Gorse Control Strategy · Muster public meeting in February 1998. ... Strategy aims to stop the spread of gorse and reduce the infestation over a five year period. If control methods

Contents

Ballarat RegionGorse Task Force

GORSE CONTROLSTRATEGY

FinalReport

June 1999

GORSE CONTROL STRATEGY

FINAL REPORT

Ballarat Region Gorse Task Force

Prepared by:

Centre for Environmental ManagementUniversity of Ballarat

Project TeamJohn Miller

Kerry Penna - Strong Consulting GroupLinda Darby

Funded under the Victorian Government’s Weeds Initiative

Centre forEnvironmental Management

June 1999

Foreword

Gorse Control Strategy iii

FOREWORD

The Ballarat Region Gorse Task Force, in conjunction with the Centre for EnvironmentalManagement from the University of Ballarat, have been busy over the past nine monthspreparing a Strategy for the control of gorse within the Central Highlands Region. TheDepartment of Natural Resources and Environment (DNRE), local Municipalities, CatchmentManagement Authorities, Landcare groups and other interested parties have all contributed. Iwould like to particularly acknowledge the DNRE for their support and funding for this strategyprovided through the Community Weed Initiative Program.

This has not been an easy task, and I wish to thank all persons who have contributed to thedraft Strategy to date. A special thanks to the members of the Task Force who havevolunteered their time to this enormous effort.

The Strategy has addressed the concerns of the charter given to the Task Force by the GorseMuster public meeting in February 1998. It addresses the responsibility of landowners andmanagers of both private and public land. The Strategy also identifies the need for extensionand enforcement, which were seen to be major concerns within the community. The ongoingrole of the Task Force, as a representative body for funding and implementation of the Strategyto achieve a coordinated approach, is also considered important.

Over the last eighteen months, the Task Force has been active in raising the profile of gorsewithin the community. We have spoken to politicians, government bodies, CatchmentManagement Authorities and interested community groups. We have actively promotedbiological control of gorse through the Keith Turnbull Research Institute. The Task Force hasbeen successful in securing funding from the State Government’s Weeds Initiative to employ aconsultant to formulate the Strategy, and has been able to gain extra funding for on groundworks for control of gorse within the Task Force area.

The Strategy has been a challenge to put together, and has taken a lot of communityconsultation and research. Thirty-two public submissions were received on the draft strategyduring the consultation period and considered in preparing this final strategy. Our thanks tothose people who have provided valuable input.

This strategy is not a quick fix action plan. Gorse will most likely never be eradicated, so thisStrategy aims to stop the spread of gorse and reduce the infestation over a five year period. Ifcontrol methods cease the gorse problem will increase, so control will always be an ongoingnecessity.

The recent announcement by the Federal Government that gorse has been included in the listof Australia’s 20 ‘most unwanted’ weeds is gratifying. The Commonwealth Minister for Forestryand Conservation, Mr Wilson Tuckey stated, “Weeds cause significant losses to Australia inboth economic and environmental terms. They reduce farm and forest productivity, displacenative species and contribute significantly to land degradation”. The implications of thisinitiative on the Gorse Strategy can only be positive in raising the profile of gorse and improvingavenues of funding for gorse control.

I thank you for your support and interest, and wish you good luck with your gorse control in thefuture.

Ian Gilhome, Chairman, Ballarat Region Gorse Task Force.

Executive summary

iv Gorse Control Strategy

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Background

The Gorse Control Strategy was developed for the Ballarat Region Gorse Task Force Area(GTFA) in consultation with a wide cross section of the community. The GTFA is centred onBallarat and covers some 800 000 ha of urban, farming and forested land within the CentralHighlands of Victoria. The Area encompasses much of the heavily gorse-infested land inVictoria and includes the upper reaches of Corangamite, Glenelg Hopkins and North CentralCatchment Management Regions.

The Strategy provides a comprehensive inventory of the gorse problem including a fulleconomic analysis and the currently preferred methods of control. The inventory found that:

• gorse is widely spread and currently occupies approximately 1% (8 000 ha) of the GTFA;

• gorse mainly occurs in linear infestation along roadsides, waterways and fence lines;

• gorse is a problem of both public and private land;

• the biology and ecology of gorse means that it can be controlled with a concerted effort butthat it is extremely difficult to eradicate;

• there are a variety of control methods which are suitable under different circumstances;

• the tangible cost of not controlling gorse within the five year horizon of the Strategy willamount to some $7 million from lost rural production and reduced land values;

• the cost of controlling gorse over the five year period of the Strategy will be some $7.2million

• the total cost benefit to the community of the control as specified within the Strategy is$2.1 million, a return of 29% on money spent

• there is confusion within the community regarding responsibilities for the control of gorse insome areas, particularly on road sides and other common land; and

• a concerted and coordinated effort between public and private land owners is essential forthe effective control of gorse.

The Strategy

The two principal goals of the Strategy are:

• Reduce the overall extent of gorse within the GTFA by 25% within 5 years

• Reduce the extent of gorse by 15% within 5 years on all roadsides and waterways

The two goals are compatible. They define the dual objectives of reducing the overallinfestation of gorse within the GTFA and reducing infestations where there is the greatestchance of spread - roadsides and waterways - while also providing the greatest public benefit.

To enable these goals to be attained ten strategies are provided. The strategies relate to themechanisms by which gorse can be controlled rather than the specifics of actual control. Theten Strategies are:

Executive summary

Gorse Control Strategy v

• Strategy 1. Define an ongoing role for the Gorse Task Force.

It is essential that the Gorse Task Force has an on-going role in the coordination of theimplementation of this Strategy.

• Strategy 2. Increase community awareness of gorse.

This will be achieved through extension and information.

• Strategy 3. Develop Gorse Control Action Plans within each Landcare group area.

The Action Plans will focus on the control of gorse in specific areas and allow the effectivenessof control activities to be monitored.

• Strategy 4. Define the responsibilities for the control of gorse.

All land owners will be advised of their responsibilities in the control of gorse.

• Strategy 5. Control gorse on roadsides and waterways.

Gorse can spread rapidly from roadsides and waterways so the greatest public benefit will begained from control in these two areas. Municipal roadside management plans will besupported and emphasis will be placed on the control of gorse on roadsides and waterwaysin the Landcare group Action Plans.

• Strategy 6. Support community groups and landholders actively controlling gorse.

Community groups and individuals will be supported in the control of gorse where there is ademonstrated public benefit. Support will be through advice and assistance in thepreparation of Action Plans and funding proposals, and through enforcement of theprovisions of the CaLP Act 1994.

• Strategy 7. Facilitate greater control of gorse on public land.

It is important that the control of gorse is coordinated between public and private land.Awareness and participation in co-operative control programs by public land managers willbe encouraged.

• Strategy 8. Increase the control of gorse on private land.

The formulation of property plans which consider gorse control will be facilitated.

• Strategy 9. Promote changed land use as an integral component of gorse control.

Alternative land uses which will reduce the probability of re-infestation of gorse following controlwill be promoted. Demonstration sites will be established to assist land holders in planningalternative land use strategies.

• Strategy 10. Establish a monitoring and evaluation process for gorse control programs.

Procedures and guidelines for the monitoring and evaluation of control works will bedeveloped to ensure that the body of knowledge increases.

Contents

vi Gorse Control Strategy

Contents

FOREWORD ........................................................................................................iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................iv

SECTION 1 BACKGROUND................................................................................1

1.1 Introduction....................................................................................................1 1.1.1 Scope ............................................................................................................................1 1.1.2 Gorse Control Strategy..................................................................................................2 1.1.3 Consultation...................................................................................................................2 1.1.4 A framework for a Gorse Control Strategy.....................................................................3

1.2 The distribution of gorse...............................................................................5 1.2.1 Broad distribution...........................................................................................................5 1.2.2 Distribution in the Gorse Task Force Area.....................................................................5

1.3 Biology and ecology of gorse.......................................................................6 1.3.1 Biology...........................................................................................................................6 1.3.2 Ecology..........................................................................................................................6

1.4 Economic, environmental and social costs of gorse.................................7 1.4.1 The problems.................................................................................................................7 1.4.2 Economic analysis.........................................................................................................8 1.4.3 Benefits..........................................................................................................................9

1.5 Legislation and responsibilities ...................................................................9 1.5.1 Governing Legislation....................................................................................................9 1.5.2 Responsibilities for the control of gorse.......................................................................10 1.5.3 Gorse control on roadsides .........................................................................................12 1.5.4 Proposed legislative changes......................................................................................14

1.6 Control techniques ......................................................................................14 1.6.1 Burning ........................................................................................................................16 1.6.2 Chemical Control .........................................................................................................16 1.6.3 Biological control .........................................................................................................17 1.6.4 Revegetation ...............................................................................................................17 1.6.5 Integrated management techniques ............................................................................17

1.7 Compliance - extension and enforcement .................................................18

1.8 Evaluation and monitoring..........................................................................18

1.9 Partnerships and cost sharing arrangements ..........................................19

Contents

Gorse Control Strategy vii

SECTION 2 THE STRATEGY............................................................................ 20

2.1 A Strategy for the Control of gorse ........................................................... 20 2.1.1 Goals........................................................................................................................... 20

2.2 Strategies and actions ................................................................................ 21

2.3 Implementation............................................................................................ 31

References......................................................................................................... 33

Appendix 1 - The Current Role of the Ballarat Region Gorse Task Force.... 34

Appendix 2 - Key stakeholders in the GTFA................................................... 35

Appendix 3 - Analysis of gorse distribution records ..................................... 37

Appendix 4 - Economic analysis of gorse ...................................................... 39

Appendix 5 - Declared roads within the GTFA ............................................... 52

Appendix 6 - Active chemical constituents recommended for use in thecontrol of gorse................................................................................................. 54

Appendix 7 - Biological control of gorse ........................................................ 57

Appendix 8 - Funding assistance .................................................................... 59

Figures 1 Location of the Gorse Task Force Area ............................................................................. 1 2 Distribution of gorse in Victoria........................................................................................... 5

Tables 1 Responsibility for gorse control according to road classifications..................................... 13 2 Control Techniques .......................................................................................................... 15 3 Implementation................................................................................................................. 31

Maps 1 The Ballarat Region Gorse Task Force Area ...................................................end of report 2 Distribution of gorse in the Gorse Task Force Area .........................................end of report 3 Declared Roads in the Gorse Task Force Area................................................end of report

Background

Gorse Control Strategy 1

SECTION 1 BACKGROUND

1.1 Introduction

The Ballarat Region Gorse Task Force Area (GTFA) is centred on Ballarat and covers some800 000 ha of urban, farming and forested land within the Central Highlands of Victoria (Fig 1).The GTFA encompasses much of the heavily gorse-infested land in Victoria and includes theupper reaches of Corangamite, Glenelg Hopkins and North Central Catchment ManagementRegions (CMRs).

Fig 1 Location of the GTFA

1.1.1 Scope

Gorse is a major problem weed within a large area of central Victoria and many individuals,groups and government agencies have been active in its control. This activity, however, isoften sporadic and uncoordinated resulting in a reduced effectiveness of the control measures.The Gorse Task Force (GTF) was formed with the aim of increasing awareness of the gorseproblem and coordinating the efforts of all those involved in its control. The Gorse ControlStrategy was required to enable the GTF to improve the effectiveness of the control programs.A current role statement for the GTF is provided in Appendix 1.

