and weeds 

where they are found, 

• To identify areas suitable for future development, and 

• To minimise the erosion of access tracks. 


Woody weeds – Olives, Aleppo Pines, Golden Wreath Wattle 

Herbaceous weeds – None of concern 

The open grassland on the slopes of Precinct Three contain pockets of 

native grasses. A key management action for the LMP is to modify 

mowing regimes where native grass species occur to allow seed set to 

occur, thus improving the biodiversity of the study area. 

The upper flanks of this Precinct contain the last available land within the 

University grounds that is suitable for future development. 



precinct3_action_plan.jpg



Precinct Four – South Valley One 

The South Valley One Precinct is bound by Ring Road to the north and the creek to the south, with the site 

boundary to the west and the electricity easement forming the eastern boundary. The precinct largely contains 

degraded indigenous vegetation with some areas of moderate quality at the eastern end, however there is 

considerable weed infestation throughout the precinct. Very steep terrain hinders access to most of the 

precinct and there are few defined access trails. Due to the difficulty of access and low quality of indigenous 

vegetation, this precinct is considered a low priority; therefore most recommendations are intended to limit its 

impact on adjacent precincts. 

The priority in this precinct is to protect and enhance the area of moderate quality vegetation, as it borders the 

area of high quality vegetation in Precinct 6. In the areas that are of poor quality, there is a high density of 

Olives, and Aleppo Pines are starting to spread. The Pines could be ring barked and the Olives could be 

drilled and filled. These methods will reduce the amount of equipment required to undertake the work, thus 

allowing it to be done on foot. Revegetation will need to follow such work, to help prevent re-infestation of 

areas, as well as providing habitat for fauna species. 

Gorse and Dog Rose and found within the creekline, where they appear well established, but not expanding 

their range. This is likely due to the poor quality skeletal soils on the slopes and the seasonal presence of 

water in the creekline. On the principles of bushcare, which advocates leaving the valleys till last for weed 

control, it has not been recommended to undertake control of these species as a short term action. 

The existing track at the western end of this precinct may be incorporated into the proposed linkage from Sturt 

Creek Linear Park to Sturt Gorge Recreation Reserve. It is recommended that Flinders University work with 

other stakeholders to achieve this. 

Objectives 

Short-term 

• To prevent the further spread and establishment of Aleppo Pines; 

• To control pest plants and environmental weeds, particularly olives, in the moderate quality Eucalyptus 

Microcarpa woodland at the eastern end of the precinct, and 

• To maintain existing access trails in western portion, and promote their use as part of a linkage from 

the Sturt Creek Linear Park to Sturt Gorge Recreation Reserve. 

• To maintain the existing fuel reduction zone of twenty metres width along the northern property 

boundary. 

Long-term 

• To re-establish an indigenous woodland ecosystem along the hillside, similar to that which would have 

existed prior to European settlement, starting adjacent Precinct 6 and working in a westward, and 

• To enhance the riparian environment through weed removal and revegetation 


Cost 

2004/05 Ringbark Aleppo Pines in identified parcel Any time $560 MC 

2005/06 Drill and fill Olives in Parcel 4.1 Spring $1425 MC 

2006/07 Drill and fill Olives in Parcel 4.2 Spring $3560 PCWMB 

Scattered revegetation in Parcel 4.1 Autumn / $1950 UFP 

Winter 

2007/08 Drill and fill Olives in Parcel 4.3 Spring $3560 

Scattered revegetation in Parcel 4.2 Autumn / $2300 

Winter 


Scattered revegetation in Parcel 4.3 Autumn / $1800 

Winter 


Scattered revegetation in Parcel 4.4 Autumn / 

Winter 

$1800 

Long 

term – 

2010 

onward 

• Continue to drill and fill Olives working in a westerly direction – revegetation density will 

need to increase as the predominant vegetation in these areas are olives 

• Support various stakeholders in linking Sturt Creek Linear Trail and Sturt Gorge 

Recreation Reserve 

The steep slopes of Precinct 

4 make access the key 

consideration in managing 

the pest plant species that 

dominate the precinct. 


Woody weeds – Olives, Aleppo Pines, Gorse, Boxthorn, Coastal Wattle, Boneseed and Dog Rose 

Herbaceous weeds - Cape Tulip, Sparaxis, Bridal Creeper 





precinct4_ap_long_term.jpg



Precinct Five – South Valley Two 

The South Valley Two Precinct is bound by the creek to the north and the site boundary to the south and 

west, with the electricity easement forming the eastern boundary. The precinct contains degraded native 

vegetation with some small areas of high quality indigenous vegetation, with the majority of the precinct 

dominated by pest plant and environmental weed species. Steep terrain hinders access to the creek and, 

apart from one informal trail adjacent the residential properties, there is no defined access. Due to these 

factors, this precinct is considered a medium priority. 

The main priority for this precinct is to protect the areas of high quality vegetation, in the east adjacent 

Precinct 6, by controlling the dominant weed species, such as Olives, Boneseed, Bridal Creeper, Fennel, 

Aleppo Pines and Boxthorn. The removal of these pest plants will allow natural regeneration to occur and 

therefore no additional planting should be required. There are also several weed species that occur in small 

or isolated populations, including English Broom, Monadenia, Coolatai Grass, and Flinders Ranges Wattle 

that should be controlled before they spread further. 

The areas that are of poor quality and contain numerous pest plants are a low priority; however, pest plant 

control should be undertaken adjacent to the high quality areas to ensure they do not get re-infested. The 

removal of the olives from these areas would result in very few trees remaining, therefore, revegetation should 

be undertaken. The overstorey species should be planted sparsely to recreate the natural open woodland that 

would have originally occurred within the site. 

As noted in section 4.2.1, the construction of an access trail from the upper slope to the valley – adjacent the 

creek - is recommended to provide for maintenance vehicle and recreational usage. It is anticipated this will 

provide a connection with the proposed Sturt Creek Linear Park - Sturt Gorge Recreation Reserve Trail. 

Objectives 

Short-term 

• To prevent the further spread and establishment of Aleppo Pines; 

• To eradicate Coolatai Grass, Broom, Monadenia, and Flinders Ranges Wattle. 

• To control pest plants and environmental weeds, particularly olives, immediately adjacent the high 

quality Eucalyptus microcarpa woodland in Precinct 4 (eastern section), and 

• To maintain existing access trail adjacent property boundaries, and facilitate its use as part of a 

linkage to the Sturt Gorge Recreation Reserve. 

• To develop an access trail adjacent the creek, connecting Precinct 4 and the shared-use path, to the 

proposed linkage between Sturt Creek Linear Park and Sturt Gorge Recreation Reserve 

• To provide and maintain a fuel reduction zone of twenty metres width adjacent the southern property 

boundary. 

Long-term 

• To re-establish an indigenous woodland ecosystem along the hillside, similar to that which would have 

existed prior to European settlement, starting adjacent Precinct 6 (east) and working in a westward, 

and 



Woody weeds – Olives, Aleppo Pines, Boxthorn, Dog Rose, English Broom and Desert Ash 

Herbaceous weeds – Coolatai grass, Bridal Creeper, Fennel, Monadenia 


Cost 

2004/05 Remove pest plants, particularly Olives, in Spring $2160 

Parcel 5.1 (20 metre wide fuel reduction zone 

adjacent the residential boundary). 

Remove infestations of English Broom and Spring $1430 MC 

Coolatai grass from identified parcels using 

mechanical removal and slash and spray 

technique, respectively 

Remove Monadenia from identified parcel Spring- 

Summer 

$2800 GC 

UFP 

Ringbark or remove isolated Aleppo Pines Any time $840 MC 

(depending on accessibility) 

2005/06 Remove Flinders Ranges Wattle adjacent Any time $1130 - 

southern boundary 

Follow-up control work for Aleppo Pine, Spring $2150 MC 

Broom, Coolatai grass and Monadenia 

UFP 

Remove pest plant and environmental weed Any time $3550 UFP 

species, from Parcel 5.2 (adjacent eastern 

precinct boundary) 

2006/07 Follow-up control work for Aleppo Pine, Spring $1450 MC 

Broom, Coolatai grass and Monadenia 

Revegetate Parcel 5.2 Autumn / $2600 UFP 

Winter 

2007/08 Develop access trail adjacent the creek, 

connecting Precinct 6 and the shared-use 

path 12 , to the proposed linkage between Sturt 

Spring $19,800 MC 

PSA 

ORS 

Creek Linear Park and Sturt Gorge Recreation 

Reserve 

Drill and fill (or remove depending on Spring $2860 MC 

accessibility) olives in Parcel 5.3 

Follow-up control work in Parcel 5.1 and 5.2 Spring $2150 MC 

2008/09 Follow-up control work in Parcel 5.1 to 5.3 Spring $2860 MC 

Revegetate Parcel 5.3 Spring $3600 UFP 

2009/10 Drill and fill (or remove depending on Spring $2860 MC 


Follow-up control work in Parcel 5.1 to 5.3 Spring $2150 MC 

Long 

term – 

2010 

onward 

• Continue to drill and fill or remove olives (depending on accessibility), working in a westerly 

direction. Due to the high level of infestation it is recommended that a parcel only be 

initiated every two years, to ensure follow-up control work is not compromised 

• Remove or poison other pest plant and environmental weed species in same areas. This 

work to be followed by revegetation. 

12 Cost based on Stage 1, approximately 900m of new track from upper slope to western boundary. Construction cost is 

estimated at $18,000 per kilometre and is inclusive of equipment hire - based on Parks Victoria rate guide. Track from slope to 

valley floor may involve some excavation work into hillside, which has not been costed. 








6.1.4 Precinct Six – South Eastern 

The South Eastern Precinct is bound by the shared-use path to the north and the site boundary to the east 

and south (where residences adjoin), with the electricity easement forming the western boundary. The 

precinct is dissected by a creek and contains the highest quality indigenous vegetation within the study area. 

Whilst there are areas of poor quality, the majority of the precinct is either high or moderate quality. There are 

still a number of weed species occurring in the area; however, the density of most weed species is reduced. 

As such, it is envisaged that pest plant removal will not require substantial revegetation, as the existing 

vegetation should provide an ample seedbank for natural regeneration. 

This precinct is the highest priority precinct - from both a biodiversity and fire management perspective. The 

main priority for this precinct is to protect the areas of high quality Eucalyptus microcarpa woodland and to 

maintain a fuel reduction zone adjacent the residential properties. This will involve working within the high 

quality areas to control as many weeds as possible, including Sparaxis (widespread and quite difficult to 

control), Cape Tulip, Gorse, Bridal Creeper, Olives and Cotton Bush. In areas where the density of weeds is 

high and it is likely that weed control would leave the area bare, revegetation should be undertaken. Regular 

weed control will be required to ensure this technique is a success. 

It is recommended that this precinct continue to be the focus for work undertaken by Ilkari, with assistance 

from either Green Corps or Youth Conservation Corps. Work within the high quality indigenous vegetation will 

require sensitive weed removal techniques, such as hand pulling, which realistically could only be achieved 

with the involvement of these organisations, due to the time and effort required. Actions that require 

assistance from these organisations have been noted, as a result the indicative costs provided are for 

materials and equipment only. 

As noted in Section 4.2.1, the provision of a recreational trail the southern bank of the creek, from the existing 

vehicle track to the proposed extension of the vehicle track in Precinct 5, is recommended in the interests of 

providing a continuous trail adjacent the creek. It is envisaged this trail will be largely constructed in areas of 

weed infestation, rather than the high quality Eucalyptus Macrocarpa Woodland and will therefore have 

negligible environmental impact. It will also facilitate access for bushcarers working within the precinct to 

eradicate introduced species. 

Objectives 

Short-term 

• To eradicate pest plants and environmental weeds, in the high quality Eucalyptus microcarpa 

woodland, and 


boundary. 

• To develop an access trail adjacent the creek, branching from the existing vehicle access trail, to 

connect with the proposed linkage between Sturt Creek Linear Park and Sturt Gorge Recreation 

Reserve through Precinct 5. 

Long-term 

• To eradicate pest plants and environmental weeds, in the moderate quality Eucalyptus microcarpa 

woodland, , and 


• To reduce erosion of the creek through development of a stormwater detention basin, and revegetation 

of indigenous riparian species. 


Woody weeds – Olives, Boxthorn, Gorse, Desert Ash and Cotton Bush. 

Herbaceous weeds - Cape Tulip, Sparaxis, and Bridal Creeper 


Cost 

2004/05 Remove pest plants, particularly Olives, in 

Parcel 6.1 (20 metre wide fuel reduction zone 

adjacent the residential boundary). 

Spring $1435 MC 

Remove pest plant and environmental weed 

species from Parcel 6.2 

Spring $2850 GC 

PCWMB 

2005/06 

2006/07 

2007/08 

2008/09 

2009/10 

Long 

term – 

2010 

onward 

Follow-up weed control in Parcels 6.1 and 6.2. Spring $3525 Ilkari 

Remove pest plant and environmental weed 


Spring $2800 UFP 

Cut and swab poplars adjacent stormwater Anytime $1450 - 

outlet 

Follow-up weed control in Parcels 6.1, 6.2 and Spring $2830 Ilkari 

6.3 

UFP 

Remove pest plant and environmental weed Spring $3910 


Construct sediment detention basin below Summer TBA PCWMB 

eastern stormwater outlet 

Follow-up weed control in Parcels 6.1 to 6.4 Spring $2850 Ilkari 

Remove pest plant and environmental weed Spring $2860 UFP 


Follow-up weed control in Parcels 6.1 to 6.5 Spring $2860 Ilkari 

Remove pest plant and environmental weed Spring $3560 UFP 


Develop access trail adjacent creek 13 , in Spring- $26,500 ORS 

conjunction with removal of pest plants and Autumn 

PSA 

environmental weed species in riparian zone. 

Follow-up weed control in Parcels 6.1 to 6.5 Spring $2860 

Remove pest plant and environmental weed Spring $3560 


Ilkari 

UFP 

• Continue to control pest plant and weeds throughout the precinct. 

• Revegetate eastern end, upslope of vehicle access trail, maintaining a 20 metre zone 

without trees or shrubs. 

13 Cost based on approximately 450m of new track from existing access track to proposed trail in Precinct 5. Construction cost is 

estimated at $50 linear metre and is inclusive of equipment hire - based on Parks Victoria rate guide. 





precinct6_action_plan_long_term_final.jpg



6.1.5 Precinct Seven – North Eastern 

The North Eastern Precinct is bound by the shared-use path to the south and the site boundary to the east 

and north (where residences adjoin), with the electricity easement forming the western boundary. The precinct 

is dissected by a creek and contains a significant area of moderate quality indigenous vegetation, with some 

higher quality areas within this. There are also areas of significant pest plant infestation (particularly olives) 

therefore any pest plant removal would require scattered revegetation, to assist the regeneration from existing 

vegetation. Other weeds that require control include one small patch of Coolatai Grass, and Monadenia 

several small patches of Cape Tulip and Boneseed, Aleppo Pines, and Bridal Creeper. The riparian zone has 

dense infestations of Desert Ash Trees, Kikuyu and Olives, which should be removed as a long-term priority, 

to improve both habitat and water quality. 

The construction of an access trail adjacent the creek, to link Precinct 2 and Offler Avenue, is recommended 

as a priority action. There are several fences (likely to have been part of the previous dairy) that need partial 

removal for this to occur. It is recommended the trail be constructed to the minimum width that allows for 

maintenance vehicle access, so that pest plant removal and fire prevention work can be undertaken with 

greater efficiency. As the trail will need to pass through the Eucalyptus microcarpa woodland the removal of 

some trees (and native grasses) may be required. Whilst some trail construction is exempted from requiring 

consent from the Native Vegetation Council, they should be advised of the proposed works at the detailed 

planning stage, to determine whether the exemptions are applicable. An indicative route is shown on the 

Action Plan, which has been aligned to maintain a gradient of less than 10 percent over the majority of its 

length. It is considered that the trail should form an extension to the interpretative trail proposed for Precincts 

1 and 2, by including signage at points of interest, such as the water cascades within the creek. 

