Plan to Protect Environmental Assets from Lantana - Weeds Australia

Plan to Protect Environmental Assets from Lantana
3 Prioritising sites for lantana control
It has been suggestedthat targeting those environmental assets with the highest probability of
extinction is not the most efficient way of promoting recovery , given that some assets may
require a large amount of recovery effort with limited chance of success (Possingham et al.
2002). Therefore, alongside the list of ranked environmental assets, as detailed in Chapter 2,
a second step in the development of this Plan involved ranking sites based on the likelihood of
successful lantana control and the potential of high-priority environmental assets to recover
(Downey et al. in press-b). This process allows for an efficient use of resources by prioritising
sites where control is achievable and where there is a high likelihood of protecting the assets
mostat risk.
3.1 Selecting sites
Site information was collected from land managers, who attended workshops, and numerous
others who responded to calls for nominations. A site is defined here as a natural area that is
the focus of a program to protect native species and communities. It may be an entire reserve,
or a defined subset of a larger area that is too big to manage as a whole, (or management unit
as defined by Owen 1998).
The list of environmental assets at risk from lantana (see Chapter 2) provided the basis for this
step of selecting sites. Site nominations usually contained at least one high-priority species or
ecological community and were nominated irrespective of land tenure. Nominations were via a
template located on the DECCW website: www.environment.nsw.gov.au/lantanaplan/sites.htm
Additional site nominations were collected from land manager’s offices throughout QLD and
NSW. Although 442 sites had been nominated and assessed as at 31 March 2009, it is
acknowledged that the list of sites presented on the website is not definitive (see
www.environment.nsw.gov.au/lantanaplan/sites.htm), as some locations may have been
inadvertently overlooked, especially if not nominated by specific land managers. Therefore,
sites can still be nominated after the publication of this document via the website, and ranked
using the method below.
3.2 Site ranking process
The full site ranking process is detailed in Figure 3.3 (these methods have been modified from
DEC 2006a, Downey et al. in press-b). This process aimed to ensure that control will be
undertaken in areas where the outcomes will have the greatest benefit for biodiversity while
ensuring efficient use of resources. Firstly, sites were ranked based on the following five
criteria (relating to assets at the site):
the ability to achieve effective lantana control at the site
the degree of impact of lantana on assets at each site
the condition of the asset present
the site importance to the asset’s overall survival
the presence of other threats to the asset at the site.
By assessing sites using these criteria, this strategic plan will deliver on-ground benefits by
targeting areas where lantana control will best protect environmental assets.
When nominating a site, land managers were asked to assign a high, medium or low rating to
each of the five criteria listed above, with respect to each priority environmental asset found at
their site. For consistency, ratings such as high, medium and low were accompanied by clear
definitions and examples to reduce subjective variation between land managers (Weeds CRC
and Standards Australia 2006). These definitions were placed on the website next to the site
nomination template and have been reproduced below.
14