The Centre for Environmental Management (CEM), University of Ballarat, was contracted bythe GTF to develop the Gorse Control Strategy for the Ballarat Region Gorse Task Force Area(Map 1). The Victorian State Government Community Weed Initiative administered by the

Bendigo

Melbourne

Colac

Horsham

Ballarat

Background

2 Gorse Control Strategy

Department of Natural Resources and Environment (DNRE) provided funding for the project.The Strategy was required to provide background information on the current knowledge ofgorse biology, ecology and methods of control and an assessment of current managementprocesses, including landholder and agency responsibilities and the role of extension andenforcement.

An assessment of the economic impacts of gorse, undertaken by Strong Consulting Group, andgoals, strategies and actions specific to the control of gorse within the GTFA were also requiredto enable the costing, planning and execution of gorse control works within the GTFA.

The Strategy makes provision for these goals and strategic actions for the next five years andwill be reviewed after that time.

1.1.2 Gorse Control Strategy

The Gorse Control Strategy provides goals and specific management strategies and actionswhich were developed from a literature search and an extensive public consultation process.The draft Gorse Control Strategy was distributed for public comment in February 1999. Thirtytwo submissions were received and have been considered in the production of this final GorseControl Strategy.

1.1.3 Consultation

Many individuals, organisations and Landcare groups were consulted during the preparation ofthis Strategy. A series of public meetings was conducted during October 1998 in an effort togain as much information as possible about the problem of gorse and the methods used in itscontrol and management. Meetings were held at Millbrook, Daylesford, Linton and Ballarat witha total attendance in excess of 130 people. Meetings were also conducted with governmentagencies and other organisations involved in the control and management of gorse. A list ofthe key stake holders is provided in Appendix 2.

The public input to the process was vital in the formulation of this Strategy. A summary of themain issues raised at the meetings and addressed in the Strategy is as follows:

Problems caused by gorse:

• ecological degradation and a reduction in biodiversity,

• increase in fire hazard,

• vermin harbour,

• reduction of landscape value,

• reduction in farm profitability,

• reduction in forestry profitability.

Current perceptions of problems with the administration and control of gorse:

• lack of acceptance by landholders of responsibilities for control of gorse,

• perception that gorse is a government problem,

• agencies not being proactive in weed control and only responding to complaints,

• a reticence in prosecuting those who refuse to comply with weed control directives,

Background


• under- resourcing of DNRE,

• perceived lack of concern by managers with gorse infestations on public land.

Requirements of the Strategy.

The Strategy should:

• build on existing National, State and local weed control strategies,

• provide clear aims and guidelines for control of gorse,

• categorically state the roles and responsibilities for the control of gorse,

• provide a framework for coordinated action,

• establish a consistent approach for the implementation of extension and enforcement,

• provide a basis for funding applications,

• define priorities and target areas for direction of resources.

1.1.4 A framework for a Gorse Control Strategy

The National Weeds Strategy (COA 1997) provides the overall framework for weed control inAustralia. The National Weeds Strategy is concerned primarily with weeds of nationalsignificance, however, it also contains goals and objectives which have relevance to theformulation of the Gorse Control Strategy:

Objective 3.2: To encourage the development of strategic plans for weedmanagement at all levels with input from all stakeholders.

The Victorian Weeds Strategy (Draft for consultation) (DNRE 1998) focuses on Victoria andprovides the framework for the conduct of control strategies specific to a weed or weeds of alocal area. The Victorian Weeds Strategy is based on six principles:

• Weed management is an essential component of sustainable land management;

• Owners of both private and public land have a duty of care to ensure that their activities donot damage the land. Where there is damage and it is not possible to identify the cause ofthe damage the beneficiaries should pay for the cost of treatment;

• Prevention and early intervention provide the most cost-effective means of dealing withweed invasions;

• Successful weed management requires an effective legislative, educational and coordinatedframework which provides for the participation of all levels of government, owners of publicand private land, service industries and the community;

• Government contribution to weed control is provided where there is a public benefit*; and,

• Government contributions will only be made to activities that are technically sound andwhere the economic, environmental and social benefits outweigh the costs.

Background


Public benefit is defined as:

The product of an activity that leads to or contributes to:

• the long term protection, securing or enhancement of natural resources (water, soil,biodiversity, habitat); and/or,

• the support of an industry or market which may otherwise fail without governmentsupport

A number of Goals included in the Victorian Weeds Strategy are of direct relevance to theGorse Control Strategy.

Goal 2: A Victorian community that is fully aware of the economic, social andenvironmental impact and threat of weeds, and has the knowledge to act to minimisetheir impact.

The objectives and strategic actions under this Goal focus on the necessity to establish andmaintain a two-way educational approach to weed control. Information and new researchfindings should be disseminated to the community for inclusion in control programs followed byreporting back the usefulness of the information.

Goal 3: A significant reduction in the impact of existing weed infestations.

The objectives and strategic actions under this Goal demand (amongst other things): anunderstanding of the extent and economic, environmental and social costs of weeds; anunderstanding of the reasons for the spread of weeds; and, the implementation of effectiveweed management programs.

Goal 4: Working partnerships to ensure cost-effective weed management in Victoria.

The emphasis here is firmly on co-operative and coordinated actions between governmentagencies and land holders to control weeds. Weed control is much more likely to succeed withcommunity led action and government facilitation and coordination rather than the top-downdirective approach.

Goal 5: Evaluation of the effectiveness of weed management in Victoria.

Too often in the past weed control effectiveness was not monitored and evaluated. A regularand honest appraisal of weed control from research to on-ground control is an essentialcomponent of any weed control strategy.

Catchment Management Authorities have produced a Regional Strategy which establishespriority areas and actions for the management of the catchments. The control of pest plants forthe minimisation of harm to biodiversity and the maintenance of sustainable production is apriority in each of the three CMAs represented in the GTFA.

In addition there are a number of weed control strategies which have been developed byLandcare groups within the GTFA. In the hierarchy of plans these Strategies represent thefinal stage of the process, providing precise definition of target areas and control methodology.The Gorse Control Strategy complements the local weed control strategies and will provide theframework within which the local strategies will operate when addressing gorse.

A Draft Furze Control Strategy was produced by the then Department of Conservation Forestsand Lands in 1988 (Watts 1988). The 1988 Draft Strategy provided background material forthis current Strategy.

Background


1.2 The distribution of gorse

1.2.1 Broad distribution

Gorse is a native of central and western Europe but now occurs widely throughout thetemperate regions of the world and is considered a major pest in North America and NewZealand (Parsons and Cuthbertson 1992). It occurs in all Australian States except theNorthern Territory but is a major problem only in Tasmania and Victoria.

In Victoria the major infestations occur in the cooler southern areas between Portland andBallarat and in the north central region (Fig 2).

Fig 2 Distribution of gorse in Victoria

(Redrawn after Parsons 1973)

1.2.2 Distribution in the Gorse Task Force Area

Gorse is widespread and common throughout the GTFA and has been recorded extensivelyparticularly on the less arable land associated with past mining activities (Map 2).

The majority of recorded gorse infestations are linear along roadsides and waterways.Infestations in paddocks are a mixture of linear fence line infestations and dense clumps andmost are small with a median size of around 0.01ha

Calculations from detailed studies (Appendix 3) indicated that approximately 1% (8 000ha) ofthe study area, both public and private land, is infested with gorse. This figure will undoubtedlyvary from location to location but until additional detailed studies are completed it is notpossible to develop any other conclusions.

Background


1.3 Biology and ecology of gorse Gorse, or Furze, Ulex europaeus was introduced to Australia as an ornamental shrub and as ahedgerow species. It is typically a large prickly shrub with bright yellow pea flowers in autumnand spring. It is widespread in southern Victoria where it occurs in medium to very largepopulations. The species poses a serious threat to native vegetation and agricultural land(Carr et al., 1992).

1.3.1 Biology The following summary, unless otherwise cited, is derived from Richardson and Hill (1998).

Gorse is an erect, prickly perennial and much branched evergreen shrub. In two to three yearsit can reach a height of 2 - 3m, and have a diameter of 1 - 3m. The roots are mostly shallowalthough each plant usually has a few deep roots but no tap root. The plants are long-lived andproduce new growth each year.

The stems, which are green when young and brown and woody when mature, are covered withspines and bear short branchlets which are longitudinally ridged and hairy and also terminatedwith spines. The leaves are spiny, dark green, narrow, 1 - 2.5cm long and occur in whorledclusters alternately placed along the branches and branchlets (Parsons, 1973).

Early seedling growth can be rapid and plants often flower first when about 18 months of age.Bright yellow pea flowers, 1.5 - 2.5cm long, can be produced almost all year round, but themain flowering periods are July to October and from March to May. Hairy, black, oblong podsproduce two to six seeds which are green to brown in colour. The seeds germinate either inautumn or in spring to mid summer, but can remain viable in the soil for up to twenty-five yearsor longer.

Reproduction and dispersal is by seeds only. The seeds are relatively large and not equippedfor wind dispersal although the pods, which burst with considerable force in summer, may ejectseed for up to five metres. Heat, which may be provided by sunshine or fire, stimulatesgermination. Seed production is prolific, with up to six million seeds being produced perhectare per year. Birds play an important role in dispersal as the seeds are ingested and canbe deposited long distances from the parent plant. Road making materials, grading andslashing along infested roadsides, grazing animals, hikers, water and ants are other factorswhich contribute to the spread of gorse.

1.3.2 Ecology Gorse occurs in all States of Australia, except the Northern Territory. In the southern mainlandstates it is often a pioneering species occurring along creek banks, mine dumps, roadsides,neglected land, forest margins and encroaching into poor pastures (Richardson and Hill 1998).It will invade most native vegetation types but seedling and mature plant growth is considerablyreduced by shading and competition from other plants. Established gorse plants, however, cancompete well with other species to the extent that, undisturbed, it can suppress native speciesfor at least 25 years.

Gorse is limited by cold and prefers areas where the mean daily minimum temperature of thecoldest month is above 2ºC. It usually grows where rainfall is evenly distributed throughoutthe year and in the range 650-900mm annually and will grow on many soil types includingsands, clays and clay loams, but avoids calcareous soils.

Background


1.4 Economic, environmental and social costs of gorse

Gorse is a major pest species in the area encompassed by the GTFA and is responsible forlosses in economic viability of agricultural land and contributes to a reduction in biodiversityacross the region.

1.4.1 The problems

Gorse causes many problems.

• Gorse invades pastures, creek banks, road-sides and other neglected areas.Infestations are often allowed to spread in such areas as control is difficult or limited.

• The prickly, dense thickets restrict pastoral productivity and impede normal farmingpractice. Gorse constitutes a cost to land owners through control costs and loss ofarable land.

• Gorse has the capacity to infest neighbouring land and roadsides, creating problems forother land owners.

• It restricts recreational activity on public and private land.

• Dense patches of gorse provide excellent harbour for rabbits and other vermin.

• Gorse burns readily and dense patches are a considerable fire hazard, particularly ondays of low humidity. Near buildings and along fence lines gorse constitutes a seriousfire hazard. It regenerates quickly after fire from seed stored in the soil.

• Mature plants will shoot from damaged or burnt stems.

• Gorse invades disturbed forested areas and, once established, competes strongly withnative vegetation resulting in a reduction in biodiversity and the alteration of wildfirebehaviour.

• Gorse constitutes a safety hazard by reducing visibility on roadsides, especially nearcorners and crossroads.

• Gorse adversely affects forestry production through competition with tree seedlings,restricting access and the cost of control.