Objectives 

Short-term 

• To eradicate Coolatai Grass; 

• To provide opportunities for informal and organised recreation, including the mountain bike trail and 

extension to the proposed interpretative trail incorporating Precincts 1 and 2; 

• To provide and maintain an access trail, from Precinct 2 to Offler Avenue for maintenance and 

recreation purposes; 


boundary; 

• To control pest plants and environmental weeds, in the moderate-high quality Eucalyptus microcarpa 

woodland, and 

• To monitor the use and condition of the mountain-bike trail over two years prior to deciding on whether 

to allow further mountain-bike trail development. 

Long-term 

• To control pest plants and environmental weeds, in the moderate quality Eucalyptus microcarpa 

Woodland, and eventually the remainder of the precinct. 

• To enhance the riparian environment through weed removal and revegetation. 


Woody weeds – Olives, Boneseed, Aleppo Pines, Desert Ash, Boxthorn 

Herbaceous weeds – Coolatai Grass, Cape Tulip, Sparaxis, Bridal Creeper, Salvation Jane, Monadenia 


Cost 

2004/05 Remove infestation of Coolatai grass from Spring $1140 MC 

identified parcels using slash and spray 

technique 

Drill and fill large Olives, or remove where 

possible, in Parcel 7.1 (20 metre wide fuel 

Spring $2860 AMBC 

PCWMB 

reduction zone adjacent the northern precinct 

boundary). 

2005/06 Construct access trail from Precinct 2 to Offler Spring $21,400 MC 

2006/07 

2007/08 

2008/09 

2009/10 

Long 

term – 

2010 

onward 

Avenue 14 . 

Follow-up weed control in Parcel 7.1 Spring $1425 

Remove pest plants and environmental weed Spring $1145 


Revegetate Parcel 7.2 Autumn / $1400 

Winter 

Follow-up weed control in Parcel 7.1 and 7.2 Spring $1425 



Revegetate Parcel 7.3 Autumn $2020 





Winter 





Winter 





Winter 

AMBC 

AMBC 

PCWMB 

UFP 

AMBC 

PCWMB 

UFP 

AMBC 

MLRGA 

UFP 

AMBC 

MLRGA 

UFP 

AMBC 

MLRGA 

UFP 

• Continue to remove pest plants and environmental weed species, followed by revegetation, 

working in an easterly direction 

14 Cost based on approximately 900m of new track. Construction cost is estimated at $18,000 per kilometre and is inclusive of 

equipment hire - based on Parks Victoria rate guide. Track from confluence of creeks may involve some excavation work into 

hillside, which has not been costed. Includes allowance of 10 hours (total) for ecologist and civil engineer to walk the site. 








7. Partnerships 

Whilst the task of restoring the indigenous biodiversity of the site is significant, in addition to the other improvements 

recommended as part of the LMP, it is not unrealistic. Approximately two kilometres from Flinders University is the 

Watiparinga Reserve, owned and managed by the National Trust. In 1973 the Trust formally commenced 

management of the reserve, which at the time had recently been retired from sheep grazing and contained a 

degraded Eucalyptus microcarpa Woodland, with large weed infestations. The commitment of volunteers, over the 

ensuing 30 years, has yielded a vastly increased biodiversity. Recent flora surveys confirmed a more than six fold 

increase in indigenous species, from 25 in 1961 to 162 in 1998 (of which 26 were grasses). Interestingly, only 22 of 

these 138 species that had recolonised were artificially reintroduced. Of course, this result would not have been 

possible without the long term vision and commitment through voluntary assistance. 

Similarly, it is recognised that the University alone cannot be expected to achieve such results with its work force and 

budget, therefore the partnerships with various agencies and volunteer organisations will be crucial to the success of 

the LMP as detailed below: 

Mitcham Council 

Whilst the Council is unable to provide financial assistance for land management their role in overseeing the 

implementation of the LMP, mostly in regard to the control of pest plants, is important. Their staff will also be able to 

provide advice on weed control techniques, revegetation and creation and maintenance of fuel reduction zones. 

Patawalonga Catchment Water Management Board 

The Board will consider funding works undertaken as part of the LMP, provided they have demonstrable benefits for 

improved catchment management. The Board has previously funded works within Flinders University, however in the 

case of larger scale projects with wider benefits than just catchment management, such as the LMP it would look to 

partner with other agencies that will also accrue some of the benefits. Specific actions of interest to the Board include 

the removal of pest plants and environmental weeds within the riparian zone (and subsequent revegetation), road 

drainage for erosion control in addition to work in proximity of the stormwater outlets across the study area. 

It is noted that from 2001 – 08 the Board will be absorbed into the Mount Lofty Region Greater Adelaide Natural 

Resource Management Board. 

Urban Forests Program 

The Program has the vision of conserving biodiversity within the greater Adelaide region. The Flinders University site 

is of particular interest to the Program, as it provides an excellent opportunity to restore and expand the Eucalyptus 

microcarpa Woodland vegetation association, currently poorly conserved in the region. Through the State 

Government’s One Million Trees Program the site could be considered as part of a large-scale revegetation project to 

create a series of Urban Forests through the Adelaide Region. The Urban Forest Biodiversity Program also provides 

an opportunity for funding work related to ecosystem restoration. The proposed vegetation management works to 

restore the vegetation community within the moderate-high quality Eucalyptus microcarpa Woodland in Precincts 4, 6 

and 7 may be eligible for funding under this program. 

Office for Recreation and Sport 

The Office administers the Community Recreation and Sports Facilities Grant, which has two categories – 

community ($20-50K) and regional ($20-200K). Initial indications from the Office have highlighted their interest in trail 

development for mountain bike usage, as there is currently a lack of formal trails within metropolitan Adelaide. On 

this basis, such trails could be eligible for regional funding. It is tentatively suggested that the proposed development 

of the trail adjacent the creek in Precinct 5 and 6, and the linkage from Sturt Creek Linear Park to Sturt Gorge 

Recreation Reserve would both qualify for funding. 

The Office can also assist Flinders University in the management of trails through the provision of signage, and 

clarification of the liability issues relating to public use of the trails. 

Planning SA 

PSA have responsibility for allocating funding for development of Regional and Metropolitan Open Space, generally 

within Council ownership or control. Whilst the University does not strictly fit this criteria there may be an opportunity 

for funding trail development, particularly associated with the proposed linkage from Sturt Creek Linear Park to Sturt 

Gorge Recreation Reserve. 

7.1 Assistance With Implementation 

7.1.1 Greening Australia 

Greening Australia manage Green Corps, which is a Commonwealth Government youth development 

program offering people aged 17-20 the opportunity to receive quality training while participating in projects 

that contribute to significant environmental and cultural heritage initiatives. Greening Australia also manage 

Youth Conservation Corps, a similar program developed by the South Australian Government. The Flinders 

University site offers a range of activities, from weed removal to trail construction, which would be well-suited 

to either program. Preliminary discussions with Greening Australia have been undertaken, and they have 

indicated an interest in incorporating the University into their future programs. The Youth Conservation Corps 

program runs over a 14 week period whilst the Green Corps has a 6 month timeframe. Initial indications are 

that a Youth Conservation Corps project team could commence as early as February 2005, whilst the earliest 

a Green Corps team could commence would be from start of the 2005/2006 financial year. 

7.1.2 Adelaide Mountain Bike Club 

The Club was responsible for the design and construction of the cross-country trail in Precinct 7, a task which 

they spent over 500 volunteer hours achieving. Their trail design and construction techniques accord with the 

IMBA standards for sustainable trails and avoid clearance of indigenous vegetation wherever possible. The 

Club has expressed an interest in further trail development, in conjunction with weed removal and 

revegetation, and using the site as demonstration to public land managers of sustainable trail development. 

The LMP recommends a two year monitoring period for the recently constructed trail, prior to deciding 

whether to allow further trail development. During that time, weed removal and scattered revegetation should 

be undertaken in proximity to the trail. The Club would be a valuable ally in undertaking such on-ground 

works, as their members are generally young, fit and enthusiastic. 

7.1.3 University Involvement 

The student environmental action group, Ilkari, has undertaken weed control and revegetation work, largely 

within the Main campus and the high-quality Eucalyptus microcarpa Woodland in Precinct 6. Unfortunately, 

the group does not have a strong membership base, probably due in part to the temporary nature of students. 

This group should continue to be supported by the University management, and be encouraged to seek new 

members from the surrounding residential area. If successful, this would provide a relatively stable 

membership base of people who have a direct interest in their local environment. 

Both the School of Population, Geography and Environmental Management, and the School of Biological 

Sciences offer subjects with direct relevance to the management issues confronting the study area. It would 

be opportune for students to gain practical experience through undertaking on-site work as part of their course 

program. 




The Biodiversity and Conservation – Professional Experience subject offered in the third year of the Bachelor 

of Science in Biodiversity and Conservation requires students to undertake a three week work placement in 

the field of biodiversity and conservation, then present a report on their findings. This presents an opportunity 

for students to gain this experience on-campus, through undertaking the work outlined in the management 

actions. For benefit to accrue to maintenance teams it is recommended that the numbers of students involved 

be not less than four, and that work be undertaken within the same precinct each year. This would also 

provide a useful case study for students to document the progress of this work. It is recommended this work 

commence in Precinct Six, where the highest priority for action currently is. Similarly, the Environmental 

Weeds subject offered in the same course should also incorporate a practical component on-campus 

7.2 Implementation Monitoring 

In order to gauge the effectiveness of the LMP in achieving the stated objectives it is necessary to maintain a 

reasonably detailed account of work undertaken, so that the success or otherwise of each action can be recorded for 

future reference. 

7.2.1 Financial 

Records of hours and expense for each action outlined in the LMP should be kept in a centralised records 

system. This will assist University management in forward planning for budgets and staffing requirements, and 

can also be provided to the project partners as part of the commitment required for grant approvals. 

7.2.3 Social 

The increased use and appreciation of the study area by staff, students and the community will be an 

important indicator of the success of the LMP. As there has been no survey of attitudes or opinions that 

current users (and non-users) may have about the study area, it may be difficult to determine a baseline. 

Rather than actively seeking this feedback, it is recommended that the records also contain a register of any 

comments that may be received in relation to the implementation or progress of the LMP. This will be useful in 

gauging which areas are of greatest interest to the site users, and should assist in developing communication 

strategies relating to areas of the LMP such as management actions etc. 

7.3 Medium and Long-term Planning 

The Action Plans provided for each precinct detail the recommended actions, based on the current priorities. 

Future changes to legislation, funding arrangements, public liability requirements, or any other area 

addressed in this Plan, may result in the need to reassess these priorities. Therefore it is recommended that 

the University review the success of the actions against achieving the stated objectives, in 2008-09, as part of 

a future planning process. This timespan since implementation (4 years) will allow a meaningful analysis of 

the results achieved against the plan’s objectives. This can then be used to determine the priorities for the 

following five year period (2010/11-2014/15) to follow the conclusion of this LMP. 

7.2.2 Ecological 

Two types of monitoring are recommended for the study area – site specific and overall site. Some variables, 

such as plant species diversity and the density of each species, should be monitored within small quadrats. 

However, other variables, such as fauna and the use of non-preferred trails, should be monitored across the 

whole site. 

A photopoint survey should be undertaken annually, preferably in spring when many flora species are at their 

optimum. The photopoints should be permanently marked by placing a star dropper in the ground from which 

the photos can be undertaken each year. Measuring change over time can be very effective from viewing 

photos of the same area, which have been taken at various time intervals. This provides a clear visual record 

of the success or failure of each action. It will also be beneficial when re-applying for funding, as proof of onground 

results. 

As well as undertaking monitoring at specific locations, general monitoring for the entire site should also be 

undertaken once a year, preferably in spring. The monitoring should be conducted by generally inspecting the 

site and recording appropriate information 

Attributes that can be monitored across the site include the fauna species utilising the site, and the success of 

the revegetation efforts. This may include recording the survival of the planted vegetation and the total area 

that has been planted each year. Additionally, the trails within the study area should be monitored to 

determine if usage is restricted to formal tracks and for signs of erosion, and weed colonisation. The Adelaide 

Mountain Bike Club is well placed to provide assistance in this task. 

All of this information will give an indication of whether the management actions implemented to improve the 

biodiversity value of the study area are being successful. If these results are not positive, management 

actions can be updated and improved. 


Appendix A 

Flora and Fauna Species Lists, Weed Control Techniques and 

Recommended Revegetation Species Lists



Flora Lists for Flinders University 

Precinct 1 

Conservation significance# 

Species name Common name AUS SA SL 

Acaena novae-zelandiae Biddy-biddy 

Austrostipa sp. Spear-grass 

Callistemon sp. Bottlebrush 

Calostemma purpureum Pink Garland-lily 

Danthonia caespitosa Common Wallaby-grass 

Enchylaena tomentosa var. tomentosa Ruby Saltbush 


Lomandra densiflora Soft Tussock Mat-rush 

Oxalis perennans Native Sorrel 

Pelargonium australe Australian Pelargonium U 

Plantago sp. Plantain 

Rumex sp. Dock 

*Acacia iteaphylla Flinders Ranges Wattle R 

*Acacia longifolia var. sophorae Coastal Wattle 

*Albizia lophantha Cape Leeuwin Wattle 

*Arctotheca calendula Cape Weed 

*Asphodelus fistulosus Onion Weed 

*Avena fatua Wild Oat 

*Brachypodium distachyon False Brome 

*Briza maxima Large Quaking-grass 

*Bromus diandrus Great Brome 

*Echium plantagineum Salvation Jane 

*Ehrharta longiflora Annual Veldt Grass 

*Erodium botrys Long Heron's-bill 

*Euphorbia terracina False Caper 

*Festuca rubra Red Fescue 

*Fraxinus rotundifolia ssp. rotundifolia Desert Ash 

*Fumaria parviflora Small-flower Fumitory 

*Lactuca serriola Prickly Lettuce 

*Malva parviflora Small-flower Marshmallow 

*Medicago sp. Medic 

*Myrsiphyllum asparagoides Bridal Creeper 

*Olea europaea ssp. europaea Olive 

*Oxalis pes-caprae Soursob 

*Pinus halepensis Aleppo Pine 

*Piptatherum miliaceum Rice Millet 

*Poa pratensis Kentucky Blue-grass 

*Romulea rosea var. australis Common Onion-grass 

*Rosa canina Dog Rose 

*Scabiosa atropurpurea Pincushion 

*Sisymbrium orientale Indian Hedge Mustard 

*Solanum nigrum Black Nightshade 

*Sonchus sp. Sow-thistle 

*Sparaxis bulbifera Sparaxis 

*Trifolium sp. Clover 

*Tropaeolum majus Nasturtium 

*Vicia sativa ssp. sativa Common Vetch 

* indicates introduced species 

Conservation Rating Table 

# Conservation rating (Lang & Kraehenbuehl (2004) 

Aus = National status; SA = State status; SL = Southern Lofty, Regional status 

X = Presumed extinct; not recorded for more than 50 years 

E = Endangered ; rare and in danger of becoming extinct 

V = Vulnerable ; rare and at risk from potential threats in the long term 

T = Threatened ; rare and likely to become either endangered or vulnerable 

R = Rare having a low overall frequency, confined to a restricted ranged or scattered sparsely over a wider area 

K = Uncertain ; either threatened or rare but insufficient data for a more precise assessment. 

U = Uncommon ; less common species but not rare 

Q = Not yet assessed but flagged as being of possible significance.




Precinct 2 




Arthropodium strictum Common Vanilla-lily 

Austrostipa scabra ssp. falcata Slender Spear-grass 

Enchylaena tomentosa var. tomentosa Ruby Saltbush 


Themeda triandra Kangaroo Grass 

*Acacia baileyana Cootamundra Wattle 


*Acacia saligna Golden Wreath Wattle 

*Anagallis arvensis Pimpernel 


*Asclepias rotundifolia Broad-leaf Cotton-bush 




*Critesion murinum Barley-grass 




*Gynandriris setifolia Thread Iris 

*Homeria flaccida One-leaf Cape Tulip 

*Hyparrhenia hirta Coolatai Grass 

*Lycium ferocissimum African Boxthorn 


*Marrubium vulgare Horehound 

*Medicago polymorpha var. polymorpha Burr-medic 






*Plantago lanceolata Ribwort 






*Tropaeolum majus Nasturtium 



Precinct 3 



Acacia pycnantha Golden Wattle 

Allocasuarina verticillata Drooping Sheoak 


Austrostipa nodosa Tall Spear-grass 

Callitris sp. Native Pine 


Danthonia sp. Wallaby-grass 




Senna artemisioides ssp. petiolaris Flat-stalk Senna 










*Bromus hordeaceus ssp. hordeaceus Soft Brome 

*Bromus rubens Red Brome 

*Cotoneaster sp. Cotoneaster 


*Cytisus scoparius English Broom 



*Lolium rigidum Wimmera Ryegrass 







*Salvia verbenaca form Wild Sage 



*Sonchus oleraceus Common Sow-thistle 


*Vulpia myuros forma myuros Rat's-tail Fescue 

* indicates introduced species




Precinct 4 



Acacia paradoxa Kangaroo Thorn 


Acaena novae-zelandiae Biddy-biddy 




Austrostipa nitida Balcarra Spear-grass 

Bursaria spinosa Sweet Bursaria 


Carex bichenoviana Notched Sedge U 

Cheilanthes austrotenuifolia Annual Rock-fern 

Convolvulus erubescens Australian Bindweed 

Cyperus vaginatus Stiff Flat-sedge 


Danthonia racemosa var. racemosa Slender Wallaby-grass 

Dianella revoluta var. revoluta Black-anther Flax-lily 

Eucalyptus camaldulensis var. camaldulensis River Red Gum 

Geranium retrorsum Grassland Geranium 

Juncus kraussii Sea Rush 


Microlaena stipoides var. stipoides Weeping Rice-grass 

Olearia ramulosa Twiggy Daisy-bush 



Poa clelandii Matted Tussock-grass 

Poa labillardieri var. labillardieri Common Tussock-grass 

Scaevola albida Pale Fanflower 

Stackhousia monogyna Creamy Candles 


Typha domingensis Narrow-leaf Bulrush 

Vittadinia cuneata Fuzzy New Holland Daisy 



*Allium triquetrum Three-cornered Garlic 






*Briza minor Lesser Quaking-grass 



*Chrysanthemoides monilifera Boneseed 



*Foeniculum vulgare Fennel 


Precinct 4 

Common name 

Species name 

*Fumaria muralis Wall Fumitory 

*Holcus lanatus Yorkshire Fog 








*Phalaris aquatica Phalaris 




*Prunus sp. Plum 





*Senecio pterophorus var. pterophorus African Daisy 




*Taraxacum officinale Dandelion 

*Ulex europaeus Gorse 




AUS SA SL




Precinct 5 







Astroloma humifusum Cranberry Heath 

Austrostipa setacea Corkscrew Spear-grass U 

Callistemon sp. bottlebrush 

Calytrix tetragona Common Fringe-myrtle 


Convolvulus erubescens Australian Bindweed 

Cytisus scoparius English Broom 



Dichanthium sericeum ssp. sericeum Silky Blue-grass V 

Enneapogon nigricans Black-head Grass 


Geijera linearifolia Sheep Bush R 




Lomandra micrantha Small-flower Mat-rush 


Pimelea micrantha Silky Riceflower R 









*Aira caryophyllea Silvery Hair-grass 







*Centaurium erythraea Common Centaury 


*Cytisus scoparius English Broom 


*Foeniculum vulgare Fennel 


*Galium murale Small Bedstraw 

*Gazania linearis Gazania 


Precinct 5 

Common name 

Species name 

*Lathyrus tingitanus Tangier Pea 



*Misopates orontium Lesser Snapdragon 

*Monadenia bracteata 



*Onopordum acanthium ssp. acanthium Scotch Thistle 






*Rumex pulcher ssp. pulcher Fiddle Dock 



*Senecio pterophorus var. pterophorus African Daisy 




*Watsonia meriana cv. Bulbillifera Bulbil Watsonia 



AUS SA SL




Precinct 6 



Acacia paradoxa Kangaroo Thorn 




Bulbine bulbosa Bulbine-lily 



Chrysocephalum semipapposum Clustered Everlasting R 

Convolvulus remotus Grassy Bindweed 

Cullen australasicum Tall Scurf-pea 


Danthonia setacea var. setacea Small-flower Wallaby-grass V 


Dodonaea viscosa ssp. spatulata Sticky Hop-bush 



Gonocarpus elatus Hill Raspwort 

Gonocarpus mezianus Broad-leaf Raspwort 


Juncus subsecundus Finger Rush 


Lomandra multiflora ssp. dura Hard Mat-rush 



Pimelea humilis Low Riceflower 


Poa labillardieri var. labillardieri Common Tussock-grass 

Pultenaea largiflorens Twiggy Bush-pea 

Scaevola albida Pale Fanflower 

Senecio sp. Groundsel 



Velleia paradoxa Spur Velleia U 



Wahlenbergia luteola Yellow-wash Bluebell 



*Aira sp. Hair-grass 









Precinct 6 

Common name 

Species name 

*Cynosurus echinatus Rough Dog's-tail Grass 

*Dactylis glomerata Cocksfoot 


*Ehrharta calycina Perennial Veldt Grass 



*Gazania linearis Gazania 

*Genista monspessulana Montpellier Broom 


*Hypericum perforatum St John's Wort 



*Malva nicaeensis Mallow Of Nice 





*Onopordum acanthium ssp. acanthium Scotch Thistle 


*Phalaris aquatica Phalaris 



*Prunus sp. Plum 



*Rumex pulcher ssp. pulcher Fiddle Dock 






*Ulex europaeus Gorse 





AUS SA SL




Precinct 7 




Acaena sp. Sheep's Burr 



Astroloma humifusum Cranberry Heath 


Austrostipa nodosa Tall Spear-grass 

Compositae sp. Daisy Family 


Danthonia racemosa var. racemosa Slender Wallaby-grass 

Danthonia setacea var. setacea Small-flower Wallaby-grass 

Dodonaea viscosa Sticky Hop-bush 



Gonocarpus elatus Hill Raspwort 



Kennedia prostrata Scarlet Runner 






Wahlenbergia luteola Yellow-wash Bluebell 

Wahlenbergia stricta ssp. stricta Tall Bluebell 


*Aira sp. Hair-grass 

*Allium triquetrum Three-cornered Garlic 






*Briza minor Lesser Quaking-grass 



*Cynara cardunculus Artichoke Thistle 

*Cyperus involucratus 


*Ehrharta calycina Perennial Veldt Grass 







*Monadenia bracteata 

Precinct 7 

Common name 

Species name 




*Pennisetum clandestinum Kikuyu 



*Populus nigra Poplar 









*Vulpia myuros Fescue 

*Zantedeschia aethiopica White Arum Lily 



AUS SA SL



Fauna List 

Species Common Name Conservation Status 

AUS SA 

Mammals Tachyglossus aculeatus Short-beaked Echidna 

Isoodon obesulus Southern-brown Bandicoot V unlikely due to lack of habitat 

Trichosurus vulpecula Common Brushtail Possum 

Macropus fuliginosus Western Grey Kangaroo 

Pseudocheirus peregrinus Common Ringtail Possum 

Nyctophilus geoffroyi Lesser Long-eared Bat 

Tadarida australis White-striped Freetail-bat 

Chalinolobus gouldii Gould's Wattled Bat 

Chalinolobus morio Chocolate Wattled Bat 

Vespadelus regulus Southern Forest Bat 

Vespadelus darlingtoni Large Forest Bat 

Hydromys chrysogaster Water Rat 

Rattus fuscipes Bush Rat 

Rattus lutreolus Swamp Rat 

Phascolarctos cinereus Koala R 

*Felis catus Feral Cat 

*Lepus capensis Brown Hare 

*Mus musculus House Mouse 

*Oryctolagus cuniculus Rabbit 

*Rattus rattus Black Rat 

*Vulpes vulpes Fox 

Birds Dromaius novaehollandiae Emu 

Coturnix pectoralis Stubble Quail 

Accipiter cirrhocephalus Collared Sparrowhawk ? 

Accipiter fasciatus Brown Goshawk 

Aquila audax Wedge-tailed Eagle 

Circus approximans Swamp Harrier 

Circus assimilis Spotted Harrier ? 

Elanus axillaris Black-shouldered Kite 

Haliastur sphenurus Whistling Kite 

Hieraaetus morphnoides Little Eagle 

Falco berigora Brown Falcon 

Falco cenchroides Nankeen Kestrel 

Falco longipennis Australian Hobby 

Falco peregrinis Peregrine Falcon R 

Falco subniger Black Falcon 

Fulica atra Eurasian Coot 

Gallinula tenebrosa Dusky Moorhen 

Gallinula ventralis Black-tailed Native-hen 

Porzana fluminea Australian Spotted Crake 

Porzana tabuensis Spotless Crake 

Turnix varia Painted Button-quail V ? 

Vanellus miles Masked Lapwing 

Vanellus tricolor Banded Lapwing 

Geopelia placida Peaceful Dove 

Ocyphaps lophotes Crested Pigeon 

Phaps Chalcoptera Common Bronzewing 


AUS SA 

Phaps Elegans Brush Bronzewing 

Cacatua galerita Sulphur-crested Cockatoo 

Cacatua roseicapilla Galah 

Cacatua sanguinea Little Corella 

Calyptorhynchus funereus Yellow-tailed Black-Cockatoo V 

Nymphicus hollandicus Cockatiel 

Glossopsitta concinna Musk Lorikeet 

Melopsittacus undulatus Budgerigar 

Birds Neophema elegans Elegant Parrot 

Neophema chrysostoma Blue-winged Parrot V 

Platycercus elegans Crimson Rosella 

Platycercus eximius Eastern Rosella ? poss out of range 

Psephotus haematonotus Red-rumped Parrot 

Trichoglossus haematodus Rainbow Lorikeet 

Cacomantis flabelliformis Fan-tailed Cuckoo 

Chrysococcyx basalis Horsfield's Bronze-Cuckoo 

Chrysococcyx lucidus Shining Bronze-Cuckoo R 

Cuculus pallidus Pallid Cuckoo ? 

Ninox novaeseelandiae Southern Boobook 

Tyto alba Barn owl 

Podargus strigoides Tawny Frogmouth 

Aegotheles cristatus Australian Owlet-nightjar 

Dacelo novaeguineae Laughing Kookaburra 

Merops ornatus Rainbow Bee-eater 

Cormobates leucophaeus White-throated Treecreeper 

Malurus cyaneus Superb Fairy-wren 

Pardalotus punctatus Spotted Paradalote 

Pardalotus striatus Striated Pardalote 

Acanthiza apicalis Inland Thornbill ? 

Acanthiza chrysorrhoa Yellow-rumped Thornbill 

Acanthiza lineata Striated Thornbill 

Acanthiza nana Yellow Thornbill 

Acanthiza pusilla Brown Thornbill 

Calomanthus pyrrhopygius Chestnut-rumped Heathwren V 

Sericornis frontalis White-browed Scrubwren 

Smicrornis brevirostris Weebill 

Acanthagenys rufogularis Spiny-cheecked Honeyeater 

Acanthorhynchus tenuirostris Eastern Spinebill 

Anthochaera carunculata Red Wattlebird 

Anthochaera chrysoptera Little Wattlebird 

Giliciphila melanops Tawny-crowned Honeyeater 

Lichenostomus chrysops Yellow-faced Honeyeater 

Lichenostomus penicillatus White-plumed Honeyeater 

Lichenostamus virescens Singing Honeyeater 

Manorina melanocephala Noisy Miner 

? = unsure if it would occur on site * = introduced species R = Rare V = Vulnerable ? = unsure if it would occur on site * = introduced species R = Rare V = Vulnerable



Fauna List 


AUS SA 

Melithrepus brevirostris Brown-headed Honeyeater 

Melithrepus lunatus White-naped Honeyeater 

Phylidonyris novaehollandiae New Holland Honeyeater 

Epthianura albifrons White-fronted Chat 

Epthianura aurifrons Orange Chat ? 

Melanodryas cucullata Hooded Robin 

Microeca fascinans Jacky Winter 

Petroica goodenovii Red-capped Robin ? 

Petroica multicolor Scarlet Robin 

Pomatostomus superciliosus White-browed Babbler 

Daphoenositta chrysoptera Varied Stittela 

Colluricincla harmonica Grey Shrike-thrush 

Falcunculus frontatus Crested Shrike-tit V 

Pachycephala pectoralis Golden Whistler 

Pachycephala rufiventris Rufous Whistler 

Grallina cyanoleuca Magpie-lark 

Myiagra inquieta Restless Flycatcher 

Rhipidura albiscapa Grey Fantail 

Rhipidura leucophrys Willie Wagtail 

Artamus cyanopterus Dusky Woodswallow 

Artamus personatus Masked Woodswallow ? 

Artamus superciliosus White-browed Woodswallow ? 

Cracticus torquatus Grey Butcherbird 

Gymnorhina tibicen Australian Magpie 

Strepera versicolor Grey Currawong 

Coracina novaehollandiae Black-faced Cuckoo-shrike 

Lalage tricolor White-winged Triller ? 

Corvus coronoides Australian Raven 

Corvus mellori Little Raven 

Zoothera lunulata Bassian Thrush 

Hirundo neoxena Welcome Swallow 

Petrochelidon ariel Fairy Martin 

Petrochelidon nigricans Tree Martin 

Zosterops lateralis Silvereye 

Acrocephalus australis Australian Reed-Warbler 

Cincloramphus cruralis Brown Songlark 

Megalurus gramineus Little Grassbird 

Cisticola exilis Golden-headed Cisticola R ? 

Mirafra javanica Horsfield's Bushlark ? 

Dicaeum hirundinaceum Mistletoebird 

Anthus novaeseelandiae Richard's Pipit 

Neochmia temporalis Red-browed Finch 

Stagonopleura bella Beautiful Firetail R 

Stagonopleura guttata Diamond Firetail V ? 

Taaeniopygia guttata Zebra Finch ? 


AUS SA 

*Alauda arvensis Eurasian Skylark 

*Carduelis carduelis European Goldfinch 

*Carduelis chloris European Greenfinch 

*Columba livia Rock Dove 

*Passer domesticus House Sparrow 

*Streptopelia chinensis Spotted Turtle-Dove 

*Sturnus vulgaris Common Starling 

*Turdus merula Eurasian Blackbird 

Reptiles Ctenophorus decresii Tawny Dragon 

Nephrurus milii Barking Gecko 

Christinus marmoratus Marbled Gecko 

Aprasia striolata Lined Worm-lizard ? 

Pygopus lepidopodus Common Scaly-foot 

Bassiana duperreyi Eastern Three-lined Skink ? 

Egernia cunninghami Cunningham's Skink V unlikely due to lack of habitat 

Egernia whitti White's Skink 

Hemiergis decresiensis Three-toed Earless Skink 

Hemiergis peronii Four-toed Earless Skink ? 