• Once established in an area, gorse is difficult to eradicate due to the long term viabilityof seed stored in the soil.

All of these problems have associated costs which may be either tangible or intangible.Tangible costs, such as the costs of spraying gorse or the loss of productivity, may be directlymeasured but the intangible costs such as environmental or social costs can only be estimated.

Environmental costs relate to the loss of regional biodiversity and landscape amenity.Gorse infestations suppress desirable native flora and reduce the habitat of localwildlife. Gorse competes for space and resources and harbours pest animals such asrabbits and foxes, which then impact on the continuation or re-establishment ofhealthy, viable native plant and animal communities.

Background


The production and long term survival of gorse seed is a continual threat in areas ofbushland. A bushfire can trigger germination of the seed reservoir at a rate that maylimit the recovery of many native species.

Remnant stands of native vegetation, particularly those along waterways androadsides, are readily affected by competition from gorse. The linear nature of theseremnants increases the likelihood of disturbance and invasion by gorse, and otherweeds, from surrounding farm or urban land.

Social costs are estimates of the costs associated with the physical and mental healthand well-being of the human population. The presence of gorse may place strains andstresses on community and individual relationships. Stress levels may increase due tothe financial implications of large scale gorse control and reduced income from farmingpractices, and will often result in the deterioration of the individual’s health andhappiness.

While it is difficult to quantify the intangible environmental and social costs associatedwith weeds, the National Weeds Strategy (COA, 1997) estimates that they are at leastequal to the tangible costs of control and lost productivity.

The full economic costs/(benefits) are derived from the combination of the tangible andintangible costs.

1.4.2 Economic analysis

To determine the economic costs of gorse to the community in the GTFA an economic modelwas developed. The economic model estimates the cost to the economy of continuing thecurrent rate of control (the ‘do nothing’ option) and the potential benefits of increasing the rateof control (the ‘control’ option). It then compares the potential benefit with the costs andidentifies the benefits of control on private and public land in the GTFA. The analysis coversthe five year period from July 1st 1999.

The full economic analysis, prepared by Strong Consulting Group (SCG), is provided inAppendix 4

The economic analysis considers:

• the net tangible (measurable) costs of the do nothing option with the associated impactson agricultural productivity and land values.

• the net tangible costs of the control option, based on the application of a standardcosting model, for defined infestation types and methods of treatment.

• the calculation of the net tangible cost/(benefit), which is the difference between the donothing option and the costs of the control option.

• the adjustment of net tangible cost/(benefit) to allow for the incorporation of intangible(not directly measurable) costs to arrive at the total economic cost/(benefit).

• the identification of additional funding required for control of gorse on public land.

The analysis and the calculations provide individuals and organisations with a method for theassessment of the costs of control on a per hectare basis for particular land use types andinfestation types.

Background


The cost of gorse

On the basis of the SCG analysis the costs of gorse to the community in the GTFA aresignificant and may be summarised as follows:

• an ongoing do nothing strategy will result in approximately:

♦ $7 million in tangible and intangible costs over five years.

• the implementation of the control option in the Strategy will provide:

♦ a total economic benefit of approximately $2.1 million over the five year period ofthe Strategy

♦ a further benefit to the region through the employment of four and a half extraprofessionals involved in gorse control.

The average cost of gorse control is estimated at $220 per ha for the initial treatment and $295per ha in total for the four subsequent years of follow-up treatment. This equates to $515 perha over the five year period of this Strategy. The total tangible and intangible costs of notcontrolling gorse are estimated at $1 205 per ha for the same period, that is, a penalty of 134%.

The costs of control, depending on the degree of infestation, can vary from $445 per hectare (inan extremely serious case) to $175 per hectare (in a best case).

It is clear from these figures that the control of gorse is economically sensible. The “donothing” option or a delay in action will only compound the problem both in extent of landinfested and in direct adverse economic impact.

1.4.3 Benefits

There are a few possible benefits of gorse including fodder and shelter for stock, roosting andnesting sites for native animals where little native understorey remains, some pharmaceuticalbenefits and the provision of pollen for the apiary industry. In some instances, particularlyalong creek lines, gorse is useful in controlling erosion. Emphasis is placed throughout theStrategy on the need to revegetate gorse control areas with desirable species - erosionmitigation is not a reason to not control gorse. It should also be noted that gorse hedges,which in the past were permitted under certain circumstances, are now illegal.

There are some benefits, however, they are generally minor and cannot in any way beconsidered as a justification for the retention of gorse.

1.5 Legislation and responsibilities

1.5.1 Governing Legislation

Gorse was proclaimed a noxious weed as early as 1894 for the municipality of Eltham, Victoria,then for the whole of the State under the provisions of the Thistles Act 1890 in 1908 (Parsons1973). In 1965, gorse was proclaimed as a noxious weed under the Vermin and NoxiousWeeds Act 1958 and, as such, required land owners, including the government, to prevent itsgrowth and spread.

Background


In 1994 the Vermin and Noxious Weeds Act 1958 was replaced with the Catchment and LandProtection Act 1994 (CaLP Act 1994), which makes provision for weed management on publicand private land in Victoria.

The CaLP Act 1994 provides for the appointment of a network of nine Catchment ManagementRegions (CMR) administered by Catchment Management Authorities and one CaLP Board(Port Phillip). These Authorities have the responsibility of developing and overseeing RegionalCatchment Strategies which include promoting co-operation in Strategy development andimplementation, and advising the Minister on regional priorities, guidelines and resourcerequirements. They also have the responsibility for setting the State and Regional priorities forthe control of weeds.

Currently gorse is classified as a Regionally Controlled Weed under the CaLP Act 1994 in theGlenelg Hopkins, North Central and Corangamite CMRs all of which are represented in theGTFA. Regionally Controlled Weeds are generally widespread in a region and capable ofspreading further. Responsibility for their control rests with the land owner or licensee of publicland or, in the case of roadsides on undeclared roads, with the adjacent landholder.

Gorse is also classified as a Regionally Controlled Weed in the Wimmera, Port Phillip West andEast, North East and Goulburn CMRs and as a Regionally Prohibited Weed in the West andEast Gippsland CMRs where its distribution is more limited.

The weed classification system is currently under review and it is likely that the categories ofState and Regional Priority weeds will be introduced. It is considered here that gorse shouldbe classified as a Regional Priority Weed by the three CMAs within the GTFA.

1.5.2 Responsibilities for the control of gorse

Landowners are responsible for the control of gorse on land which they own and on half thewidth of any undeclared roads adjoining their property. Control of gorse on roadsides iscomplex and is addressed separately in section 1.5.3.

Besides the primary responsibility of land owners, other organisations and agencies also havespecific responsibilities which need to be considered in the gorse control effort.

Federal Government

The Federal government provides funding and strategic directions to State governments for themanagement of agricultural and environmental weeds of National significance. It alsocontributes to research programs, and is responsible for preventing the introduction of weedsinto Australia. The role of the Federal government is more fully defined in the National WeedsStrategy (COA 1997).

State Government

The responsibilities of the State government in relation to declared noxious weeds are to:

• provide legislative framework,

• provide and implement policies and programs,

• provide education, extension and advisory services,

• administer the CaLP Act 1994 in relation to pest management,

Background


• encourage gorse management strategies at National, State, Regional and local levels,and,

• manage gorse on public land, other than roadsides or other land licensed to privatelandholders, and provide funding with which to meet this obligation.

Weed control is primarily the responsibility of the land owner but government does have a roleon private land where the problem is beyond the resources of the individual. The governmentcontribution is based on a demonstrable public benefit from the control action (DNRE 1998).

DNRE is the State government agency with primary responsibility for the facilitation of noxiousweed management in Victoria and administration of the CaLP Act 1994 in relation toproclaimed pest plants. The roles of DNRE in weed control are as manager of public land,adviser, research agency and regulator. Management responsibilities apply to land rangingfrom large areas of State Forest and Regional Parks to small, isolated and often linearunlicensed reserves such as water frontages and other unalienated land. Where such areasare licensed, management responsibility transfers to the licensee as per the licence conditions.

DNRE is also responsible for ensuring environmental weed control through its responsibilitiesunder the National Parks Act 1975 and Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988. TheCommunity Weeds Initiative, announced in 1997, provided an additional $12 million for weedcontrol over four years to assist community groups and local government in the control ofnoxious weeds on private and rural land. The Gorse Control Strategy was funded under thisInitiative.

Local Government

Municipalities must control gorse on the land that they manage except undeclared roads (see1.5.3). Some prepare roadside management and vegetation management strategies andemploy specialist staff while others are less active. They are also involved in communityawareness programs to varying degrees and there is scope to extend this role through theirregular contact with land owners.

Municipalities have a responsibility to ensure that road making activities, materials, stack sitesand other maintenance works do not contribute to the spread of gorse or other weeds.

Acting under the authority of the Country Fire Authority Act (1958), Municipalities have theresponsibility to ensure land owners keep areas free of fire hazards, including gorse in order tomaintain suitable and effective firebreaks.

Rural water authorities

Gorse control activities within the bed and banks of waterways within the areas administered bySouthern Rural Water and Goulburn Murray Water may require a permit before works canproceed. Permit applications, for which there is no charge, are referred to DNRE and otherauthorities by the rural water authorities to ensure that proposed activities will not have anadverse impact on important riparian vegetation, water quality, erosion potential or any otheraspect of the waterway. The referral process usually takes at least 28 days.

Background


Private Landholders

The responsibility for the control of gorse on private land lies with the land holder. Private landowners, which includes absentee owners, industrial sites and land development companies,have a responsibility to undertake continuing control measures in an effort to prevent thegrowth and spread of gorse on and from their land. Land owners are also responsible forcontrolling the growth and spread of gorse on half the width of all roads adjoining theirproperties, other than Declared Roads (section 1.5.3) (Map 3), and Unused Roads held underlicence where it is the licensee’s responsibility. Gorse control responsibilities also extend toholders of Crown Land licences and leases.

Community

Landcare and other groups provide a community focus for the control of weeds at the locallevel. These groups increase weed awareness, provide information to the community andundertake control programs in a local area. The community-based partnership approach iscentral to the State government policy on weed control and is an important consideration in theallocation of facilitation services, advice and financial support. The allocation of DNREresources for gorse control is based on an assessment of public benefit and generally relatesto the level of commitment and action of the Landcare network and other community groups orwhere there are environmental benefits.

It is recognised that Landcare and other community groups are already working at full capacityand shoulder a large load. DNRE and other agencies will support and provide assistance tothese groups wherever possible and work in partnerships.

Other agencies

Parks Victoria, committees of management from both the community and municipalities,VicRoads, the Public Transport Corporation and the Victorian Plantations Corporation allmanage land within the GTFA, and therefore, have obligations in the control of gorse.

Gorse Task Force

The Gorse Task Force, which represents the interests of a wide cross section of thecommunity, is in a unique position to understand the problems caused by gorse and coordinatethe implementation of control activities. The GTF will be responsible for overseeing theimplementation of the gorse Control Strategy and will continue to represent the interests of thecommunity in relation to the management of gorse.

1.5.3 Gorse control on roadsides

The control of gorse on roadsides is the responsibility of the adjoining land owner unless theroad has been Declared as either a Freeway, Highway, Tourist Route or Main Road under theTransport Act 1983 or is an Unused Road held under licence. VicRoads and Municipalities areresponsible for the control of gorse on Declared Freeways, Highways, Tourist Routes and MainRoads (Table 1, Map 3). A full list of the Declared Roads and the responsible manager isprovided in Appendix 5.

Background


It is important that a strong and mutually beneficial partnership be developed between themanaging authority of the roadsides and the adjacent land holders to ensure that undueburdens are not placed on land holders in the control of gorse. Municipalities and adjoiningland holders have a Duty of Care to ensure that their management actions do not spread orpromote weeds. Municipalities have a moral responsibility to provide assistance whereverpossible to adjacent land owners in the control of gorse on roadsides.

Responsibilities for the control of weeds on roadsides may be transferred but only by writtenagreement under an approved roadside management plan.

Table 1: Responsibility for gorse control according to roadclassifications

Type of road Responsibility

Freeways

Highways

VicRoads

VicRoads

Main Roads Municipality (as VicRoads agent)

Undeclared Roads Adjoining land owners

Unused roads Licensees (if applicable)

The responsibility for weed control on roadsides is also influenced by other Acts governingroadside and vegetation management. Influences on roadside weed management are:

• Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988. DNRE must receive a plan of works prior toundertaking works on a road if such works have the potential to impact on a listedspecies or critical habitat (as defined under the Act).

• Country Fire Authority Act 1958. The Country Fire Authority may direct the managerof the road to control weeds where they create a potential fire hazard or are inhibitingaccess.

• Road Traffic Act 1988. VicRoads, or Municipalities where they are the delegatedmanagement authority, have the responsibility to control gorse on Declared Main Roadsand Highways.

• Local Government Act 1989. Municipalities do not have authority relating to noxiousweeds but may create local laws relating to the control of weeds which are consistentwith and do not duplicate other legislation such as the CaLP Act 1994. Somemunicipalities use local laws to enforce the control of weeds.

• Planning and Environment Act 1987. The Native Vegetation Retention Controls,established under the Act, implemented through the Victorian Planning Provisionsadministered by Municipalities, require that all works and activities (other thanmaintenance) which impact on native vegetation be referred to DNRE for considerationbefore a permit can be issued.

• Various Acts provide access rights for servicing authorities to enter land, includingroadsides, to carry out maintenance and/or construction works.

Background


1.5.4 Proposed legislative changes

The legal requirement that landholders be responsible for the control of weeds, including gorse,on roadsides is a very contentious issue. Some landholders are confused about theirresponsibilities while many more are openly hostile to a law which requires them to expendmoney and energy on an area where they have no other rights or responsibilities. The result ofthe confusion and hostility is that most roadsides contain weeds. It is clear that the currentlegislation is not satisfactory for the task of adequately controlling weeds on roadsides.

There is an opportunity for the Gorse Task Force to facilitate an open discussion about theproblems of the current legislation and propose changes for government consideration.

This discussion should not be seen in the light of individuals trying to avoid their responsibilitiesbut rather as a serious attempt to provide a better system of controlling weeds on roadsides.There is a general acceptance that weed control is a personal responsibility where theindividual has some control over the land and activities on it. This is not the case on roadsides.There is, however, a great opportunity to form true working partnerships in the control of weedson roadsides which could result in major community benefits.

1.6 Control techniques

There are four essential components in the control of gorse:

• A combination of control methods

One method alone is unlikely to be effective. Control requires the use of a combinationof methods at different times of the year.

• A commitment from land owners for many years

Gorse seedlings may continue to emerge from seeds dormant in the ground for as longas 30 years after the initial treatment.

• A change in the conditions under which the gorse infested the land initially

It is essential to follow all control activities with the establishment of vigorouscompetitive pastures or other vegetation to limit the chances of reinfestation.

• Prevention of infestation by ensuring machinery and equipment hygiene and nottransporting infected gravel and soil to uninfested sites.

The currently accepted control measures are summarised in Table 2.

Background


Table 2: Control Techniques

Control Time applicable Notes

CULTIVATION MARCH - APRIL

&

AUGUST - NOVEMBER

Following mechanical removal of plants the area shouldbe ploughed and raked to remove as many of the rootsas possible. A late summer, early autumn cultivation willincrease seedling germination which can then befollowed by a later cultivation or chemical spray.Establishment of competitive pasture or other vegetationis essential to reduce reinvasion.

CHAINING MAY - AUGUST Chaining is only useful to knock down large plants as apreparation for burning or spraying. It requiresreasonably moist soils to allow as much of the rootsystem as possible to be extracted.

GRUBBING JUNE - SEPTEMBER Effective method of control, provided all of the rootsystem is removed.

CRUSHING AUGUST - NOVEMBER Useful in reducing water content of bushes by more than40% before burning for a hotter, more effective fire.

BURNING ALL YEAR (Apart from fire restricted periodsunless with a permit)

Burning is useful in the control of gorse but, like all othermethods, it must be only a part of an overallmanagement strategy which incorporates other controltechniques. Burning in autumn reduces the impact onthe native animals which use the gorse for nesting andshelter.

MULCHING AND SLASHING

MAY - SEPTEMBER Serves to suppress regrowth of seedlings and reducesbulk for follow-up spraying. A chain-blade attached to abrush-cutter is effective for small infestations.

CUT & PAINTINGWITHHERBICIDE

ANYTIME This method is only effective if the stump is painted withherbicide immediately after cutting. It is usually limited tosmaller infestations.

REVEGETATION

ALL YEAR ROUND On agricultural land, the development of dense strongpasture is essential. Initial growth of grass should beencouraged with fertilisers.

In non-farming areas revegetation with trees and shrubsto form a dense canopy can help in long term control.

CHEMICALCONTROL

DURING THE ACTIVEGROWING SEASONS- USUALLY

JANUARY - MARCH

&

AUGUST - NOVEMBER

Spraying can be effective on large and small infestationsprovided it is applied correctly. Plants must becompletely covered with spray and not be removed orburnt for at least six months after spraying. Re-treatmentwill always be necessary because of repeatedgermination from the soil stored seed.

The potential fire hazard of dead clumps must beconsidered.

Background


Table 2: cont.

Control Time applicable Notes

BIOLOGICALCONTR

OL

ALL YEAR ROUND (When implemented)

Biological control will not eradicate gorse. However, itmay be an additional management tool in some areaswhere access, costs or non-target species damage areof concern.

HYGIENE ALL YEAR ROUND Gorse can be spread by machinery and in soil andgravel, especially along roadsides. Machinery andvehicle hygiene is essential when working in gorseinfected areas or moving from one area to another.

GRAZING MARCH - APRIL

&

AUGUST - NOVEMBER

Grazing is not a recommended method of control. Gorseis generally only eaten after all other fodder has beenconsumed. Grazing on seedling regrowth following othercontrol methods can be effective, however, the site willbe left in a state which is conducive to re-invasion.

Adapted from Tamar Valley Weed Strategy Working Group website (Extracted: 9 Sept 1998)

1.6.1 Burning Burning is an effective initial step only in controlling gorse, and only if the fire is extremely hot.Crushing by rolling, or spraying with chemicals, can serve to reduce stem moisture content tobelow 40% and ensure the burn clears the area sufficiently to allow spraying or revegetation. Aburn from August to November is the optimum time to reduce biomass and increase seedgermination, however, autumn burning should be considered to reduce the impact on the nativebirds and other animals using the gorse for nesting and shelter. Opportunistic control activitiesfollowing summer wildfires can also be very effective if timed correctly.

A slow moving hot burn may destroy up to 60% of seed and initiate germination of a further20% of seed deeper in the soil, however, according to Hugh Gourlay, a recognised authority onthe biology and control of gorse in New Zealand, evidence from New Zealand and elsewhereindicates that burning may actually increase the spread of gorse. It should, therefore, be usedwith caution and only where there is follow-up with other control measures such as herbicideapplication.

1.6.2 Chemical Control Chemical sprays are recommended for use on all sizes of infestations although for large oldinfestations, burning, slashing or chaining should be used first to reduce bulk. Completecoverage of gorse bushes with spray is important so the use of marker dyes in the spray mix isrecommended.

It is important that chemical sprays are used carefully and accurately to avoid non-targetspecies and adverse off-site environmental effects. This is particularly important on roadsidesand waterways, where the remnant native vegetation is very vulnerable and often containssignificant species, and in the vicinity of sensitive crops such as grape vines.

A list of the recommended active chemical constituents and the names of suitable herbicidesfor use in the control of gorse is provided in Appendix 6.

Background


1.6.3 Biological control

Biological control in isolation can not be relied upon for gorse control. The currently availableagents will not kill gorse plants, however, they may reduce the productivity of the gorse therebyreducing the rate of spread. It is a slow process which requires healthy plants that are insheltered, undisturbed environments, to encourage the development of biocontrol agentpopulations.

A program to import and distribute gorse biological control agents within south-easternAustralia commenced in 1998. The Victorian component of the program is coordinated by theKeith Turnbull Research Institute (KTRI), DNRE. The gorse spider mite, introduced in October1998, will complement the activities of the gorse seed weevil which was released in Australia in1939. A further three biocontrol agents, which feed on either the seed or on the foliage, arebeing investigated for their suitability for introduction into Australia. Appendix 7 provides detailson the two biocontrol agents currently in Victoria and the potential agents under investigation.

1.6.4 Revegetation

Revegetation is one of the most effective means of controlling gorse. Mature gorse plants aredifficult to control but seedlings are poor competitors and can be swamped by vigorous pasturespecies such as Rye Grass and White Clover. Native tree and shrub species can also out-compete the seedlings provided they are densely planted. In agricultural land pasturecompetition combined with grazing of seedlings has been shown to be an effective controlstrategy for gorse.

It is important to first exhaust the existing gorse seed bank in the soil before revegetating thearea. Germination of the seed bank can be encouraged by burning or cultivation withsubsequent grazing or spraying to treat seedlings. This regime should be implemented for twoor three years to remove the seed bank and allow effective, gorse-free revegetation withcompetitive pasture, trees or shrubs.

Where the primary landuse is for conservation or other non-agricultural purposes the use ofrepeated fires, cultivation and grazing is inappropriate. The establishment of a vigorous coverof indigenous species here will be effective in restricting the growth and development of gorseseedlings but follow up spot spraying will be required.

1.6.5 Integrated management techniques

Integrated techniques offer the only prospects for long term control of gorse. An example of anintegrated technique for agricultural land is to burn the gorse and then follow-up with cultivationto promote seed germination and then spray with herbicide to kill the new growth. Afterspraying with herbicide the paddock should be sown with vigorous pasture species andfertilised. Follow-up spot spraying will be required to ensure gorse does not become re-established.

Gorse control on land reserved for conservation and biodiversity values is somewhat moredemanding. Integrated control may include the combination of judicious herbicide application,avoiding non-target species, followed by appropriate revegetation. Biological control presentsa valuable additional control component by reducing the vigour of the gorse and improving theeffectiveness of the revegetation activities.

Background


1.7 Compliance - extension and enforcement

The aim of extension and enforcement is to gain compliance with a set of objectives.Extension uses information, education, assistance and incentives to achieve the objectiveswhereas enforcement uses a legislative framework to insist that objectives are met. Within thecontext of the Gorse Control Strategy, the primary objective of both extension and enforcementis to control gorse within the GTFA.

Extension aims to influence landholders and increase their willingness and ability to controlgorse. It is undertaken by Landcare group members, neighbours, other members of the public,and CMA and DNRE officers. Activities range from talking to individual landholders andgroups, the production of information brochures, organisation of field days, assistance in thepreparation of weed control plans and programs, and the development of funding proposals. Itis important to supply land owners with accurate and up to date information to encourageaction, and strategies must be developed to ensure that all land owners, including absenteeland holders, receive the information.