Lampropholis guichenoti Garden Skink 

Lerista Bouginvillii Bougainville's Skink 

Lerista dorsalis Four-toed Slider ? 

Menetia greyii Dwarf Skink 

Morethia obscura Mallee Snake-eye ? 

Tiliqua scincoides Eastern Bluetongue 

Pseudechis porphyriacus Red-bellied Black Snake 

Pseudonaja textilis Eastern Brown Snake 

Suta flagellum Little Whip Snake 

Amphibians Litoria ewingii Brown Tree Frog 

Crinea signifera Brown Froglet 

Limnodynastes tasmaniensis Marbled Frog 

Neobatrachus pictus Painted Frog 

Pseudophryne bibronii Brown Toadlet 

? = unsure if it would occur on site * = introduced species R = Rare V = Vulnerable ? = unsure if it would occur on site * = introduced species R = Rare V = Vulnerable



Recommended Weed Control Techniques 

Prior to commencing any weed control, personnel with botanical knowledge should always evaluate the affected area, 

to ensure that appropriate weed control methods are used. This is to ensure that species which are difficult to identify 

or cryptic - such as some of the native grasses, lilies and other groundcovers - are not affected. 

The ultimate goal of weed control within the site is to allow the indigenous woodland vegetation associations to 

become re-established. This can be aided through the use minimal disturbance weed control methods in areas of 

moderate to high biodiversity value, which will encourage natural regeneration. 

There are a variety of weed control methods that can be utilised to effectively control the different weed species that 

occur within the Flinders University site. Weed control methods include cutting and swabbing, stump injection, drilling 

and filling, spot spraying and hand pulling. The technique for undertaking each method effectively and safely is 

detailed below: 

Cut and Swab 

• Cut off all stems as low as possible using a chainsaw or pruning saw, secateurs or long-handled loppers. The 

cut must be horizontal so that the herbicide rests on the cut area while being absorbed, rather than running 

down the side of the stem. 

• Stumps will be left in the ground so as to not disturb the soil and to help retain the soil in place i.e. reduce the 

likelihood of soil erosion. 

• Remove all stems from the stump, so that no active (or green) branches/shoots remain, no matter how small 

they are. 

• Liberally swab all cut surfaces immediately with the herbicide mixture. This must be done preferably within half a 

minute, or immediately if possible. The cut surface can not be allowed to dry out, otherwise the herbicide will be 

much less effective. Use a paintbrush, swabber or squeeze bottle (laboratory) to apply the herbicide mixture. 

Add a dye to the herbicide mixture that will help indicate where swabbing has already been done. 

• The herbicide mixture to be used when swabbing will be a Garlon: diesel mix at 1ml Garlon to 30ml diesel. 

• The tissues that take up and move the poison are immediately under the bark layer, so concentrate on applying 

the poison around the outer rim of the stump. 

• Follow up work may be required. If the stumps resprout which can be common with some species, then cut and 

swab or spray the new regrowth with the herbicide. 

• The most effective time of the year to cut and swab plants is when they are actively growing, which varies 

between species. 

Stump Injection 

• For large and medium sized trees and shrubs with a large stump or lignotuber the following “Stump Injection” 

method is recommended. It can be used in conjunction with the cut and swab method to get a higher dose of 

herbicide into the plant, and to get a more thorough application of herbicide. 

• After the plant has been cut and swabbed, make regular extra cuts into the remaining stump and any exposed 

roots with a hammer and chisel to expose the sapwood. Immediately fill chisel marks with the herbicide mixture 

in the squeeze bottle. This provides more surface area for the herbicide to penetrate, and ensures a good dose 

of herbicide. Glyphosate (75 – 100% concentration) is more suited to this method when the tree still has 

actively growing branches remaining. In the cut and swab method where all the actively growing branches have 

been removed, and the stump swabbed with Garlon and diesel, the same herbicide mix can be used for stump 

injection. This method used in conjunction with cut and swab should provide a much better kill rate when 

compared to the cut and swab method by itself. 

Drill and Fill 

• Drill a steeply angled hole into the plant's cambium layer (where sap flows just beneath the bark layer) with a 

cordless drill, using a 10mm drill bit. 

• The holes should be as close to the base of the plant as possible, and it is essential for the hole to be steeply 

angled into the cambium otherwise the herbicide will not be absorbed into the sap flow. 

• Immediately after the hole has been drilled, it should be filled with concentrated Glyphosate 500. Syringes 

(without the needle) or squeeze bottles can be used to administer the herbicide into the hole. 

• Holes are drilled every 2.5-5cm until the base of the plant has been circled. 

• Follow up work may be required. If the plant resprouts which can be common with some species, then the 

process needs to be repeated. 

Frilling 

Frilling is often used on large multi-stemmed trees such as olives. It can be used in conjunction with other methods 

such as drill and fill or cut and swab. Frilling is undertaken by deeply slashing the stems at an oblique angle 

particularly near the root stem junction. The cut surfaces are immediately (within 10 seconds) swabbed with herbicide 

mixture using a flat paint brush. All twigs and sprouts are removed from the base of the tree so that no green leaves 

remain. It is also advisable to remove soil from the base of the trunk to about 2-5 cm below ground level and deeply 

slash the stem at that level. 

Spraying 

• The most effective time of the year to spray is when the plant is actively growing. 

• Look for native plants and cover with plastic bags or sheeting while spraying. If there are too many native plants 

amongst the weeds then this method should not be used. 

• Always read the label on the herbicide container, follow the instructions and wear protective clothing. Dilute the 

mixture as recommended. Add a dye to the herbicide mixture that will help to indicate where spraying has 

already been done. 

• If spraying near creeks or other water bodies, do not spray herbicide in or near the water, because it can have a 

negative effect on aquatic fauna such as frogs. In such cases using Roundup Biactive or Weedmaster Duo is 

more desirable because it has less of an impact on the aquatic fauna. It is preferable to use other more 

accurate methods such as cutting and swabbing along creeklines. 

• Surfactants can also be used when spraying plants such as Bridal Creeper which have a waxy leaf surface. A 

surfactant (e.g. Pulse Penetrant) can be added to the herbicide mix which will increase the uptake of the poison 

through the waxy leaf surface. Surfactants should not be used on or near plants growing in water as they are 

suspected of affecting frogs. 

• Where weeds have narrow vertical leaves, spraying might result in herbicide running off or drifting onto nontarget 

plants. In this situation, wipe on the herbicide mixture with a weed wand, sponge or wick applicator. 

• To increase the effectiveness of the herbicide whilst spraying large tussocks of grass, the grass can be slashed 

and then left to re-grow for several weeks. The regrowth can then be sprayed. 

Hand Pulling 

• Hand pulling of smaller plants is easiest in the wetter months of the year when the soil is soft and the seedlings 

are much easier to pull out. 

• Seedlings: take hold of the plant at ground level and pull. If you pull at any point higher on the stem it may break 

and the plant will then require swabbing with herbicide. 

• Small woody plants: Take hold of the stem at ground level and gently rock the plant back and forth until it comes 

away cleanly. 

• For species that have a bulb, such as sparaxis or watsonia, a screw driver can be used to gently lift the bulb out 

of the ground. 

• If possible place both feet or fingers on either side of the plant when pulling out. This helps to keep the soil in 

place and avoids unnecessary disturbance of the soil.



Revegetation List for Flinders University 

Local indigenous plant species that could be utilised in revegetation projects at Flinders University 

Creekline areas - Eucalyptus camaldulensis Woodland vegetation association 

Family Scientific name Common name 

Conservation rating 

AUS SA SL 

LEGUMINOSAE Acacia pycnantha Golden Wattle 

LEGUMINOSAE Acacia retinodes var. retinodes Swamp Wattle 

(swamp form) 

CYPERACEAE Baumea juncea Bare Twig-rush 

PITTOSPORACEAE Bursaria spinosa Christmas Bush 

MYRTACEAE Callistemon sieberi River Bottlebrush U 

CUPRESSACEAE Callitris preissii Native Pine 

CYPERACEAE Carex appressa Tall Sedge 

CYPERACEAE Carex bichenoviana Notched Sedge U 

CYPERACEAE Carex breviculmis Short-stem Sedge 

CYPERACEAE Cyperus gymnocaulos Spiny Flat-sedge 

CYPERACEAE Cyperus tenellus Tiny Flat-sedge 

CYPERACEAE Cyperus vaginatus Stiff Flat-sedge 

LILIACEAE Dianella revoluta var. revoluta Black-anther Flax-lily 

SAPINDACEAE Dodonaea viscosa ssp. spatulata Sticky Hop-bush 

MYRTACEAE Eucalyptus camaldulensis var. River Red Gum 

camaldulensis 

LEGUMINOSAE Hardenbergia violacea Native Lilac 

JUNCACEAE Juncus kraussii Sea Rush 

JUNCACEAE Juncus pallidus Pale Rush 

JUNCACEAE Juncus subsecundus Finger Rush 

LEGUMINOSAE Kennedia prostrata Running Postman U 

MALVACEAE Lavatera plebeia Australian Hollyhock U 

MYRTACEAE Leptospermum lanigerum Silky Tea-tree U 

MYRTACEAE Leptospermum myrsinoides Heath Tea-tree 

MYRTACEAE Melaleuca decussata Totem-poles 

GRAMINEAE Poa labillardieri var. labillardieri Common Tussock-grass 

GOODENIACEAE Scaevola albida Pale Fanflower 

CYPERACEAE Schoenus apogon Common Bog-rush 

Majority of site - Eucalyptus microcarpa Woodland Vegetation Association 

Family Scientific name Common name Conservation rating 

AUS SA SL 

LEGUMINOSAE Acacia acinacea Gold Dust Wattle 

LEGUMINOSAE Acacia paradoxa Kangaroo Thorn 

LEGUMINOSAE Acacia pycnantha Golden Wattle 

CASUARINACEAE Allocasuarina muelleriana Slaty Oak-bush 

CASUARINACEAE Allocasuarina verticillata Drooping Sheoak 

GRAMINEAE Aristida behriana Brush Wire-grass U 

GRAMINEAE Austrostipa nodosa Tall Spear-grass 

GRAMINEAE Austrostipa curticoma Short-crest Spear-grass 

PITTOSPORACEAE Bursaria spinosa Christmas Bush 

CUPRESSACEAE Callitris preissii Native Pine 

GRAMINEAE Danthonia caespitosa Wallaby grass 

LILIACEAE Dianella revoluta var. revoluta Black-anther Flax-lily 

SAPINDACEAE Dodonaea viscosa ssp. spatulata Sticky Hop-bush 

MYRTACEAE Eucalyptus microcarpa Grey Box U 

LEGUMINOSAE Hardenbergia violacea Native Lilac 

LEGUMINOSAE Kennedia prostrata Running Postman U 

LILIACEAE Lomandra densiflora Soft Tussock Mat-rush U 

LILIACEAE Lomandra multiflora ssp. dura Hard Mat-rush 

COMPOSITAE Olearia ramulosa Twiggy Daisy-bush U 

PITTOSPORACEAE Pittosporum phylliraeoides var. Native Apricot R 

microcarpa 

GRAMINEAE Poa labillardieri var. labillardieri Common Tussock-grass 

LEGUMINOSAE Pultenaea largiflorens Twiggy Bush-pea 

GOODENIACEAE Scaevola albida Pale Fanflower 

GRAMINEAE Themeda triandra Kangaroo Grass 

COMPOSITAE Vittadinia blackii Narrow-leaf New Holland 

Daisy

Appendix B 

Consultation Summary




Organisation Key Issues Funding/Support 

Mitcham Council (MC) 

Patawalonga Catchment Water 

Management Board (PCWMB) 

Office for Recreation and Sport 

(ORS) 

Pest Plant Control/Removal 

• Sent letter to FUSA in 2002 to undertake control of pest plant infestations, in accord with s.51 of the Animal and Plant Control Act, 1986 

• Would like LMP to follow similar format to Council template, by stating actions to be undertaken over 5 year timeframe, will provide a measure of 

success 

• Advocate use of ‘Bradley method’ – focus on high quality remnant vegetation before tackling heavily weed-infested areas, and remove small infestations 

of weeds before they spread 

Bushfire Prevention 

• Need to concentrate along boundary lines, where risk to life and property is greatest 

• Minimum of 5m wide firebreak is desirable (and won’t require NVC consent), however 20m would be optimal 

• Firebreak does not need to remove entire trees, just trim limbs to 4m above ground, and remove understorey shrubs. 

Recreation Opportunities 

• MC recently acquired riparian land along Sturt River but cannot complete the link to the Recreation Reserve – keen to route trail through SW corner of 

FUSA land to achieve this 

Scope of LMP 

• Consider change of name and scope of LMP (for whole of site, rather than undeveloped areas alone) so that it is inclusive of all aspects of site 

management 

• Keen for greater input from academic staff so that the Plan uses available expertise 

• Inclusion of on-site land management ‘practicals’ in curriculum seen as important 

Catchment Management 

• Not supportive of GPT installation at two identified locations, consider detention basins to be more suited 

• Would like native grasses re-established as part of weed removal/revegetation program 

• Supportive of innovative practice – eg. ASR, which could be used on Central Park lake 

• See activity in developed areas as critical to overall site management 

Recreation Opportunities 

• Noted recent acquisition of riparian land along Sturt River by MC. 

• Possibility of linkage from Sturt River to Bellevue Heights, via south gully 

• FUSA must decide whether they can accept increased level of public access 

• Investigate opportunity to link with Yurrebilla (Greater Mt Lofty Parks) as funding is available for associated works 

• FUSA is mentioned in State MTB Plan as an existing Mountain Bike (MTB) riding area 

• Noted FUSA policy previously allowed access for MTB events but not casual usage 

• Keen to support initiatives to provide formal access trails for MTB riders 

• May also support trails for walking only but this recreational activity is well catered for in metro Adelaide and therefore would not be able to attract as 

much funding (as for MTB) 

• Mitcham Council currently investigating formal MTB access to several Council reserves, may be interested in proposals for MTB trails on FUSA land 

• Planning SA and Mitcham Council are trying to extend Sturt River Linear Park to Sturt Gorge – opportunity for linkage with FUSA 

• Review of Sturt Gorge Management Plan is underway – may be matters of interest to FUSA 

• Transport SA may have interest in supporting trail development if it can be demonstrated that trails will lessen demand for vehicle trips to campus by 

staff and students 

No financial assistance is currently offered for land 

management but would like to do so in future. 

Able to offer advice on preparing LMP, and are 

keen to review it in draft form 

Will consider funding works with long-term 

timeframe if they have demonstrable catchment 

benefits 

Funding applications need to emphasise these 

benefits. 

Could advise on funding possibilities after 

reviewing draft LMP. 

Partner with other agencies –Planning SA, ORS, 

UFBP. 

Community Recreation and Sports Facilities Grant 

Two categories – community ($20-50K) and 

regional ($20-200K). 

Current lack of formal MTB opportunities in metro 

Adelaide could make this eligible for regional 

funding.




Organisation Key Issues Funding/Support 

Ilkari 

(FUSA Student Environmental 

Group) 

Adelaide Mountain Bike Club 

(AMBC) 

• Focus of their work is in Precinct 6 

• Have requested FUSA to control Coolatai Grass 

• Membership of 90 however low participation rate, with 3-4 stalwarts undertaking majority of work 

• Received funding through Envirofund and UFBP, generally less than $5000. 

• Impressed with work of AMBC in trail construction 

• Have previously used FUSA for Cross Country and Downhill competitions, primarily in Aleppo and Native Flora Precincts 

• Granted permission to develop a sustainable Cross Country trail in Precinct 7, and AMBC volunteers have spent 500 hours constructing it and assisting 

with weed removal. 

• Trail allows access to areas that were previously difficult to access, and therefore relatively unmanaged 

• Trail adheres to IMBA standards for “Building Better Trails”, with areas of native vegetation avoided, gradients not exceeding 10% and course design 

that has minimal need for skidding. 

• Hoping to use trail as demonstration site for Public land managers (NPWS, etc) to understand how trails can be designed to have minimal 

environmental impact 

• Keen to develop new trails in other parts of campus, and assist with environmental rehabilitation. 

Metropolitan (MFS) and • Noted Mitcham Council have a Bushfire Prevention Plan and Committee 

Country Fire Service (CFS) 

Region One and Headquarters 

• Country Fires Act empowers Council to issue enforcement notices to landowners and does not prevent civil action relating to fire damage – liability issue 

for landowners & asset managers (eg. ETSA on Ash Wednesday) 

• CFS can act as arbitrator on matters relating to ‘clean up’ enforcement notices 

• Produced guidelines on firebreak and access trail construction, which should be adhered to 

• MFS would require sealed roads for access and are likely to fight fire from ridge rather than try to access gullies. 

Urban Forests Program (UFP) • Have previously supported Ilkari with funding. 

• UFP are implementing the One Million Trees program that aims to reinstate a series of Urban Forests through the Adelaide region. 

• UFP would consider providing funding for planning, implementation and engaging the community in the revegetation aspects of this program. 

• UFP could also consider the funding of vegetation management works in the high quality vegetation areas in partnership with other groups eg. Ilkari 

Native Vegetation Council • Native Vegetation Act has exemptions, including track construction, that do not require a permit for vegetation clearance 

Wood-turning groups • Marion and Mitcham Seniors Centres are interested in Olive timber 

• SA Wood Group are interested in Olive timber 

Neil Hunter, Timber harvest 

contractor 

• Met Ben Clark and Steve Hoare on site and confirmed the Aleppo Pines were too small and access too problematic for them to have any commercial 

value at present. May be viable in 20 years time, when size has increased sufficiently. 

Key ally in undertaking on-ground work. 

Trail Building and general environmental 

rehabilitation 

Keen to assist with the above, if FUSA will support 

increased MTB opportunities. 

Keen to review draft LMP 

Control burn of piled woody weeds 

Keen to review draft LMP 

One Million Trees revegetation using local 

species 

Biodiversity Program grant assessments are 

every 6 weeks 

Will remove timber from site, once contacted of its 

availability.

Appendix C 

Legislative and Policy Review



Legislation and Policy Summary 

There are a number of Acts, policy documents and guidelines that have the potential to affect the future management 

of FUSA land. This section aims to highlight those of direct relevance and considerations for future management. 

Commonwealth 

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act 1999 

The Act promotes the conservation of biodiversity by providing strong protection for a number of listed species and 

communities in Commonwealth areas, including listed threatened species and ecological communities, listed migratory 

species and listed marine species (refer http://www.deh.gov.au/epbc/ ). 

Migratory bird species 

No bird species listed as migratory were observed during the survey. The majority of bird species listed as migratory 

are waterbird species that occur in coastal areas. It is unlikely that any of these species would utilise any of the 

habitats on site. 

Several bird species, which belong to families listed as migratory under the EPBC Act, 1999 would occur on site. 

Families listed as migratory include Falconidae (Falcons) and Accipitridae (Eagles and Hawks). No species from listed 

families were observed on site, however, it is likely that some of these species would rely on the area for habitat. 

Flora Species 

No flora species listed as Endangered or Vulnerable under the EPBC Act, 1999 were observed on site. It is unlikely 

that any plant species listed under this legislation would be found on site. 

Fauna Species 

No fauna species listed as Endangered or Vulnerable under the EPBC Act, 1999 were observed on site. It is unlikely 

that any fauna species listed under this legislation would be found on site. 

Therefore, it is highly unlikely any proposed actions arising from the LMP will require a referral under this legislation. 

State 

Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988 

This Act provides for the protection and preservation of the Aboriginal heritage. Whilst we are unaware of any sites of 

Aboriginal heritage being recorded on the site, it is important that the requirements of the Act are complied with in the 

event that any items or sites of Aboriginal heritage are found. This includes notifying the relevant Minister of such 

discoveries, refer http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_act/aha1988164/ 


This Act provides for the control of animals and plants for the protection of agriculture and the environment and for the 

safety of the public. Species that are ‘proclaimed’ should be controlled by the property owner. There are several plant 

species that were observed within the project area that are listed as proclaimed under the Act, these include Bridal 

Creeper, Salvation Jane and Boneseed. If an attempt is not made to control proclaimed plant species, the Animal and 

Plant Control Commission or delegated authority (in this case Mitcham Council) has the power to enforce their control 

by either issuing fines or undertaking the control work and billing the land owner (refer 

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_act/aapcpaopa1986683/ ). 


The Act provides for the prevention, control and suppression of fires, and the protection of life and property in fire and 

other emergencies. Section 40 requires private landowners to take reasonable steps to protect property on the land 

from fire and to prevent or inhibit the outbreak of fire on the land, or the spread of fire through the land. It also permits 

the relevant authority (in this case Mitcham Council) to issue enforcement ‘clean-up’ notices. The Act does not prevent 

individuals from taking civil action against land owners or asset managers in the event they suffer damage or loss as a 

result of fire (refer http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_act/cfa1989182/ ) 

Development Act 1993 and Development Regulations 1993 

The Act provides for the proper, orderly and efficient planning and development within South Australia. This is 

achieved through a variety of legislative instruments, including the accompanying Development Regulations and the 

Development Plans that provide direction for each local government area. 

Under the Development Regulations, any excavation or filling exceeding 9m 2 in total, or fencing in the Hills Face Zone 

(Precincts 6 and 7) is classed as development, and requires Council approval to proceed. The removal or damage to 

significant trees across the remaining precincts also requires Council approval. 

Environment Protection Act 1993 

The Act promotes the principles of ecologically sustainable development and binds everyone within the State to a duty 

of care to avoid environmental harm. The Act promotes improved decision making on matters that have environmental 

issues. Specific objectives that are relevant to this study include: 

• that proper weight should be given to both long and short term economic, environmental, social and equity 

considerations in deciding all matters relating to environmental protection, restoration and enhancement; 

• to ensure that all reasonable and practicable measures are taken to protect, restore and enhance the quality of 

the environment having regard to the principles of ecologically sustainable development, 

• to prevent, reduce, minimise and, where practicable, eliminate harm to the environment- 

• to apply a precautionary approach to the assessment of risk of environmental harm and ensure that all aspects of 

environmental quality affected by pollution and waste (including ecosystem sustainability and valued 

environmental attributes) are considered in decisions relating to the environment; and 

• to promote industry and community education and involvement in decisions about the protection, restoration and 

enhancement of the environment; 

Schedules 21 and 22 list “Activities of Environmental Significance” and require EPA approval to proceed. The Act is 

administered by the Environmental Protection Agency, who should be contacted in regard to any proposal that may 

have an environmental impact that could be prevented (refer 

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_act/epa1993284/ ) 

National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 

The Act provides for the establishment and management of reserves for public benefit and enjoyment and the 

conservation of wildlife in a natural environment. The Act prohibits the “taking” of prescribed species of native plant (ie 

endangered, vulnerable or rare species listed under Schedules 7, 8 and 9 of the Act), and protected animals, or their 

eggs (which includes most native birds, mammals and reptiles). Refer 

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_act/npawa1972247/



Legislation and Policy Summary 


The Act aims to provide incentives and assistance to landowners in relation to the preservation and enhancement of 

native vegetation and to control the clearance of native vegetation. Precincts 4 to 7 are comprised of areas of native 

vegetation and are therefore covered by this Act. 

Clearance of any native vegetation is prohibited under the Native Vegetation Act, 1991 unless there is an exemption 

that covers the clearance, such as for firebreaks, or the Native Vegetation Council grants specific consent. It is 

recommended that the Native Vegetation Council be contacted if plans for new access trails are developed, and will 

require removal or disturbance to any native vegetation (refer 

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_act/nva1991194/ ). 

Draft Recreational Trails Strategy 2002-2010 

In 1999 the State Government allocated $6.2 million over 5 years to develop and maintain recreational trails across 

South Australia. The strategy focuses on non-motorised recreation and lists a number of key directions, including 

conservation of natural areas and ecologically sustainable trail development and design. The South Australian 

Recreation Trails Coordinating Committee was established for a number of reasons, including the provision of 

recommendations to State and Local Government on resource allocation and implement the Strategy. If FUSA is 

interested in providing increased recreational opportunities, through trail development, there may be the opportunity to 

access funding through the Office for Recreation and Sport. 

Regional and Local 

Patawalonga Catchment Water Management Plan 2002-2007 

The Plan addresses the 230km 2 of rural and urban land that constitutes the Patawalonga Catchment. Under the Water 

Resources Act, the Patawalonga Catchment Water Management Board (PCWMB) is responsible for implementing the 

Plan. The Plan sets out specific strategies, actions and targets to address priority areas of catchment management, 

including: 

• Health of aquatic receiving waters; 

• State of urban watercourses and pollution sources; 

• Rural watercourse health and catchment biodiversity; 

• Alternative water supply options (including aquifer storage and recovery), and 

• Floodplain management. 

The activities of the Board are funded by the Catchment Levy however they often seek partnership with other agencies 

when supporting projects of a larger scale. 

Mitcham (City) Development Plan 

The Development Plan is established under the Development Act, and is the primary land-use planning document at 

the local government level. The Plan delineates zones and has a number of objectives and principles for each, to 

encourage appropriate development. The majority of the FUSA land is within the Institutional Zone, which also 

incorporates the Flinders Medical Centre. This zone allows primarily for research and medical activity. Precincts 6 and 

7 are within the Hills Face Zone, which has the primary objective of conserving the natural character of the Adelaide 

Hills Face. The principles for this zone encourage the preservation and re-establishment of native vegetation. 

Whilst both zones list a number of uses as non-complying, it is unlikely that any proposed actions arising from the LMP 

will fall into this category. 

State Mountain Bike Plan for South Australia -Mt Lofty Ranges Region 2001-2005 

The Plan was established in response to growing demand for mountain bike riding opportunities in the Mt Lofty 

Ranges, and the lack of legal areas for this to occur. A key strategy of the Plan was the provision of a network of 

sustainable and legitimate mountain bike riding opportunities, with a charitable trust established to fund this process. A 

FUSA was identified as an existing riding area, which could be advantageous in developing a case for funding future 

trail development, if this is identified as an action in the LMP.

Appendix D 

Budget Estimator


Flinders University Land Management Plan 

2004/2005 Task Pest Plant control Revegetation Labour 

Miscellaneous Total 

Herbicide Equipment Subtotal Per tube No. Tubes Subtotal Hours $/hour Subtotal Per unit No. Units Subtotal 

Precinct 1 Remove Aleppo Pines from Parcel 1.1 $0 $10,000 $10,000 $0 0 $ - 200 $40 $8,000 $0 0 $ - $18,000 

Install signage adjacent Parcel 1.1 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 $0 $350 1 $350 $350 

Remove Olives from riparian zone, working downstream $60 $0 $60 $0 0 $0 32 $35 $1,120 $0 0 $0 $1,180 

Revegetate Parcel 1.1 $0 $0 $0 $3 1100 $3,300 60 $35 $2,100 $0 0 $0 $5,400 

Revegetate riparian zone (where Olives were removed) $0 $0 $0 $3 550 $1,650 32 $35 $1,120 $0 0 $0 $2,770 

Close informal access trails that are causing erosion –using 

permapine barriers to prevent access and/or revegetation along $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 $0 $200 15 $3,000 $3,000 

trail 

Precinct 2 Remove proclaimed pest plant and environmental weed species, 

focusing on olives and wattles. 

$60 $0 $60 $0 0 $0 48 $35 $1,680 $0 0 $0 $1,740 

Remove Coolatai grass using slash and spray technique $20 $0 $20 $0 0 $0 16 $35 $560 $0 0 $0 $580 

Install signage adjacent Coolatai grass infestation that explains the 

environmental weed problem and removal process 

$0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 $0 $350 1 $350 $350 

Precinct 3 Remove isolated pest plants $10 $0 $10 $0 0 $0 16 $35 $560 $0 0 $0 $570 

Precinct 4 Ringbark Aleppo Pines in identified parcel $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 16 $35 $560 $0 0 $0 $560 

Precinct 5 

Remove pest plants, particularly Olives, in Parcel 5.1 (20 metre 

wide fuel reduction zone adjacent the residential boundary). 

$60 $0 $60 $0 0 $0 60 $35 $2,100 $0 0 $0 $2,160 

Remove infestations of Broom (cut and swab) and Coolatai grass 

(slash and spray) from identified parcels 

$30 $0 $30 $0 0 $0 40 $35 $1,400 $0 0 $0 $1,430 

Remove Monadenia from identified parcel $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 80 $35 $2,800 $0 0 $0 $2,800 

Ringbark or remove isolated Aleppo Pines (depending on 

accessibility) 

$0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 24 $35 $840 $0 0 $0 $840 

Precinct 6 Remove pest plants, particularly Olives, in Parcel 6.1 (20 metre 

wide fuel reduction zone adjacent the residential boundary). 

$35 $0 $35 $0 0 $0 40 $35 $1,400 $0 0 $0 $1,435 

Remove pest plant and environmental weed species from Parcel 

6.2 

$50 $0 $50 $0 0 $0 80 $35 $2,800 $0 0 $0 $2,850 

Precinct 7 Remove infestation of Coolatai grass from identified parcels using 

slash and spray technique 

$20 $0 $20 $0 0 $0 32 $35 $1,120 $0 0 $0 $1,140 

Drill and fill large Olives, or remove where possible, 

in Parcel 7.1 (20 metre wide fuel reduction zone 

$60 $0 $60 $0 0 $0 80 $35 $2,800 $0 0 $0 $2,860 

adjacent the northern precinct boundary). 

Totals $405 $405 $4,950 $856 $565 $30,960 $3,700 $40,015 

Tube costs from Rawlinsons 

The planting of tubes does not include a tree guard, stake or mulching



2005/2006 Task Pest Plant control Revegetation Labour 



Precinct 1 Remove Aleppo Pines from Parcel 1.2 $0 $10,000 $10,000 $0 0 $0 200 $40 $8,000 $18,000 

Follow-up control for Olives along riparian zone 

$25 $0 $25 $0 0 $0 24 $35 $840 $0 0 $0 $865 


Revegetate riparian zone (adjacent Parcel 1.1) 

$0 $0 $0 $3 500 $1,500 40 $35 $1,400 $0 0 $0 $2,900 

Precinct 2 Follow-up control work for proclaimed pest plant and 

native environmental weeds. $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 40 $35 $1,400 $0 0 $0 $1,400 

Follow-up control work for Coolatai grass $10 $0 $10 $0 0 $0 16 $35 $560 $0 0 $0 $570 

Scattered revegetation in areas of pest plant and weed 

removal $0 $0 $0 $3 300 $900 20 $35 $700 $0 0 $0 $1,600 

Precinct 3 Follow-up control work on isolated pest plants $10 $0 $10 $0 0 $0 16 $35 $560 $0 0 $0 $570 

Precinct 4 Drill and fill Olives in Parcel 4.1 $25 $0 $25 $0 0 $0 40 $35 $1,400 $0 0 $0 $1,425 

Precinct 5 Remove Flinders Ranges Wattle adjacent southern 

boundary $10 $0 $10 $0 0 $0 32 $35 $1,120 $0 0 $0 $1,130 

Follow-up control work for Aleppo Pine, Broom, 

Coolatai grass and Monadenia $50 $0 $50 $0 0 $0 60 $35 $2,100 $0 0 $0 $2,150 

Remove pest plant and environmental weed species, 

from Parcel 5.2 (adjacent eastern precinct boundary) 

$50 $0 $50 $0 0 $0 100 $35 $3,500 $0 0 $0 $3,550 

Precinct 6 Follow-up weed control in Parcels 6.1 and 6.2. $25 $0 $25 $0 0 $0 100 $35 $3,500 $0 0 $0 $3,525 

Remove pest plant and environmental weed species 

from Parcel 6.3 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 80 $35 $2,800 $0 0 $0 $2,800 

Cut and swab poplars adjacent stormwater outlet $50 $0 $50 $0 0 $0 40 $35 $1,400 $0 0 $0 $1,450 

Precinct 7 

Allowance for enginner and ecologist to inspect site 

$0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 10 $120 $1,200 $0 0 $0 $1,200 

Construct access trail from Precinct 2 to Offler Avenue. 