Effective control of gorse through extension, however, is only possible where there is a desireon the part of the land owner to control gorse. Unfortunately, some land owners are not willingto accept responsibility, and compliance with the CaLP Act 1994 and regional control objectivescan only be achieved through enforcement.

Enforcement of the CaLP Act 1994 is limited to authorised DNRE officers and complianceprograms are generally limited to priority weeds where there is strong community support andaction. Ultimately, enforcement is determined by community action in the control of weeds.

1.8 Evaluation and monitoring

The cost of controlling gorse is high so it is important to ensure that the control programs areeffective and achieve the best possible results. It is essential that all control programs andactions be recorded accurately at the time of control and that follow-up effectivenessassessment is conducted.

DNRE uses the Pest Management Information System (PMIS) and Geographic InformationSystems (GIS) for recording and monitoring weed management. PMIS allows the recording ofa range of data about weed infestations including location, size of the infestation, land tenure,control activities and an assessment of the effectiveness of the control activity. The input ofdata to the PMIS, however, is largely confined to DNRE officers, but there are opportunities toextend its use to community groups and other land owners.

It is essential to maintain an accurate and up-to-date database relating to gorse to enableeffective monitoring, evaluation and reporting. Continued government support will bedependent on a clear demonstration of the level of control activity and a reduction in the gorseinfestation. This demonstration can only be achieved through an accurate database linked to aGIS map base.

Similarly, it is important to evaluate the effectiveness of the Gorse Control Strategy. TheObjectives and Actions of the Strategy must be reviewed and evaluated regularly to ensure thatthe Goals can be met in the time-frame specified.

Background


1.9 Partnerships and cost sharing arrangements

The implementation and effective delivery of the Gorse Control Strategy requires commongoals and strong partnerships between government at all levels and private land owners.Partnerships are central to the government’s policy for cooperative weed management inVictoria and they will define the level of government support for the Gorse Control Strategy.

Partnerships and cost sharing arrangements for sustainable catchment management inVictoria, as stated in the Victorian Weeds Strategy (DNRE 1998), are based on the principlesof:

• Duty of Care

Every land owner has a Duty of Care over the land they manage. All land owners have a moralresponsibility to care for the land and to ensure that future generations enjoy a similar or betterenvironment.

• Beneficiary Pays

Whoever benefits from the action should pay for the implementation. Weed control on farmland, for example, directly benefits the farmer through increased production and reduced costsof control.

• Government Contributes for Public Benefit

The public benefits from the control of weeds on public lands so the government contributes tothe control of gorse in these areas. There is scope for a greater contribution for control ofgorse on roadsides and waterways where the public benefit is clear.

• Economic Viability

Before contributions are made by government to land and water management activities, theactivities must be technically sound and the benefits must justify the costs.

These guidelines form the economic basis for an integrated approach to managing gorse.

There is a large number of funding sources available at a Federal and State level which canassist land holders in the control of gorse. These sources, and the eligibility rules for gainingaccess to the funds, change regularly. A list of current funding assistance support schemes isprovided in Appendix 8.

There is also the opportunity to establish mutually beneficial partnerships with industry andother non-government organisations to assist in the control of gorse.

The strategy


SECTION 2 THE STRATEGY

2.1 A Strategy for the Control of gorse The Strategy sets out the aims for the control of gorse, the actions which will be necessary tosatisfy the aims, who is responsible for the conduct of the actions and when they will be carriedout.

The Strategy has been developed within the framework of:

• knowledge and an understanding of the current recorded distribution of gorse,

• knowledge and an understanding of the current control techniques for gorse,

• the responsibilities of agencies and individuals for the control of gorse,

• the capacity of the responsible people to control gorse,

• the commitment of the community and government to the control of gorse,

• the recognition that the successful control of gorse requires planning, goodwill andpartnerships between private and public landholders.

The Strategy is a realistic appraisal of the current situation and what will be possible in the nextfive years. It is not a wish list. It is achievable with the support and goodwill of the communityand the government.

2.1.1 Goals The management strategies and actions provided in section 2.2 will enable the achievement ofthe following goals.

Goal 1• Reduce the overall infestation of gorse within the GTFA by 25% within 5

years (2000 ha). Gorse will be systematically treated throughout the target area and its distribution will bereduced by 25% by the year 2004. The 2000 ha target, which includes the 1000 ha target inGoal 2, is the area of treatment considered achievable within the time frame and the capacity ofindividuals, community groups and managing authorities within the GTFA.

Goal 2• Reduce the infestation of gorse on roadsides and waterways by 15%

within 5 years (1000 ha).Roadsides and waterways often contain remnant vegetation with high biodiversity values whichare threatened by invasion of gorse. The potential for long distance spread from these areasthrough water washed seeds or transport by road-making and other machinery, is also high.Gorse control on roadsides and waterways is therefore vital. Over 80% of the gorse records aresmall infestations on roadsides and waterways so control here will provide the greatest publicbenefit through increased biodiversity values and the reduced likelihood of spread.

The strategy


2.2 Strategies and actions

Strategy 1. Define an ongoing role for the Gorse Task Force.

To maintain the impetus of the Gorse Control Strategy and toensure that the Actions are implemented and the Goalsreached the Gorse Task Force should continue in an activecapacity.

The continuation of the GTF is essential for the success of the Strategy. It provides a focus forall issues affecting gorse and a contact point for government departments and private landowners. Because it is a community reference group, the GTF will maintain and invigoratecommunity participation in the implementation of this Strategy.

Actions

Action Responsibility Partners Time frame1.1 Establish an implementation forum.

GTF CMAs DNRE Communitygroups

End of June 1999

1.2 Oversee the appointment of• Executive Officer (0.5 VPS 3 equiv.),• 3 Weed Facilitators (full time VPS 2

equiv.) and• 1 Compliance Officer (full time VPS 3

equiv.).

GTF

DNRE

DNRECMAs

GTFCMAs

Appoint bySeptember 1999.

1.3 Determine annual targets and setpriorities for the control of gorse inaccordance with the Gorse ControlStrategy.

GTF

CMAs DNRE Communitygroups

By the end of Marcheach year.

1.4 Allocate resources for the control ofgorse.

GTF

CMAs DNRE

Ongoing

1.5 Coordinate gorse control demonstrationsites.

GTF GTF facilitator

CMAs DNRE

Ongoing

1.6 Compile six monthly progress reportson the implementation of the GorseControl Strategy.

GTF GTF facilitator

By the end ofDecember and Juneeach year

1.7 Attract funding and secure resources

GTF GTF Facilitator

DNRE CMAs Communitygroups

Ongoing

1.8 Liaise with the CMAs to have gorseclassified as a Regional Priority Weedwithin the three CMRs within the GTFA

GTF CMAsDNRE

At the time of weedclassification review.

The strategy


Strategy 2. Increase community awareness of gorse.

It is essential that all members of the community are aware oftheir responsibilities in the control of gorse. All efforts will bemade to keep the community informed about the threats andall other aspects of gorse.

It is important that everyone understands their responsibilities for the control of gorse and hasaccess to the best and most up-to-date information. It is also most important to use localinformation targeted at the local area and not rely on general information. Increasingcommunity awareness will require a concerted and coordinated approach by all those active inthe control of gorse.

A higher level of facilitation and support is required to assist Landcare groups and individualsinvolved in the control of gorse. Facilitators would assist through helping Landcare groups andindividuals in sourcing funds, provision of extension materials, organising and conducting fielddays and providing information to groups and individuals. The Facilitators would also have arole in the coordination of control activities at the boundaries of private and public land.

The role of these positions will be extension only. Enforcement activities will continue to be theresponsibility of DNRE.

To adequately cover the Task Force Area, three Facilitators, one for each of the Corangamite,Glenelg Hopkins and North Central CMAs, are required. They are to be based in Ballarat.

Actions

Action Responsibility Partners Time frame2.1 Develop brochures and weed notes

relating to the threats and control ofgorse which specifically target gorsewithin the GTFA.

GTF facilitator DNRE

Landcaregroups Researchorganisations

Complete byDecember1999.

2.2 Provide gorse control information toevery household within the GTFA eachyear.

GTF facilitatorDNREMunicipalities

Landcaregroups

Annually withrate notices

2.3 Promote the Good NeighbourProgram to ensure that gorse controlactivities are synchronised betweenpublic land and private land owners.

DNRE GTF facilitator

Landcaregroups Private landowners Public landmanagers

Ongoing

2.4 Publicise gorse control activities whichinclude joint actions between adjacentland owners

GTF facilitatorDNRELandcare groups

Private landownersPublic landmanagers

At everyopportunity

The strategy


Strategy 3. Develop gorse Control Action Plans within eachLandcare group area.

Local Gorse Control Action Plans will lead to the efficient andcoordinated control of gorse.

A local Landcare group area Gorse Control Action Plan will provide a sharper focus for thecontrol of gorse and allow for more input to the planning and control process by local landholders. It is important that gorse has its own Strategy although it may be a component of amore general Weed Control Strategy for the Landcare group area.

Actions

Action Responsibility Partners Time frame3.1 Develop or update a Gorse Control

Action Plan for every Landcare groupwithin the GTFA with an emphasis onthe control of gorse on roadsides andwaterways.

Landcare groups GTF facilitator DNRE CMAs

By the end ofJune 2000.

3.2 Review the Landcare group GorseAction Plans and targets annually.

Landcare groups GTF facilitator DNRE CMAs

Complete byend of Juneeach year

3.3 Provide training to ensurestandardised gorse data collectionprocedures.

GTF facilitator DNRE Complete bythe end ofDecember1999

3.4 Provide gorse distribution mappingsupport for Landcare and communitygroups.

GTF facilitator DNRE Ongoing

3.5 Develop a proforma for standardisedAction Plans.

GTF facilitator DNRECMAs

Complete bythe end ofDecember1999

The strategy


Strategy 4. Define the responsibilities for the control of gorse.

Land owners will retain the primary responsibility for thecontrol of gorse.

Gorse is currently listed as a Regionally Controlled Weed under the Catchment and LandProtection Act 1994 within the GTFA. As a Regionally Controlled Weed, the control of gorse isthe responsibility of the owner of the land. The control of gorse on roadsides is addressed inStrategy 5.

Absentee landholders, land developers and other groups of people are often not aware of theirresponsibilities for the control of gorse. In addition, the responsibility for the control of weeds onroadsides, waterways and leased public land, such as unused road reserves and waterfrontages, is often mis-understood. The mis-understanding results in reduced control of weedson roadsides and other common land which has the potential to undermine or destroy weedcontrol programs throughout the entire GTFA (see sections 1.5.2 and 1.5.3).

Every effort will be made to inform all land holders within the GTFA of their legal and moralobligations.

Actions

Action Responsibility Partners Time frame4.1 Inform all land owners within the Task

Force area of their responsibilities forthe control of gorse


Landcare groups Municipalities

Annually, tobe sent outwith ratenotices

4.2 Establish a service for information ongorse control in the GTFA. A websiteor email address would be appropriate.

GTFDNRE

CMAs By December1999

The strategy


Strategy 5. Control gorse on roadsides and waterways.

The control of gorse on roadsides and waterways provides thegreatest public benefit.

Roadsides and waterways often contain remnant vegetation with high biodiversity values whichare threatened by invasion of gorse. The potential for long distance spread from these areasthrough water washed seeds or transport by road-making and other machinery, is also high.The control of gorse in these two areas will result in the greatest public benefit and, therefore, isthe main focus of this Strategy.

Everyone has the responsibility to ensure that their efforts to control gorse do not adverselyimpact on biodiversity. Permits for gorse control works on some waterways are required andgreat care should be exercised in all situations to ensure that non-target species are notharmed.

Agencies have a responsibility to ensure their actions do not create or exacerbate the weedproblem on roadsides. Fire prevention and control activities, road making activities, installationof public utilities and maintenance of fence lines all have the potential to enhance the spread ofgorse. In addition, the control of weeds on roadsides often puts an unfair burden on theadjacent land holders and changes to legislation will be investigated.

ActionsAction Responsibility Partners Time frame5.1 Support existing and additional Roadside

Management Plans which effectivelyaddress the problem of weeds onroadsides, for each Municipality within theGTFA.

Municipalities DNRE Land holders Landcare groups

By the end ofthe year 2000

5.2 Emphasise the control of gorse onroadsides and waterways in the Landcaregroup Action Plans (see Action 3.1).

Landcare groups GTF DNRE

By the end ofJune 2000

5.3 Ensure that employees and contractorsare aware of and undertake best practicein roadside management and comply withthe directions in the RoadsideManagement Plans.

Municipalities DNRE Researchorganisations

Ongoing

5.4 Ensure that employees and contractorscomply with the environmentalspecifications contained within roadmaking and maintenance contracts.

Municipalities VicRoads

GTF Ongoing

5.5 Encourage VicRoads and Municipalitiesto require employees and contractorsattend the Environmental Awarenesscourse conducted by DNRE

GTF DNRE

VicRoads Municipalities

Ongoing

5.6 Investigate possible changes tolegislation which could assist land holdersin the control of gorse on roadsidesadjacent to their properties.

GTF DNREMunicipalitiesLand holdersLandcare groups

The strategy


Strategy 6. Support community groups and landholdersactively controlling gorse.

It is important to support those active in the control of gorse.

Resources for the support of gorse control activities are limited. As a result only Landcaregroups or other community based groups or individual landholders who are working to aprogram and are active in the control of gorse will be supported.

The importance of the role of Landcare and other community groups in the control of gorsecannot be overstated. There is a real danger, however, of placing excessive demands on thesegroups which may lead to breakdowns in the system. The groups will be supported by the GTFfacilitators and compliance officers to control gorse.

It is important that the good work of committed groups and individuals is not jeopardised byothers not prepared to carry out their responsibilities. Enforcement of the provisions of theCaLP Act 1994 will be undertaken where education and extension have failed.

Actions

Action Responsibility Partners Time frame6.1 Support the formation of Landcare

groups and other community groupswithin the GTFA.

GTF facilitator CMAs

Municipalities Existing Landcaregroups DNRE

Ongoing.

6.2 Assist Landcare groups in thedevelopment of Gorse Control ActionPlans within their areas by runningtraining workshops.


Other Landcaregroups

By the endof 1999.

6.3 Assist Landcare and other groups andindividuals active in the control of gorseto gain funding support for programsagreed to in the Action Plans.


CMAs Ongoing

6.4 Support Landcare and other groupsthrough enforcement of the CaLP Act1994 where education and extensionhave failed.

DNRE

GTF As required

6.5 Appoint one enforcement officer to theGTFA initially for a period of five years.

DNRE

GTF CMAs

BySeptember1999

6.6 Support the establishment of 12biological control nursery sites withinthe GTFA.

GTF facilitator KTRI

DNRE Municipalities Landcare groups

As soon aspossible

6.7 Support research into the biologicalcontrol of gorse within the GTFA.

GTF facilitatorDNRE

KTRIMunicipalitiesLandcare groups

Ongoing

The strategy


Strategy 7. Facilitate greater control of gorse on public land.

Control of gorse will be undertaken by the managementauthority, or licensee, on public land in conjunction withcontrol activities on adjacent private land.

It is essential that gorse control activities be coordinated between adjoining owners and thatcontrol works are carried out at the same time. All the good work of one owner can be undoneby the adjacent owner not controlling their weeds. Lack of coordination is often the result ofignorance rather than a lack of will. A Facilitator would ensure that all land owners in an areaare aware of current control programs and that all land owners work in co-operation.

Actions

Action Responsibility Partners Time frame7.1 Encourage greater participation of

public land owners in the activities andplanning programs by Landcare andother community groups.


Public landmanagers

Ongoing

7.2 Control gorse on land managed bypublic authorities. Emphasis shouldbe placed on areas of high biodiversityvalue and on boundary areas wherecooperative control programs withneighbours will provide the greatestimpact.

Land Owner DNRE Facilitators Landcaregroups

Ongoing

7.3 Coordinate the Good NeighbourProgram and other co-operativecontrol programs in boundary areaswith adjacent land owners.

DNRE GTF facilitator Land owners

Allorganisationsandindividuals.

Ongoing

7.4 Coordinate gorse control planning withLandcare groups and adjacent landholders to maximise controleffectiveness.

Public Landmanagers Landcare groups Private Landowners GTF facilitator

DNRE As part of thedevelopment ofthe Landcarearea gorseControl ActionPlans - by theend of 1999.

7.5 Ensure that the GTF is involved in theexpression of interest process for theGood Neighbour Program.

DNRE

GTF Ongoing

7.6 Encourage the participation of all landmanagers in the Good NeighbourProgram.

DNRELand managers

GTF Ongoing

The strategy


Strategy 8. Increase the control of gorse on private land.

Assist landholders with the control of gorse on private land.

The control of gorse is the responsibility of the land owner, however, some land holders have ahuge problem and require assistance if control is to be successful. Assistance for controllinggorse on private land and leased public land, however, will only be available where it can beclearly demonstrated to be of public benefit.

The control of gorse requires a concerted long-term effort. Sporadic and short-term controlprograms will fail and therefore cannot be supported.

Assistance will be available where land holders can demonstrate one or more of the following:

• clear public benefit,• concerted past efforts to reduce the gorse problem,• the existence of a considered and appropriate property weed control plan which

encompasses all aspects of weed control,• a proposed change in land use which would reduce the likelihood of reinfestation (this

would normally be embodied in a property plan),• that they are members of a Landcare group or other community group and the control

activities are part of the group’s weed control Action Plan.

Assistance may involve:

• help and direction in the preparation of a property weed control plan,• advice regarding changes in land use and alternative enterprises,• subsidies in relation to on-ground control works -normally through community groups,• extension and enforcement programs.

Actions

Action Responsibility Partners Time frame8.1 Support and assist land holders in the

control of gorse where there is a clearpublic benefit.

GTF DNRE

Landcaregroups

As requestedby the landholder

8.2 Assist land holders in the preparationof weed control plans on theirproperties.


Landcaregroups

As requestedby the landholder

8.3 Ensure Property Certificates underSection 90 of the CaLP Act 1994(which indicate any current compliancenotice over the property) are availableto prospective purchasers of land.

DNRE

GTF

As required.

8.4 Provide advice and suggestions forchanges in land use which will reducethe risk of reinfestation of treated sites,eg. revegetation.

GTFDNRE

Land holders As requestedby the landholder.

The strategy


Strategy 9. Promote changed land use as an integralcomponent of gorse control.

It is essential to alter the land use conditions under whichgorse grows if control activities are to be effective.

Gorse will infest areas where the conditions are conducive to its growth. Removal of gorse byspraying or other control methods only provides a temporary respite unless it is accompanied bya change in land use which is less subject to reinfestation. Changed land use may include:

• improved pasture on grazing land - gorse seedlings are poor competitors with a thick coverof grass,

• dense revegetation with native shrubs and trees - gorse is reduced by competition andshading,

• alternative crops such as plantation species - provide a good return from otherwise degradedland,

• different stock animals or heavier stocking rates - goats will actively attack young gorseplants.

In most situations simply removing the gorse is not sufficient.

Gorse invasion of native grassland and open woodland presents a challenge for control asrevegetation with trees and shrubs may not be appropriate. It is important to consider theprimary landuse and the natural vegetation community of the site prior to any revegetationactivity.

Actions

Action Responsibility Partners Time frame9.1 Investigate all possible land use

alternatives as a component of thecontrol Strategy. This should beaddressed in the development ofproperty plans.

Land holder

GTF facilitator DNRE CMAs

Ongoing

9.2 Include changed land use as acomponent of the Landcare group areaGorse Control Action Plans.

Landcare groups GTF DNRE CMAs

By the end of1999

9.3 Establish demonstration sites toillustrate land use alternatives.

GTF facilitator DNRE Landcaregroups CMAs

By the end of2000

9.4 Pursue and secure resources toenable changed land use, for example,through Tree Vic, Greening Australiaor Bush Care.

GTF DNRECMAs

Ongoing

The strategy


Strategy 10. Establish a monitoring and evaluation processfor gorse control programs.

Programs and actions must be monitored and evaluated toensure that gorse control has been efficient and effective.

The accumulation of knowledge about gorse within the area and the best methods of control ina variety of situations will allow greater efficiency in future control programs. Recording thedetails of control programs should be undertaken at the time of the activity and followed up withevaluation of the success at specified later times. It is essential that all recording be consistentacross the GTFA to enable results to be compared.

It will also be essential to review the progress of the Gorse Control Strategy to ensure that theactions remain appropriate and that they are leading to the achievement of the Goals within thespecified time frame.

Actions

Action Responsibility Partners Time frame10.1 Develop procedures and guidelines

for recording gorse infestations toensure consistent mapping across theGTFA (see Actions 3.3, 3.4).

GTF DNRE

Landcare groups By the end ofDecember1999

10.2 Map the extent of gorse within theentire GTFA.

Landcare groups GTF facilitator

DNRE

By the end ofJune 2000

10.3 Develop procedures and guidelinesfor recording gorse control activities.This should include:

• the control method used,• the chemical used and its

concentration,• the weather conditions during

the program• follow-up actions.

GTF facilitatorDNRE

Landcare groups By the end ofDecember1999

10.4 Review and evaluate the GorseControl Strategy:

• annual review of action targetsand achievements

• major review of Strategy goals

after 5 years.

GTF DNRE

Landcare groups CMAs Public landmanagers Land holders

• By the

end ofJune eachyear

• By theend ofJune2004

The strategy


2.3 Implementation

The implementation and success of this Strategy will involve the commitment of all people andorganisations with responsibility for the control of gorse. Most of the on-ground actions of theStrategy will be undertaken by community groups and land holders but they will require support.

The activities below have been identified in the Strategy. The cost and the source of funds hasbeen estimated by the GTF and were derived from the currently known distribution of gorse inthe GTFA and the targets set in the Strategy. The costs must be viewed as indicative only.

Funds for the implementation of the Strategy may come from various sources including bids tofunding sources (Appendix 8), redirection of currently funded programs or in-kind fundsassociated with community groups.

Table 3: Implementation

Estimated costs per year or project asspecified

Responsible organisation/Activity Fundingrequired

Funding to beredirected

Existingcontributions

Gorse Task Force

Oversee the appointment of:

• one 0.5 Executive Officer

• three Facilitators

• one Compliance Officer

• Four and a half vehicles

• Review of Gorse Control Strategy

$21 000

$96 000

$43 000

$54 000

$10 000

Sub-total $224 000

DNRE

• Provision of office space

• Mapping support

• Control works on public land

• Extension and compliance activities

$25 000

$10 000

$63 000

$75 000

Sub-total $98 000 $75 000 Keith Turnbull Research Institute

• Provide ongoing support for the biologicalcontrol program and establish and maintain12 nursery sites for the gorse spider mitewithin the GTFA

$7 000

Sub-total $7 000

The strategy


Table 3: cont.