$0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 100 $40 $4,000 $18,000 1 $16,200 $20,200 

Follow-up weed control in Parcel 7.1 $25 $0 $25 $0 0 $0 40 $35 $1,400 $0 0 $0 $1,425 

Remove pest plants and environmental weed species 

from Parcel 7.2 $25 $0 $25 $0 0 $0 32 $35 $1,120 $0 0 $0 $1,145 


Totals $305 $305 $7,800 $1,110 $795 $41,200 $16,200 $65,505 

Trail construction based on approximately 900m of new track. Construction cost is estimated at $18,000 per kilometre and is inclusive of equipment hire - based on Parks Victoria rate guide. 

Trail from confluence of creeks may involve some excavation work into hillside, which has not been costed. Includes allowance of 10 hours (total) for ecologist and civil engineer to walk the site.






Precinct 1 Remove Aleppo Pines from Parcel 1.3 $0 $10,000 $10,000 $0 0 $0 200 $40 $8,000 $18,000 

Follow-up control for Olives along riparian zone $25 $0 $25 $0 0 $0 16 $35 $560 $0 0 $0 $585 


Revegetate riparian zone (adjacent Parcel 1.2) $0 $0 $0 $3 500 $1,500 40 $35 $1,400 $0 0 $0 $2,900 

Precinct 2 Follow-up control work for proclaimed pest plant and environmental weeds. 

$25 $0 $25 $0 0 $0 16 $35 $560 $0 0 $0 $585 


Revegetation along riparian zone in Parcel 2.1 $0 $0 $0 $3 600 $1,800 50 $35 $1,750 $0 0 $0 $3,550 



Scattered revegetation in Parcel 4.1 $0 $0 $0 $3 300 $900 30 $35 $1,050 $0 0 $0 $1,950 

Precinct 5 Follow-up control work for Aleppo Pine, Broom, Coolatai grass and Monadenia 

$50 $0 $50 $0 0 $0 40 $35 $1,400 $0 0 $0 $1,450 


Precinct 6 Follow-up weed control in Parcels 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 $30 $0 $30 $0 0 $0 80 $35 $2,800 $0 0 $0 $2,830 

Remove pest plant and environmental weed species from Parcel 6.4 $60 $0 $60 $0 0 $0 110 $35 $3,850 $0 0 $0 $3,910 

Construct sediment detention basin below eastern stormwater outlet $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 

Precinct 7 Follow-up weed control in Parcel 7.1 and 7.2 $25 $0 $25 $0 0 $0 40 $35 $1,400 $0 0 $0 $1,425 

Remove pest plants and environmental weed species from Parcel 7.3 $25 $0 $25 $0 0 $0 40 $35 $1,400 $0 0 $0 $1,425 

Revegetate Parcel 7.3 $0 $0 $0 $3 300 $900 32 $35 $1,120 $0 0 $0 $2,020 

Totals $320 $10,000 $10,320 $9,000 $936 $600 $33,760 $0 $53,080






Precinct 1 Remove Aleppo Pines from Parcel 1.4 $0 $10,000 $10,000 $0 0 $0 200 $40 $8,000 $0 0 $ - $18,000 



Precinct 2 

Follow-up control work for proclaimed pest plant and 

native environmental weeds. 

$25 $0 $25 $0 0 $0 50 $35 $1,750 $0 0 $0 $1,775 


Revegetation along riparian zone in Parcel 2.2 $0 $0 $0 $3 250 $750 30 $35 $1,050 $0 0 $0 $1,800 

Precinct 3 Follow-up control work on isolated pest plants $20 $0 $20 $0 0 $0 60 $35 $2,100 $0 0 $0 $2,120 



Precinct 5 

Drill and fill (or remove depending on accessibility) 

olives in Parcel 5.3 

$60 $0 $60 $0 0 $0 80 $35 $2,800 $0 0 $0 $2,860 

Follow-up control work in Parcel 5.1 and 5.2 $50 $0 $50 $0 0 $0 60 $35 $2,100 $0 0 $0 $2,150 

Develop access trail adjacent the creek, connecting 

Precinct 6 and the shared-use path 

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 90 $40 $3,600 $18,000 1 $16,200 $19,800 

Precinct 6 Follow-up weed control in Parcels 6.1 to 6.4 $50 $0 $50 $0 0 $0 80 $35 $2,800 $0 0 $0 $2,850 

Remove pest plant and environmental weed species 

from Parcel 6.5 

$60 $0 $60 $0 0 $0 80 $35 $2,800 $0 0 $0 $2,860 


Remove pest plants and environmental weed species 

from Parcel 7.4 

$60 $0 $60 $0 0 $0 80 $35 $2,800 $0 0 $0 $2,860 


Totals $435 $435 $6,600 $1,196 $605 $43,310 $16,200 $66,545 

Trail construction cost based on approximately 450m of new track from existing access track to proposed trail in Precinct 5.








Revegetate riparian zone (adjacent Parcel 1.4) 

$0 $0 $0 $3 400 $1,200 50 $35 $1,750 $0 0 $0 $2,950 

Precinct 2 Revegetation along riparian zone in Parcel 2.3 $0 $0 $0 $3 300 $900 40 $35 $1,400 $0 0 $0 $2,300 




Precinct 5 Follow-up control work in Parcel 5.1 to 5.3 $60 $0 $60 $0 0 $0 80 $35 $2,800 $0 0 $0 $2,860 




6.6 $60 $0 $60 $0 0 $0 100 $35 $3,500 $0 0 $0 $3,560 

Develop recreation access trail adjacent creek, in conjunction with 

removal of pest plants and environmental weed species in riparian 

zone. $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 100 $40 $4,000 $50 450 $22,500 $26,500 


Remove pest plants and environmental weed species from Parcel 

7.5 $60 $0 $60 $0 0 $0 80 $35 $2,800 $0 0 $0 $2,860 


Totals $365 $365 $8,100 $1,116 $535 $40,560 $22,500 $71,525 

Trail cost estimate based on $50 linear metre, with approximately 450 metres from the existing access track to Precinct 5, where it will adjoin the proposed vehicle access track









Precinct 2 Revegetation along riparian zone in Parcel 2.4 $0 $0 $0 $3 300 $900 40 $35 $1,400 $0 0 $0 $2,300 




Precinct 5 

Drill and fill (or remove depending on 


$60 $0 $60 $0 0 $0 80 $35 $2,800 $0 0 $0 $2,860 

Follow-up control work in Parcel 5.1 to 5.3 $50 $0 $50 $0 0 $0 60 $35 $2,100 $0 0 $0 $2,150 



6.6 

$60 $0 $60 $0 0 $0 100 $35 $3,500 $0 0 $0 $3,560 


Remove pest plants and environmental weed species from Parcel 

7.6 

$60 $0 $60 $0 0 $0 80 $35 $2,800 $0 0 $0 $2,860 


Totals $415 $415 $6,600 $1,016 $495 $36,560 $0 $43,575

Appendix E 

Significant Tree Audit

Connell Wagner Pty Ltd 

ABN 54 005 139 873 

124 Waymouth Street 

Adelaide 

South Australia 5000 Australia 

Telephone: +61 8 8231 4766 

Facsimile: +61 8 8231 4765 

Email: cwadl@conwag.com 

www.conwag.com 

Flinders University South Australia 

Significant Tree Audit for 

Bedford Park Campus 

February 2004

Land Management Plan 

Significant Tree Report 

Flinders University 

South Australia 

Table of Contents 

Section 

Page 

1. Executive Summary 

Connell Wagner was commissioned by Flinders University to undertake a Significant Tree Audit of the 

‘developed’ areas and the site boundaries of its Bedford Park campus. The audit was undertaken in September 

2003 and involved walking the site with a GPS system to record relevant data for each significant tree in eight 

nominated zones within the agreed study area (a plan is provided in Appendix A). 

1. Executive Summary 1 

2. Legislative Requirements 2 

2.1 Significant Tree Controls 2 

2.2 Local Planning Controls 2 

2.3 Circumstances for Significant Tree Removal 3 

3. Audit Process and Findings 3 

3.1 Methodology 4 

3.2 Species Identification 4 

4. Management of Significant Trees 6 

4.1 General Operational Guidelines 6 

4.2 Conclusion 6 

Appendix A 

Plans of Bushfire Prone Area and Study Area 

Appendix B 

Cadastral Base Plan Overlay and Excel Spreadsheet 

Appendix C 

Operational Guidelines 

Document Control 

Rev No Date Revision Details Typist Author Verifier Approver 

1 19 January 2004 Draft to PBJ for review FIS/BKC FIS/BKC PBJ PBJ 

2 3 February 2004 PBJ comments incorporated BKC BKC PBJ PBJ 

3 26 February 2004 Location of trees verified by TH BKC BKC PBJ PBJ 

This report is arranged into four sections, summarised as follows: 

Section 2: 

Section 3: 

Section 4: 

Section 5: 

A summary of the legislative background to the protection of native vegetation, and in 

particular “significant trees” as defined under the Development Act. It also provides a 

summary of what constitutes a “tree-damaging activity”; the intent of the planning 

controls over significant trees and circumstances which allow for the removal or the 

undertaking of tree-damaging activities to occur. 

A summary of the intent and requirements of the Native Vegetation Act, as it applies to 

that portion of land located within the Hills Face Zone, is also provided. 

This section provides a summary of the Audit Process, detailing the extent of the 

significant tree audit within identified precincts for the site and the methodology and 

equipment used to undertake the audit. 

This section provides a summary of the audit findings including species identification and 

the location of significant trees within the built-up areas of the Flinders University site. 

This section provides general operational guidelines for the management of the 

significant trees located on the Flinders University site. 

This report provides Flinders University with: 

• information relating to the location, size, condition and species of the identified significant trees; 

• guidelines for the management of these trees, and general considerations for future development; 

• an understanding of the legislative requirements and obligations of the University in relation to the 

significant trees on its site, 

• quick-reference operational guidelines for field staff relating to significant trees, and 

• information on each significant tree that can be easily cross-referenced, either by spreadsheet or a 

cadastral base plan. 

A person using Connell Wagner documents or data accepts the risk of: 

a) Using the documents or data in electronic form without requesting and checking them for accuracy against the original hard copy version; and 

b) Using the documents or data for any purpose not agreed to in writing by Connell Wagner. 

⏐ FEBRUARY 2004 ⏐ PAGE 1





2. Legislative Requirements 

2.1 Significant Tree Controls 

In response to community and Local Government concerns regarding the removal of mature trees across 

metropolitan Adelaide the Development Act was amended in 2001 to specifically protect “significant trees” from 

indiscriminate removal. Specifically, these controls seek to: 

• conserve significant trees which provide important aesthetic and environmental benefit including those that 

make an important contribution to the character or amenity of the local area, bio-diversity, provision of 

habitat for fauna, and conservation of original and remnant habitat; 

• preserve trees that are indigenous to the local area or are listed under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 

as a rare or endangered native species 1 ; 

• preserve trees that represent an important habitat for native fauna, is part of a wildlife corridor of a remnant 

area of native vegetation; and 

• preserve the notable visual elements to the landscape of the local area. 

The legislation also acknowledges that conservation of significant trees should occur in balance with achieving 

appropriate development with development, including groundwork activities such as excavation, filling and 

sealing of surrounding surfaces, occurring in a manner with the minimum adverse affect on the health or root 

system of a significant tree. 

2.1.1 Definitions and Clarifications 

The Development Regulations 1993, Part 6A, subregulation (1), clause (a), defines a “significant tree” as: 

trees within the designated area that have a trunk circumference of 2.0 metres or more, or, in the case of trees with 

multiple trunks, that have trunks with a total circumference of 2.0 metres or more and an average circumference of 625 

millimetres or more, measured at a point 1.0 metre above natural ground level. 

(a) the killing or destruction of a tree; or 

(b) the removal of a tree; or 

(c) the severing of branches, limbs, stems or trunk of a tree; or 

(d) the ringbarking, topping or lopping of a tree; or 

(e) any other substantial damage to a tree. 

This also includes any other act or activity that causes any of the foregoing to occur but does not include the 

following: 

• maintenance pruning that is not likely to affect adversely the general health and appearance of a tree. 

• work undertaken under Part 5 of the Electricity Act 1996, relating to tree-trimming around powerlines. 

• work undertaken in operation of an order under Section 299 of the Local Government Act 1999. 

2.2 Local Planning Controls 

Under the Mitcham (City) Development Plan, Consolidated 11 September 2003 (herein referred to as the 

“Development Plan”), the Flinders University site is located within two zones. The majority of the site (and the 

entire study area for the purposes of this audit) is within the Institutional Zone. The approval of the Mitcham 

Council is required prior to undertaking a tree-damaging activity to any “significant tree” within this zone. 

As noted above, the portion of the site east of the electricity easement is within the Hills Face Zone. As per 

Section 4, sub-section (2) of the Native Vegetation Act, the clearance of native vegetation in this zone requires 

the approval of the Native Vegetation Council. There are exceptions to this, listed under Regulation 3; these 

include removal for purposes of firebreak creation and protection of life and property from damage. Where the 

removal of singular trees (rather than general clearance of native vegetation) is sought, and they meet the 

“significant” criteria, it is appropriate to seek development approval from Mitcham Council 2 . 

For the purposes of subregulation (1)(a) the designated area is the whole of Metropolitan Adelaide, other than a 

few select zones (none of which occur on the Flinders University site). 

It should be noted however, that in accordance with subregulation (6), the above does not apply under the 

following circumstances: 

(6) Subregulation (1) does not apply to – 

(a) a tree that may not be cleared without the consent of the Native Vegetation Council under the Native 

Vegetation Act 1991; or 

(b) a tree that falls within a class of plants specified by the Governor under Part 4 of the Animal and Plant 

Control (Agricultural Protection and Other Purposes) Act 1986; or 

(c) a tree planted as part of a woodlot, orchard or other form of plantation created for the purpose of growing 

and then harvesting trees or any produce. 

This has two implications for Flinders University: 

• the portion of the site east of the electricity easement is located within the Hills Face Zone. Removal of any 

native vegetation in this area, that falls outside the Exemptions listed in Regulation 3 of the Native 

Vegetation Regulation, requires the prior consent of the Native Vegetation Council, and 

• Aleppo Pines (Pinus halepensis) and Olives (Olea europaea) are proclaimed pest plants within the Mitcham 

Council under Part 4 of the Animal and Plant Control Act, and can therefore be removed without 

development approval. 

In accordance with the Part 1, clause 4 of the Development Act 1993, a “tree damaging activity” is defined as: 

1 There are no tree species listed as rare or endangered under the EPBC Act (Commonwealth) or NPW Act (State) on the 

Bedford Park campus 

2 Pers. Comm. Jacob Kochergen of Mitcham Council confirmed that both the “Significant Tree” component of the 

Development Act 1993 and the Native Vegetation Act 1991 are applicable to the Hills Face Zone of the Adelaide 

Metropolitan Region with neither having precedence over the other. In instances where singular trees meet “significant” 

criteria, it is advisable to apply for Development Approval through Mitcham Council, as the process is likely to be quicker. 






2.3 Circumstances for Significant Tree Removal 

Whilst the intent of the significant tree legislation is to preserve significant trees where possible, it is 

acknowledged that under certain circumstances there may be a need to remove a significant tree or undertake a 

tree-damaging activity. 

In accordance with the Council-wide Principles of Development Control, a tree may be removed under the 

following circumstances: 

• the tree is diseased and its life expectancy is short; 

• the tree represents an unacceptable risk to public or private safety; 

• the tree is within 20 metres of a residential, tourist accommodation or habitable building and is a bushfire 

hazard within a Bushfire Prone Area 3 ; or 

• the tree is shown to be causing or threatening to cause substantial damage to a substantial building or 

structure of value. 

However, it must be demonstrated that: 

• all other reasonable remedial treatments and measures have been determined to be ineffective; and/or 

• all reasonable alternative development options and design solutions have been considered to prevent 

substantial tree-damaging activity occurring. 

Other tree-damaging activities, such as severing of branches and limbs, may occur (in addition to the above) 

under the following circumstances: 

• the work is required for the removal of dead wood, treatment of disease, or is in the general interests of the 

health of the tree; or 

• the aesthetic appearance and structural integrity of the tree is maintained; or 

• it is demonstrated that all reasonable alternative development options and design solutions have been 

considered to prevent substantial tree-damaging activities occurring. 

3 Flinders University land that is in the Bushfire Prone Area is south of the residential area to the west, the southern border 

of the Ring Road and continues in a direct line to the adjacent residential boundary on the western side (see Appendix A 

for plan). It is noted that this area was not included as part of the study area for this audit. 






3. Audit Process and Findings 

3.1 Methodology 

3.1.1 Defining the Study Area 

At the project inception meeting in August 2003, it was agreed that the study area be contained to the 

‘developed’ areas of the site and along the site boundaries of South Road, Sturt Road and Bellevue Drive. This 

decision was based on the likelihood that any future development that may require “tree damaging activity” to be 

undertaken is most likely to be located in this area. Table 3.1 provides a brief description for each of the eight 

zones within the study area, the location of trees and species of significant trees identified (refer to Appendix A 

for site plan). Zone 5, which contains “The Flats” portion of Flinders Medical Centre, was included in the survey 

on the basis that some of the trees could have the potential to impact on Flinders University land. 

3.1.2 Data Collection 

The audit was conducted during September 2003 and involved a project team member walking the site to 

identify the significant trees and record relevant information using a handheld GPS unit. This information 

included trunk circumference, species and any general comments such as the health of the tree, actual or 

potential damage to assets, etc. The location of each tree was automatically logged via the GPS receiver and 

given an identification number. This enabled the tree locations to be overlaid onto an existing cadastral base 

plan of the site, which is intended to enable ease of use for field maintenance staff (A hard copy of this plan is 

provided in Appendix B). 

In total 206 significant trees were identified, comprising of seven species, described in detail below. It is noted 

that there were a number of anomalies regarding the elevation of trees 4 . This can be attributed to interference 

from tree canopies and buildings that occasionally prevent full satellite reception. The ground location (easting 

and northing) has a higher level of accuracy but can also be susceptible to the same problems 5 . 

3.2 Species Identification 

Whilst the Bedford Park campus has a range of native and exotic species only a few have reached the 

“significant” size, these are noted on Table 3.1 overleaf: 

Table 3.1 – Significant Tree Species 

Scientific Name Common Name Brief description 

Eucalyptus 

camaldulensis 

River Red Gum Widespread along watercourses in mainland Australia, 

indigenous to site. Trunk base has rough bark that becomes 

smooth higher up. Can grow to 35m and mature specimens 

have habit of dropping branches in hot weather. 

Eucalyptus 

citriodora 

Eucalyptus 

cladocalyx 

Eucalyptus 

globulus 

Eucalyptus 

leucoxylon 

Eucalyptus 

microcarpa 

Eucalyptus 

sideroxylon 

Fraxinus 

rotunidifolia 

Platanus 

orientalis 

Lemon-scented 

Gum 

Sugar Gum 

Tasmanian Blue 

Gum 

(South Australian) 

Blue Gum 

Grey Box 

(Red) Ironbark 

Ash 

Plane 

Indigenous to Eastern States. Smooth white-barked tree up 

to 30m high. Leaves have strong citronella odour when 

crushed. 

Indigenous to SA but not the site. Can grow to 35m height, 

with shaft-like trunk and several long main branches. 

Indigenous to Tasmania and wettest regions of Victoria. Can 

grow to 70m height with tall, straight trunk. 

Indigenous to site. Can grow to 30m height, with a slender 

smooth-barked trunk. 

Indigenous to site. Can grow to 25m height, with grey fibrous 

bark reaching to primary branches. 

Indigenous to Great Dividing Range. Can reach 30m height, 

distinguished by furrowed, rough bark and grey leaves. 

Introduced species. Can grow to 20m height, distinguished 

by furrowed bark and multi-toothed leaves. 

Introduced species. Can grow to 40m height, with a tall 

smooth-barked trunk that has a ‘mottled’ appearance. 

Pyrus sp. Pear Introduced species. 

Quercus Robur Common Oak Introduced species. Deciduous tree that can grow to 40m 

height, distinguished by furrowed bark, leaves and 

spreading crown. 

Robinia 

pseudoacacia 

False Acacia 

Introduced species. Deciduous tree that can grow to 20m 

height with a spreading crown. Has habit of ‘suckering’. 

Salix babylonica Willow Introduced species. Can grow to 30m height, distinguished 

by pendulous “drooping” crown. 

4 For this reason, the listed elevations should be used as a guide only. It is recommended to use the listed eastings and 

northings to locate particular trees on the ground, as these measurements have a higher degree of accuracy. Elevations 

regarded as inaccurate are highlighted in the Excel spreadsheet. 

5 The initial audit included some tree locations that were considerably different to the aerial photographs. To correct these 

anomalies, a surveyor revisited the site and took measurements from known site features and then manually corrected the 

spreadsheet and cadastral plan. 

Schinus areira Pepper Tree Introduced species. Can grow to 30m height, distinguished 

by pendulous “drooping” crown and small red berries. 

There are likely to be a number of Olive trees (Olea europaea) that meet the significant size requirements, however they are located 

outside the study area for the purpose of this exercise. As a listed species in Mitcham Council (under s.4 of the Animal and Plant Control 

Act) along with Aleppo Pines, they are not protected by the Development Act. 






Table 3.1 – Summary of Study Area and Audit Findings 

Zone Characteristics Distributions of Trees Species and No. of Significant Trees 

1 Sporting 

Grounds 

Numerous sport ovals and associated buildings, such as a sports pavilion 

Trees existed on all boundaries of the ovals, including a strip of trees between the lower 

and upper ovals adjacent the sports pavilion. Thirty-one Sugar Gums identified as 

‘significant’ existed on Transport SA road reserve adjacent the western boundary fence 

along Main South Road. 

River Red Gum (34) 

Lemon-scented Gum (3) 

Sugar Gum (31) 

2 Sturt Campus Education buildings, including a library, ASM School and associated carparking. 

Recreation areas include a creek and oval 

River red gums are the predominant significant tree in this area, being found around the 

ovals, on the northern side of the Sturt Library and between the A.S.M. School and 

Bellevue Drive adjacent the creek. 


Lemon-scented Gum and Tasmanian Blue Gum (1) 

3 Student 

accommodation 

Predominantly consists of student housing, a childcare facility and university 

hall. Construction is currently underway at the southern end of this area 

There were few significant trees identified within this area, which is predominantly 

student housing. A childcare facility and a university hall are also present. 

Construction of additional accommodation is being undertaken at the southern end. 


Lemon-scented Gum and 

Grey Box (4 each) 

Oak (1) 

4 Future 

Development 

Open land to south of student accommodation with no structures existing within 

this area other than a house in the southeastern corner. 

All but one of the significant trees within this area are Grey Box. The Aleppo Pine forest 

forms the southern boundary of this area. 

Grey Box (22) 

Blue Gum (1) 

5 The Flats Accommodation for patients of the Flinders Medical Centre (NB. This is outside 

the area Flinders University responsibility however some of the trees have 

potential to impact on FUSA land). 

Most of the significant trees in this area were located in a gully in the northeastern 

section. One large tree existed near the junction of Flinders Drive and Ring Road. 

Blue Gum (10) 

Pepper tree (1) 

6 Northern Main 

Campus 

Education buildings comprise the majority of this area with an expansive carpark 

at the eastern end. 

The quadrangles and area fringing Central Park have been landscaped and contain a 

variety of significant trees 

Blue Gum and Plane (3) 

Lemon-scented Gum, Ironbark, Sugar Gum, 

Ash, Eucalypt and Swamp Oak (1) 

7 Central Park 

and Carpark 2 

There are no buildings within this area. A carpark is located at the south-eastern 

end and a dam at the north-eastern end. 

Central Park has a number of groves that contain significant trees. The Carparking 

areas also have a number of trees, however none of those in Carpark 2 were significant 

and Carpark 3 was not surveyed. 

Lemon-scented Gum and 

Willow (4) 

Sugar Gum (3) 

River Red Gum, Grey Box and Elm (2) 

Carob and Pear (1) 

8 Southern Main 

Campus 

Contains buildings, carparks, undeveloped land and construction is also 

currently occurring in the south-western corner. 

The quadrangles and area fringing Central Park have been landscaped and contain a 

variety of significant trees. 

River Red Gum and False Acacia (3) 

Blue Gum and Plane (2) 






4. Management of Significant Trees 

4.1 General Operational Guidelines 

It is recognised that trees require occasional maintenance, such as pruning, to minimise the risk of damage to 

life or property. As detailed in Section 2, there are a number of scenarios where “tree-damaging activities” are 

permitted and do not require development approval. 

If there are concerns over the health of the significant tree, and it is a potential threat to life or property, it is 

advisable to contact the Mitcham Council for advice on possible solutions. For a “tree damaging activity” to be 

undertaken on a significant tree, Council is likely to require the opinion of a qualified arborculturalist, ecologist or 

botanist prior to making a decision. The cost for this service may need to be borne by the University. Operational 

guidelines have been included as Appendix C; these are intended to allow for easy reference by field staff. 

In the case of an emergency, it is permissible to undertake a “tree-damaging activity” on a significant tree 

provided that it is for the purpose of protecting life or property. The activity must be undertaken to cause the 

minimum amount of damage to the tree, and the landowner must apply for development approval as soon as 

practicable after the event (no more than 4 weeks). Exemptions apply to work undertaken under Part 5 of the 

Electricity Act 1996, relating to tree-trimming around powerlines, and also in operation of an order under Section 

299 of the Local Government Act 1999. 

It is worth noting that much of the campus has not been audited, therefore it would be prudent to assess the size 

of individual trees prior to undertaking work, to ensure they are not inadvertently damaged or removed in breach 

of the legislation. Likewise, the areas that have been audited contain a considerable number of trees that may 

reach significant size in the future, therefore it is recommended that individual trees are assessed prior to 

undertaking work that may impact upon them. 

There are a considerable number of trees located adjacent to the boundaries of Flinders University that are 

significant or have the potential to reach that size in future. Where these have potential to impact on Flinders 

University property, it would be advisable to monitor their condition to allow appropriate maintenance to be 

undertaken, thus minimising the potential risk of damage. 

4.2 Conclusion 

Significant trees are located throughout the Bedford Park campus, and are predominantly remnant River Red 

Gums or other natives that have been planted since the University’s establishment in 1963. These trees form an 

important component of the campus’ character, as they provide a visual relief from the built form as well as a 

pleasant environment for students and staff alike. Their role as wildlife habitats and part of the region’s 

biodiversity is also of significance. 

With minimal interference, many of these trees should continue to fulfil these roles for some time to come. 

Where significant trees are required to be removed, for safety or development reasons, replacement plantings 

featuring appropriate, and where possible indigenous, species should occur to ensure the character of the 

campus is not diminished. 


Appendix A 

Plans of Bushfire Prone Area and Study Area

Appendix B 

Cadastral Base Plan Overlay and Excel Spreadsheet

Appendix C 

Operational Guidelines



Significant Tree Audit Study Area Bushfire Prone Area 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 6 

8 

7



Spreadsheet 

ID Zone Species North East Elevation (AHD) Circumference Notes Trunk 1 (m) Trunk 2 (m) Trunk 3 (m) 