Estimated costs per year or project asspecified

Responsible organisation/Activity Fundingrequired

Funding to beredirected

Existingcontributions

Municipalities (LGA)

• Development of Roadside ManagementPlans ($20 000/ plan/ LGA x 5)

• Assist with awareness and promotionalmaterial ($5 000/LGA x 5)

• Control gorse on LGA managed land ($5 000/plan/LGA x 5)

• Training contract and outdoor staff in gorsecontrol ($5 000/LGA x 5)

$100 000

$25 000

$25 000

$25 000

Sub-total $100 000 $25 000 $50 000 Catchment Management Authorities

• Support implementation through access tothe Waterway Management Tariff Fund

• Assist with awareness and promotionalmaterial ($5 000/ CMA x 3)

Project basis

$15 000

Sub-total $15 000

Community and Landholders

• Development of local Action Plans (AP) forthe control of gorse ($5 000/AP x 31)

• Control of gorse within the GTFA

• Review of Gorse Control Strategy

$155 000

$850 000

$10 000

Sub-total $1 015 000

Total $331 000 $138 000 $1 140 000

References


References

Carr, G., Yugovic, J. and Robinson, K. (1992) Environmental Weed Invasions in Victoria:Conservation and Management Implications. Department of Conservation and NaturalResources and Ecological Horticulture Pty Ltd.

COA (1997) The national weeds strategy: a strategic approach to weed problems of nationalsignificance. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.

Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research (1996) Te Whakapau Taru - The Biological Control ofWeeds Book. Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research, Lincoln.

DNRE (1998) Victorian weeds strategy (Draft for comment). Department of Natural Resourcesand Environment, East Melbourne.

McGeary, J. (1996-7) Priority weeds in the Blampied-Kooroocheang Landcare area; Theirextent and distribution. Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Ballarat.

Kerr, M.K.C. and Westbrooke, M.E. (1996) The application of GIS to weed survey. In R.C.H.Shepherd (Ed) Proceedings, Eleventh Australian Weeds Conference, Melbourne, Australia.

Miller, J.D. (1996) Mapping the distribution of weeds with cost effective remotely sensed data.In: R.C.H. Shepherd (Ed) Proceedings, Eleventh Australian Weeds Conference, Melbourne,Australia.

Parsons, W.T. (1973) Noxious weeds of Victoria. Inkata press, Melbourne.

Parsons, W.T and Cuthbertson, EG. (1992) Noxious weeds of Australia. Inkata Press,Melbourne.

Richardson, R.G. and Hill, R.L. (1998) Ulex europaeus L. In: F.D. Panetta, R.H. Groves andR.C.H. Shepherd (Eds.) The Biology of Australian weeds. Vol 2. R.G. and F.J. Richardson,Melbourne.

Watts, G.N. (1988) Draft Furze Control Strategy. Department of Conservation Forests andLands, Ballarat.

Wilcock. P. (1995) Factors influencing woody weed distribution in the proposed CreswickRegional Park. University of Ballarat, Victoria.

Appendices


Appendix 1 - The Current Role of the Ballarat Region Gorse Task Force

(Source: The Ballarat Region Gorse Task Force)

The Ballarat Gorse Task Force represents 30 Community groups, DNRE, CMAs andMunicipalities in the Ballarat region and has the following roles:

• Development of strategy to tackle gorse in the Ballarat region, including:

• mapping extent of problem

• awareness and education

• control techniques

• develop action plans in priority areas

• enforcement

• monitoring and recording.

• Apply for funding (Federal, State, Corporate) to assist/subsidise in the control of gorse,including:

• NHT

• State government Land Protection Incentives

• Community Weed Control Scheme

• Other.

• Raise the profile of gorse with the community and CMAs and promote education andawareness of problems associated with gorse in the Ballarat region, including:

• publicity campaign

• signage

• brochures.

• Lobby government for additional funding and removal of taxes on herbicides to supportgorse control.

• Encourage further Local government involvement and a consistent approach across thefive municipalities in gorse control.

• Coordinate the allocation of resources for gorse control across the Ballarat region.

• Lobby government and the CMAs and provide input into review of the CaLP Act 1994 tofacilitate implementation of enforcement actions.

Appendices


Appendix 2 - Key stakeholders in the GTFA

(Source: The Ballarat Region Gorse Task Force)

Landcare and Community Groups

• Bald Hills Creswick Landcare group• Bamganie-Meredith District Landcare group• Basalt Landcare group• Blampied-Kooroocheang Landcare group• Break O’Day and Forest Environmental group• Broken Creek Catchment Protection group• Burrumbeet Landcare group• East Moorabool Landcare group• Friends of the Napoleons Bushland• Glenlyon Landcare group• Grenville Landcare group• Haddon Landcare group• Lake Goldsmith Landcare group• Lal Lal Catchment Landcare group• Lexton Landcare group• LINCS• Misery-Moonlight Landcare group• Mount Bolton/Beckworth Landcare group• Napoleons-Enfield Landcare group• Pittong-Hoyles Creek Landcare group• Raglan Landcare group• Rokewood Landcare group• Ross Creek Landcare group• Scarsdale-Smythesdale Landcare group• Snake Valley Landcare group• South Ballarat Urban Landcare group• Trentham Landcare group• Ullina Landcare group• Upper Williamson’s Creek Landcare group• Werneth Landcare group• Woady Yaloak Catchment group

Appendices


Land managing agencies

Municipalities

• Ballarat City Council

• Golden Plains Shire Council

• Hepburn Shire Council

• Moorabool Shire Council

• Pyrenees Shire Council

Government agencies and corporations

• Department of Natural Resources and Environment (DNRE), including:

• Forest Service, Victoria

• Land Vic

• Flora and Fauna

• Catchment and Agricultural Services

• Corangamite Catchment Management Authority

• North Central Catchment Management Authority

• Glenelg Hopkins Catchment Management Authority

• Parks Victoria

• Public Transport Corporation

• Victorian Plantations Corporation

• Vic Roads

• Country Fire Authority

• Water Authorities, including:

• Central Highlands Water

• Southern Rural Water

• Goulburn-Murray Water

• Barwon Water

Appendices


Appendix 3 - Analysis of gorse distribution records

The distribution records, which were derived from a variety of sources, were supplied by DNRE.All calculations were undertaken in a GIS environment using MapInfo .

The quality and scale of the data records varied considerably and it was not possible to use thefull dataset for all of the calculations. Specific subsets of the data, as cited, were used tocalculate the various distribution components listed below.

Calculations of the area of private and public land included the roadsides contained within eachof these gross landcover types.

Distribution of land in the GTFA

Total area of GTFA 805 700 ha 100%

Total private land 591 300 ha 73%

Total public land 214 400 ha 27%

Total urban (includes public or private counted above) 3 649 ha <1%

Percentage area of gorse

(Based on studies by Miller (1996) and Kerr (1996))

Coverage of gorse in the Yendon 1:25 000 map area 1.36%

Coverage of gorse in the Napoleons 1:25 000 map area 0.83%

Working average for gorse infestations 1%

This figure accords with the level of infestation recorded in the Blampied-KooroocheangLandcare group (McGeary 1996-7) weed mapping exercise.

Size of infestations

(Based on studies by Miller (1996) and Kerr (1996))

Yendon:

Parcels of gorse infestation 491

Area covered range 0-5 ha

Average area of infestation size 0.17 ha

Median area of infestation size 0.011 ha

Napoleons:

Parcels of gorse infestation 158

Area covered range 0-24 ha

Average area of infestation size 0.7 ha

Median area of infestation size 0.016 ha

Appendices


The vast majority of infestations were small and linear along roads and water courses. Most ofthe infestations in paddocks were linear along fence lines but there were also a number of largeand dense clumps.

Distribution of infestation records on private land

(Based on Miller (1996))

Total number of records 346 100%

Infestation records on roads 143 41%

Infestations on waterways 153 44%

Infestations on paddocks 50 15%

Area of gorse on private land

(Based on McGeary (1996-7))

Total area (ha) of gorse recorded 127.75 100%

Total area (ha) of gorse recorded on roadsides 43.5 34%

Total area (ha) of gorse recorded on waterways 28.1 22%

(Total area (ha) of gorse recorded on non-productive land 71.6 56%)

(Total area (ha) of gorse recorded on productive land 56.2 44%)

Distribution of recorded infestations on public land

(Based on a study Wilcock (1995))

Total area of the Creswick Regional Park 1 345 ha

Gorse recorded in 299 quadrats.

Quadrats were 100m x 100m (1 ha).

Average cover within each of the quadrats 20% (approx)

Gorse infested area is therefore 4.4% of the Park

Virtually all infestations were linear and recorded along roads and drainage lines.

Problems with the Creswick Regional Park data

The coverage of gorse in the Creswick Regional Park was difficult to calculate as it came froma quadrat survey. As a result it is considered to be high and not truly representative of thesituation on public land.

The dearth of records on public land and the different survey methodology meant thatcomparisons with private land calculations could not be determined with any confidence.

For the sake of the exercise the same level of infestation coverage as that calculated for theprivate land (1%) was used as the basis for cost calculations on public land. This figure needsto be recalculated and updated as more data is accumulated.

Appendices


Appendix 4 - Economic analysis of gorse

(Prepared by: Strong Consulting Group, Ballarat)

Users guide

The economic analysis may be used in several ways.

It may be used to view the methods by which the analysis was completed and how the costs ofgorse control, and the benefits of control, were derived. This is useful if you want to know thetotal costs of gorse control in the GTFA.

It may also be used as a model to work out how much it is going to cost to undertake gorsecontrol under a range of different situations. To use the model you will have to record thenature of the infestation and understand the type of control measure to be undertaken. Onceyou have this information you can calculate the costs of control using Figures 2-6.

Preamble

This section models the economics of gorse based on the costs versus the benefits of controlon private and public land in the GTFA. The model covers a five year period from July 1st

1999.

Terms used in the economic analysis are defined as:

• Private land: covers land used for the purposes of primary production (the majority of thatarea), residential purposes (including hobby farms) and along private boundaries

• Public land: covers land under the management of various government departments andagencies.

• Tangible costs: are costs which may be directly measured, such as the costs of sprayinggorse.

• Intangible costs: are costs which cannot be directly measured and can only be estimated,such as environmental or social costs (see Section 1.4).

• A financial ‘benefit’ is presented as a number in brackets, eg. (99) designates a ‘benefit’ of$99. Conversely, the lack of a bracket from a calculation indicates a ‘cost’.

Core Assumptions

The core assumptions made include:

1. an overall gorse infestation level of 1% in the GTFA, based on analysis of data supplied bythe DNRE. This indicates that approximately 8 000 ha are infested. Sensitivity analysis willalso cover overall infestation levels of 0.5% and 1.5%.

The distribution of the infestation, based on land tenure, is:

• 73% on Private land,

• 27% on Public land.

Appendices


1. an estimated natural gorse infestation growth rate of 10% per annum, based on:

• statements from various members of the GTF and landholders in the GTFA, asexpressed via a number of community forums

• comments by Hugh Gourlay, Landcare Research, Lincoln, New Zealand, a recognisedauthority on the biology and control of gorse in New Zealand.