1 3 river red gum 6122126 278667.7 79.14 3.4 

2 2 river red gum 6122161 278655.3 86.57 2.15 

3 2 river red gum 6122235 278599.1 73.69 2.1 

4 2 river red gum 6122223 278591.5 76.81 2 

5 2 river red gum 6122241 278593.2 74.27 2 

6 2 sugar gum 6122352 278607.5 71.49 2.1 

7 2 river red gum 6122376 278597.2 72.65 2 

8 2 river red gum 6122403 278598.3 20.77 2.4 2 trunks 1.6 0.8 

9 2 river red gum 6122391 278595 72.23 2 

10 2 river red gum 6122421 278597 71.08 2.2 

11 2 river red gum 6122417 278596.2 15.3 2.8 

12 2 Tasmanian blue gum 6122416 278626.4 75.84 2.5 bag 2 

13 2 lemon-scented gum 6122432 278695.8 17.69 2 

14 2 river red gum 6122287 278730.7 76.54 2.4 

15 2 river red gum 6122286 278757.8 18.09 2.2 

16 2 river red gum 6122284 278730.8 71.03 2.6 

17 2 river red gum 6122270 278755.6 57.97 2.6 


19 2 river red gum 6122250 278875.9 65.42 2.4 

20 2 river red gum 6122204 278837.8 43.57 3.2 

21 2 river red gum 6122230 278809.2 21.84 2.5 


23 2 river red gum 6122188 278846.3 75.72 2.7 

24 2 river red gum 6122192 278854.9 86.27 4 

25 2 river red gum 6122191 278858.8 72.49 3 

26 2 river red gum 6122181 278860.2 76.44 4.5 

27 2 river red gum 6122188 278835.8 19.67 2 

28 2 river red gum 6122181 278874.4 31.55 2.2 

29 2 river red gum 6122195 278865.6 25.78 2.2 

30 2 river red gum 6122183 278842.7 68.66 3 

31 2 river red gum 6122175 278852.5 80.63 7 3 trunks, creek bed 3 2.5 1.5 

32 2 river red gum 6122171 278846.6 76.14 2 

33 2 river red gum 6122163 278843.4 82.03 2 creek bed 

34 2 river red gum 6122168 278881.9 87.21 2 


36 2 river red gum 6122146 278881.1 82.39 3 

37 2 river red gum 6122139 278883.1 47.98 4.5 

38 2 river red gum 6122145 278901.7 56.89 2.3 

39 2 river red gum 6122140 278836.6 -0.76 3 

40 2 river red gum 6122132 278900.3 42.11 3.6 

41 2 river red gum 6122147 278847.9 82.39 3.5 creek bed 

42 2 river red gum 6122151 278853.5 82.79 2.5 creek bed 

43 2 river red gum 6122144 278863.7 57.34 2 creek bed 

44 2 river red gum 6122115 278900.8 85.76 4.2 

45 3 river red gum 6122100 278900.4 84.45 3.8 

46 3 river red gum 6122052 278911.1 97.62 2.6



Spreadsheet 


47 3 river red gum 6122057 278912.1 97.59 2.1 

48 3 river red gum 6122018 278913.9 105.15 2.3 

49 3 river red gum 6121954 278895.2 109.49 3 2 trunks 1.9 1.1 

50 3 grey box 6121972 278816.2 104.75 2.6 

51 3 grey box 6122006 278805.2 99.81 2.8 

52 3 grey box 6121990 278752.2 95.51 5 2 trunks 2.8 2.2 

53 3 grey box 6121999 278825.2 28.79 2.6 

54 3 river red gum 6122140 278753.9 87.89 2.2 potential root impact to road 

55 3 oak 6121966 278421.3 76.82 2.9 

56 3 lemon-scented gum 6121887 278387.3 14.17 2.2 2 trunks 1.3 0.9 

57 3 lemon-scented gum 6121888 278396.7 81.92 2.5 



60 1 river red gum 6122028 278402.5 60.51 2 

61 1 river red gum 6122018 278402.1 66.51 3.1 

62 1 river red gum 6122007 278391.9 61.28 2 

63 1 river red gum 6122015 278382.2 70.54 2.2 

64 1 river red gum 6122019 278374.7 37.85 2.7 

65 1 river red gum 6122039 278358.3 63.97 3.1 

66 1 river red gum 6122093 278320.7 63.42 3.1 

67 1 lemon-scented gum 6122092 278241 55.5 2.1 

68 1 river red gum 6122177 278107.6 52.56 3.6 

69 1 river red gum 6122404 278337.5 62.24 2.7 

70 1 river red gum 6122402 278347.4 61.08 2.25 

71 1 river red gum 6122387 278370 63.73 2.6 

72 1 river red gum 6122388 278377.5 59.91 2.4 

73 1 river red gum 6122387 278394.4 64.91 2.4 


75 1 river red gum 6122343 278380.3 67.86 2.4 

76 1 river red gum 6122299 278387.6 66.53 2 

77 1 river red gum 6122227 278400.5 63.72 2 

78 1 river red gum 6122221 278398.5 68.71 2.1 

79 1 river red gum 6122174 278400.3 62.5 4.3 

80 1 river red gum 6122388 278404.1 64.72 2 

81 1 river red gum 6122396 278407.6 65.42 2.1 

82 1 river red gum 6122399 278415.4 66.6 2.4 

83 1 river red gum 6122363 278376.5 3.23 2.3 

84 1 river red gum 6122404 278429.1 67.01 2.8 

85 1 river red gum 6122408 278451.8 63.69 3.2 

86 1 river red gum 6122410 278491.3 68.59 2.5 

87 1 river red gum 6122407 278499.9 52.74 2.2 

88 1 river red gum 6122411 278512.7 66.12 2.8 

89 1 river red gum 6122413 278520.8 69.22 2 

90 1 river red gum 6122416 278535.5 65.3 2.6 

91 1 river red gum 6122410 278547.1 70.4 2.2 

92 1 river red gum 6122407 278540.4 66.47 2.6



Spreadsheet 



94 1 river red gum 6122393 278554.5 70.25 2 

95 1 river red gum 6122403 278553.8 9.33 2 

96 1 river red gum 6122332 278546.2 23.97 2.1 

97 7 river red gum 6121156 278675.3 72.98 2.1 



100 7 river red gum 6121097 278671.2 121.17 2 


102 7 grey box 6121133 278614.1 115.83 3 

103 7 grey box 6121139 278632.2 82.87 3.1 

104 7 elm 6121185 278596.7 93.79 2.1 

105 7 elm 6121230 278581.7 79.43 2.3 

106 7 willow 6121242 278567.2 109.12 2.3 

107 7 Carob 6121291 278569.4 85.65 2.2 

108 6 plane tree 6121369 278520.1 108.46 3 

109 6 plane tree 6121393 278516.9 104.07 2 

110 6 plane tree 6121414 278515.4 104.61 2.4 

111 7 willow 6121236 278497.3 67.88 2.4 

112 7 willow 6121222 278572.8 0.05 2.5 

113 8 sugar gum 6121193 278447.9 42.5 2.2 

114 7 pear 6121225 278523.5 95.12 2.2 

115 7 willow 6121228 278526.9 109.39 3 

116 7 sugar gum 6121134 278568.8 122.79 2.8 

117 7 sugar gum 6121128 278572.9 120.52 2.95 

118 7 sugar gum 6121123 278579.8 118.5 2.6 

119 7 lemon-scented gum 6121061 278611.8 131.06 3.2 2 trunks:2.2 1 

120 5 pepper tree 6121460 278221.8 65.91 2.4 1.4 1 

121 5 blue gum 6121488 278203 75.29 2 

122 5 blue gum 6121498 278208.6 53.15 2 

123 5 blue gum 6121493 278185.9 75.96 2.05 

124 5 blue gum 6121491 278183.2 77.43 2.05 

125 5 blue gum 6121501 278171.1 72.45 2.25 

126 5 blue gum 6121493 278157.4 62.11 2.5 

127 5 blue gum 6121507 278150.2 49.66 2 

128 5 blue gum 6121513 278155.1 75.87 2.3 

129 5 blue gum 6121332 278185.4 96.12 3.2 

132 5 blue gum 6121378 278138.7 92.02 2.2 

133 6 ash 6121347 278404.2 36.81 2 

134 6 blue gum 6121543 278340.8 88.01 2.6 2 trunks 1.6 1 

135 6 lemon-scented gum 6121500 278399.6 74.35 2 

136 6 blue gum 6121438 278643.7 116.3 2.1 

137 6 sugar gum 6121254 278814.6 131.66 2.8 2 trunks 1.7 1.1 

138 7 aleppo pine 6121198 278659.3 16.19 2.25 

140 6 ironbark 6121324 278660.2 127.33 2.5 

141 7 carob 6121290 278562.8 -0.83 2



Spreadsheet 


142 8 plane tree 6121197 278415.1 18.6 2 

143 8 plane tree 6121231 278399.4 123.52 2.25 

144 8 Robinia 6121210 278415.1 119.81 2.4 

145 8 blue gum 6121319 278283.1 102.92 2.4 

146 8 river red gum 6121208 278306.7 114.68 3.1 

147 8 river red gum 6121164 278333 113.28 3.3 roots causing damage to car park bitumen 

149 8 river red gum 6121151 278303.6 111.31 3 

150 8 Robinia 6121161 278356.1 116.53 2 

151 8 Robinia 6121163 278378.2 74.45 2.6 

152 8 blue gum 6121058 278479.9 130.51 2.05 

153 1 sugar gum 6122194 278106.4 51.87 2.7 road reserve 

154 1 sugar gum 6122181 278113 -0.36 2.1 road reserve 




158 1 sugar gum 6122226 278137.7 52.7 2 road reserve 




162 1 sugar gum 6122249 278151 55.19 2.3 road reserve 
















178 1 sugar gum 6122326 278214 49.19 2 road reserve 


180 1 sugar gum 6122331 278219 14.92 2.4 road reserve 




184 4 blue gum 6121871 278901.4 114.98 3 

185 4 grey box 6121592 278956.6 39.61 2.7 

186 4 grey box 6121591 278893.9 124.2 2.6 

187 4 grey box 6121527 278902.4 117.64 2.6 

188 4 grey box 6121575 278908.4 2.83 2.3



Spreadsheet 


189 4 grey box 6121511 278926.9 117.83 2.1 

190 4 grey box 6121497 278910.5 108.02 2.6 

191 4 grey box 6121480 278902 66.27 3.2 

192 4 grey box 6121533 278891.9 115.74 2.8 

193 4 grey box 6121528 278867.2 110.75 2.7 

194 4 grey box 6121553 278856.3 112.02 2.7 

195 4 grey box 6121561 278832.3 114.3 3 

196 4 grey box 6121539 278783.6 -0.55 3.1 2 trunks 1.7 1.4 

197 4 grey box 6121607 278773.7 95.77 2.1 

198 4 grey box 6121610 278776.8 93.53 3 

199 4 grey box 6121638 278797.3 113.11 3.7 2 trunks 2.1 1.6 

200 4 grey box 6121632 278846.2 121.65 3.4 2 trunks 2.1 1.6 

201 4 grey box 6121697 278822.5 114.91 3.6 

202 4 grey box 6121729 278797 108.93 3.2 

203 4 grey box 6121702 278763.6 109.69 3 

204 4 grey box 6121725 278778.2 109.07 2.5 

205 4 grey box 6121693 278724 100.91 2.8 

206 4 grey box 6121683 278708 100.99 2 

207 6 eucalypt 6121266 278685.4 ? 3.4 

208 6 swamp oak 6121253 278685.6 ? 2.8 

Note: Elevation anomalies are highlighted green in the spreadheet; however the eastings and northings are regarded as accurate. 

Common name 

Desert Ash 

(SA) Blue Gum 

Grey Box 

Ironbark 

Lemon-scented Gum 

Pear 

Pepper 

Plane Tree 

River Red Gum 

Robinia 

Sugar Gum 

Swamp Oak 

Tasmanian Blue Gum 

Willow 

Scientific name 

Fraxinus rotunidifolia 

Eucalyptus leucoxylon 

Eucalyptus microcarpa 

Eucalyptus sideroxylon 

Eucalyptus citriodora 

Pyrus sp. 

Schinus areira 

Platanus orientalis 

Eucalyptus camaldulensis 

Robinia pseudoacacia 

Eucalyptus cladocalyx 

Casuarina cunninghamiana 

Eucalyptus globulus 

Salix babylonica



Operational Guidelines 

To assist maintenance staff in complying with the legislation governing “significant” trees and native vegetation on the 

Flinders University site, the following checklist has been prepared. 

Tree damaging activity (see definition below) needs to be undertaken for one of the following reasons: 

• Disease 

• Risk to public or private safety 

• Causing or threatening to cause substantial damage to a substantial building or 

structure of value, or 

Check whether tree is significant (see definition below) 

YES 

Assess options for minimising harm to tree (seek 

advice of arborculturalist if necessary). 

NO 

Is the tree a native species and located within the 

Hills Face Zone? (east of electricity easement) 

Submit development application to Mitcham 

Council to undertake tree-damaging activity or 

removal 

YES 

Advise Native Vegetation 

Council of intended work, 

which may be exempted 

from requiring a permit 

under Regulation 3 (1) 

(g) (i)-(iii). 

NO 

Can proceed with tree 

maintenance without 

requiring further 

approvals 

If approval is granted, tree-damaging activity can be undertaken 

Tree removal may also be required for future development (roads, buildings, etc). If this is the case, the 

above procedure is still applicable however, it is likely to require evidence of design options that minimise 

tree damaging activities to any significant trees. If approval is not granted, the tree/s should be managed 

in accordance with the advice of arborculturalist 

Definitions 

significant tree 

tree-damaging 

activity 

Trees that have a trunk circumference of 2.0 metres or more, or, in the case of trees with multiple trunks, 

that have trunks with a total circumference of 2.0 metres or more and an average circumference of 625 

millimetres or more, measured at a point 1.0 metre above natural ground level 

(a) the killing or destruction of a tree; or 

(b) the removal of a tree; or 

(c) the severing of branches, limbs, stems or trunk of a tree; or 

(d) the ringbarking, topping or lopping of a tree; or 

(e) any other substantial damage to a tree. 


Olive trees (Olea europaea) and Aleppo Pines (Pinus halepensis) are proclaimed ‘pest plants’ in the City of Mitcham 

and therefore their removal can be undertaken without development approval:



Bibliography 

Books and Reports 

Blood, K. (2001) Environmental weeds: A field guide for SE Australia. CRC Weed Management Systems, Adelaide. 

Boomsma, C.D. and Lewis, N.B. (1980). The Native Forest and Woodland Vegetation of South Australia, Bulletin 25. 

Woods and Forests Dept, SA. 

Bradley, J. (1988). Brining Back the Bush: The Bradley Method of Bush Regeneration. Lansdowne Press. 

Cogger. H.G. (1994). Reptiles and Amphibians of Australia. Reed Books, NSW. 

DEH (2002). Updated Remnancy Figures for Environmental Associations. Department for Environment and Heritage. 

Environment Australia (2001). Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation website and online database. 

http://www.ea.gov.au/epbc/. 

Harrison, G. 1992 The Flinders University of South Australia: Campus Plan Review, Flinders Press, Adelaide 

Jessop, J.P. and Toelken, H.R. (Eds) (1986). Flora of South Australia Parts 1-4, South Australian Government Printer, 

Adelaide. 

Kraehenbuehl, D. (1996). Pre-European Vegetation of Adelaide: A Survey from the Gawler River to Hallett Cove. 

Nature Conservation Society of South Australia Inc., Adelaide. 

Lang, P.J. & Kraehenbuehl, D.N. (2004). Plants of Particular Conservation Significance in South Australia's 

Agricultural Regions. January 2004 update of unpublished database. Department for Environment and 

Heritage. 

Laut, P, Heyligers, P.C., Keig, G., Loffler, E., Margules, C., Scott, R.M., and Sullivan, M.E. (1977). Environments of 

South Australia. CSIRO, Canberra. 

Muyt, A. (2001). Bush Invaders of South-East Australia: A guide to the identification and control of environmental 

weeds found in South-East Australia. R.G. and F.J. Richardson. 

Neagle, N. (1995). An Update of the Conservation Status of the Major Plant Associations of South Australia, 

Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Adelaide. 

Nicolle, D. (1997) Eucalypts of South Australia. 

Prescott, A. (1994) It’s Blue with Five Petals: Wildflowers of the Adelaide Region. Openbook Publishers. 

Robertson, M. (1994a) Guidelines for preparing vegetation management plans for local government reserves, July 

1994. 

Robertson, M. (1994b) Stop bushland weeds: A guide to successful weeding in South Australia’s bushland. The 

Nature Conservation Society of South Australia Inc. 

Robinson, A.C., Casperson, K.D. and Hutchinson, M.N. (2000). A list of the vertebrates of South Australia. Department 

for Environment and Heritage, Adelaide. 

Stephenson, G. and Harrison, G. 1964 The University of Adelaide at Bedford Park: Site Planning Report, Adelaide 

Strahan, R. (1995). The Mammals of Australia. Reed Books, NSW. 

Strategies 

State 

Country Fire Service (1992) Fuelbreaks and Fire Access Tracks; Guidelines for State Government Departments, CFS 

Country Fire Service (1999) District Bushfire Prevention Planning Framework, CFS 

Recreational Trails Strategy for South Australia 2002-2010, Consultation Draft (June 2002), Government of South 

Australia 

Regional 

Patawalonga Catchment Water Management Board, Tonkin Consulting, Hassell, Eco Management Services, Earth 

Tech and Australian Water Environments (2002) Patawalonga Catchment Water Management Plan 2002-2007. 

State Mountain Bike Plan for South Australia, Mount Lofty Ranges Region 2001-2005 (2001) Government of South 

Australia 

Local 

City of Mitcham, Land Management Plans; Planning for Success. 

Mitcham (City) Development Plan, Consolidated 5 June 2003 and 12 February 2004 

Legislation 

Commonwealth 

Environment and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 

State 

Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988 



Development Act 1993 

Environment Protection Act 1993 


National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 

Personal Communication 

Adelaide Mountain Bike Club – Brenton Collins 

Bicycle SA – Martin Krieg 

City of Marion – Community Centre Officer 

City of Mitcham - Jacob Kochergen, John Zybek and Art Gallery Director 

Country Fire Service – Malin Watts and Leigh Miller 

Flinders University – Mick Booth, Mike Baas and Steve Hoare 

Ilkari – Dr Nele Findlay 

Patawalonga Catchment Water Management Board – John Wood, Andrew Thomas and Marion Santich 

Planning SA – Ben Ellickson and Rick Gibke 

Office for Recreation and Sport – Jenny Reiners and Rod Worthington 

South Australian Department for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation – Natalie Wojewidka 

South Australian Woodcarvers Association and SA Wood Group – Karen Stenbridge 

Trees for Life – Kerry McInnes 

Urban Forests Program – Chris Gibson, Trish Meachen and Ben Moulton

Land Management Plan 2004 - 2050 Flinders University South ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?