Because the 10% spread rate is an estimate only a sensitivity analysis has been included tocover spread rates of 5% and 15% (see page 50).

1. that, with Private landholders who are primary producers, gorse is already being managed,to a greater or lesser degree, as a normal part of their farm management programs. Thesecontrol costs are not separately identified specifically for gorse in farm managementbusiness plans and costs reporting.

The degree of control exercised by the primary producer will likely be dependent on theeconomic benefit they believe they can otherwise derive from the land; this, in turn, will bedependent on such matters as crop and livestock demand, commercial land values, etc.

The degree of control on land used for residential purposes (including hobby farms) willvary from very good to almost non existent, depending on individual circumstances.

2. that the goals of the Gorse Strategy are:

• to hold the line in 1999/00, ie. reducing the area of gorse infestation within theGTFA by approximately its natural level of growth

• achieve an overall net reduction of approximately 25% within five years, ie. by2 000 ha to a net infestation area of 6 000 ha

• reduce the extent of gorse by 15% on roadsides and waterways within the samefive year period, ie. by approximately 1 000 ha.

3. that no allowance is made in the cost model for the moneys currently being spent for gorsecontrol on Public land. Whilst this element is very important, the economic analysis isaimed at defining the additional funding required to manage the gorse problem in line withthe Strategy objectives.

4. no allowance for either the time value of money, ie. inflation, or the cost of borrowing. It isconsidered that, as a worst case scenario, this would add no more than 5% to the overalltotal costs.

Economic Model Structure

The overall structure of the economic model is designed to identify:

1. the net tangible costs of doing nothing, with the negative impacts on land productivity andvalues. An estimate is made for the value of work currently being done by privatelandholders.

2. the net tangible costs of control based on a standard costing approach for definedinfestation types and methods of treatment. While an allowance is made for work currentlybeing done by private landholders, no allowance is made for work currently being done bygovernment departments and agencies.

3. the calculation of the tangible cost/(benefit), equalling the difference between ‘2’ and ‘1’above.

Appendices


4. the adjustment of ‘3’, above, to allow for assessment of the intangible costs to arrive at thetotal economic cost/(benefit).

5. the identification of the requirement for additional funding required for control on Publicland.

6. at a detailed level, to allow a calculation on a case by case basis, Figures 3-6 show asuggested cost per ha for treating particular types of gorse infestations.

Cost Elements

The following cost elements are used to build up both the overall model and the specific costson a per case basis:

1. costs of the do nothing option. There are three principal cost areas with respect to primaryproduction, viz.:

• the loss of productivity. This will vary according to the type of use for the land andworld pricing for the products concerned. Based on data from ABARE whichsummarised the gross agricultural production for the 99 Parishes in the GTFA, thegross value of agricultural production in the GTFA was $192 million based on 1996prices. This value was generated over an area of 492,410 hectares (approximately62% of the GTFA). This equates to a weighted average figure of $389 per hectare.It is suggested, therefore, that the cost of lost production in the area is $389 perhectare if gorse takes over the land. With respect to this figure, the following needsto be noted:

• it assumes uniform distribution of Gorse across all parishes in the GTFA

• it assumes a uniform impact of Gorse on different types of agriculturalproduction

• it assumes that Gorse infestation on a piece of land results in a 100% lossof production from that area

• commodity prices have deteriorated since 1996

• based on the Blampied-Kooroocheang Landcare group weed mappingexercise (McGeary 1996-7), 56% of gorse infestations recorded on privateland occurred on roadsides and waterways leaving 44% of infestationsoccurring on potentially productive agricultural land.

• the reduction in land values. Discussions were held with Real Estate Agents in theGTFA, covering:

• Ballarat and environs to the north, south and west - Elders Real EstateAgents, Ballarat and Ararat.

• Bacchus Marsh, covering the Moorabool Shire - The Professionals RealEstate Agent, Bacchus Marsh

It was established that the reduction in value of land is approximately equal to therecovery cost of treatment if gorse has already taken over the land. For thepurpose of the economic analysis, this reduction in land value is shown as anexpense item, ie. as a ‘land depreciation’ factor.

• the costs of work currently being done. Based on discussion with primaryproducers in the GTFA, it is assessed that approximately 50% of the potential

Appendices


factors of loss of productivity and reduction in land values, as covered above, arecurrently being addressed. This is designated as ‘Current Private LandManagement Effort’ in the calculations

2. costs by method of treatment. The costs by method of treatment are shown in Figure 1.These were obtained from the DNRE in Ballarat and cross checked where practicable withsuppliers and a number of farmers active in the elimination and control of gorse in theGTFA.

Figure 1: Gorse Treatment Technique Control Costs

Treatment Method Comment Cost$/Ha

CoverageHas/Hour

Slashing a)* 100 0.5 - heavy going

Excavating a)* 160 0.5 - heavy going

Mulching a)* 140 0.5 heavy going

Spraying b)* Recognised chemicals 130 0.25 - medium growth

Burning c)* 45 1ha

Cut & Paint c)* Recognised chemicals 400 0.25ha - large bushes

Notes*:

a) the purpose of this method of treatment is to reduce infestation. A follow up sprayis essential at approximately $130 per ha for the first year after the initial treatment.

b) the total cost is made up of approximately 60% for labour and 40% for chemicals. Afollow up spray is essential within 12 months of the first application.

c) a follow up spray is essential, at an estimated cost of $130 per ha for the first yearafter the initial treatment.

3. costs by type of infestation. The infestation types described in Figures 3-6 are derived fromthe Draft Furze Control Strategy (Watts 1988). The objective is to set up simpleconfigurations, based on the application of combinations of treatment methods, that can beused as cost components for the economic model. These are described as InitialTreatment Costs - shown in Figure 8.

In all cases, to maintain the integrity of the initial treatment, further work will be required insubsequent years - these are described as Ongoing Treatment Costs and mainly cover thecosts of inspection and spraying. The estimated costs, on a per year basis, are shown inFigure 2.

Figure 2: Ongoing Treatment Control Costs

Year of Treatment 2 3 4 5

Cost - $/Ha a)* 130 80 50 35

% Cost Reduction 38 38 30

Notes *:

a) the reductions in the Ongoing Treatment Costs are due to the fact that, as sprayingoccurs on a regular basis, the degree of infestation is progressively reduced. Themain cost component from Year 5 onwards is the labour required for inspection andsome spot spraying at a total cost of $35 per ha.

Appendices


Infestation Types

Type A

Plant size is two metres high and the extent is less than 0.1 ha.

The purpose of the tasks is elimination.

Figure 3: Type A Infestation

Method of Control Cost - $/ha

Cut off plants at the stump using a chain saw and paint stump. 400

Burn Debris. 45

TOTAL APPROXIMATE COST PER HA 445

Type B

Plant size is two metres high and the extent is greater than 0.1 ha.


Figure 4: Type B Infestation


Use a bulldozer, or equivalent to push out and heap up thebushes.

160

Burn Debris. 45


Type C

Plant size is less than one metre high and the extent is less than 0.1 ha.


Figure 5: Type C Infestation


Slashing or Mulching 140

Burn Debris. 45


Type D

Plant size is less than one metre high and the extent is greater than 0.1 ha.

The purpose of the tasks is control, leading to elimination.

Appendices


Figure 6: Type D Infestation


Spray the whole plant. 130

Burn Debris. 45


4. it is assumed that the majority of the intangible costs (environmental and social) areconfined to the public land (say 90%) and that they are a lesser component of the costs onprivate land (say 10%).

The overall intangible benefit for the whole of the GTFA was calculated by multiplying theproportions of intangible costs (90% and 10%, above) and the percentage of private landand public land (73% and 27% respectively - see Appendix 3). This resulted in an overallintangible benefit of approximately 32% of the total tangible costs of control.

5. the additional costs of implementation. The Implementation Costs assume a staffing levelof one 0.5 effective full time Executive Officer, three Facilitators and one ComplianceOfficer plus supporting costs - as recommended under Strategy 1. The suggested realcosts for the above, as provided by the GTF, are:

• $21 000 for the Executive Officer

• $96 000 for the three Facilitators

• $43 000 for the Compliance Officer

• $54 000 for 4.5 motor vehicles equivalent

• $7 000 for support for the Biological Control Program.

The above totals $221 000 in current costs. No escalation in these costs is allowed for over thefive year period.

4. it is assumed that there will be a cost for re-vegetation. The cost of this is calculated basedon the type of land on which gorse occurs - refer ‘Gorse Distribution Relationships’ below.The following costs are based on estimates derived in consultation with the GTF.

• $1 500 per ha for Waterways - 44% of Private land infestations

• $750 per ha for Roadsides - 41% of Private land infestations

• $350 per ha for Pastures - 15% of Private land infestations

• $750 per ha for 50% of Public land; it is assumed that the other 50% will be naturallyreforested.

This equates to cost averages for re-vegetation of:

• $1 020 per ha for Private land

• $375 per ha for Public land.

Given the mix between Private and Public land there is an overall weighted re-vegetation cost of $850 per ha in the year following Initial Treatment.

Appendices


Gorse Distribution Relationships

In order to establish the overall cost scenario, it is necessary to determine the distributionrelationship between the various types of gorse infestations (shown on pages 45 and 46). Tofacilitate this, four types of land use are identified, viz.:

• Bushland - assumed largely in the public domain

• Pasture - assumed largely in the private domain

• Roadsides - assumed as a combination of public and private domain

• Waterways - assumed as a combination of public and private domain.

The assumed percent gorse type distribution by land use type is shown in Figure 7. Thisdistribution is an estimate based on discussions with stakeholders as part of the study and isexpected to be further refined as the Gorse Strategy is developed over time.

Figure 7: Estimated Land Use Type Infestation Mix

Land Use Type % Type A % Type B % Type C % Type D

Bushland & Pasture a)* 10 30 50 10

Roadsides & Waterways b)* 10 50 30 10

Notes *:

a) assumes a distribution bias towards smaller gorse plants, largely due to the majority ofthis type of infestation being on private land subject to commercial primary producingpractices

b) assumes a distribution bias towards larger gorse plants, largely due to the majority ofthis type of infestation being on public land or in areas not seen as a commercial priorityby the primary producers at this stage.

The above distribution equates to weighted averages of:

• $216 per ha for Bushland and Pasture

• $220 per ha for Roadsides and Waterways.

Appendices


Costs/(Benefits) Analysis

Costs By Land Use Type

The approximate gorse treatment costs, based on the assumptions in this Section, are shownin Figure 8. It should be noted that:

• no allowance is made for replacement of fencing

• no allowance is made for the costs of re-vegetation as there is no certainty assumed as towhether this will be required. If it is required, indicative costs are shown under point 6(page 46).

Figure 8: Per Case Economic Analysis

Land Use Type Bushland Paddocks Roadsides Waterways

Cost per Ha for Initial Control - $ on a one offbasis

216 216 220 220

Cost per Ha for Ongoing Control - $ over thenext four years

295 295 295 295

The net result is that, where the gorse distribution pattern is approximately in line with thatsuggested in Figure 7 above, the total cost of control of gorse approximates to:

• $220 per ha for initial treatment - at the higher end of the weighted averages calculatedfrom Figure 7.

• $295 in total for ongoing treatment for the next four consecutive years, as derived fromFigure 2.

This indicates a five year total cost of approximately $515 per ha.

Overall Model

The analysis, presented in Figure 9, shows the impact of the application of the various costelements using a 1% gorse infestation and 10% growth rate scenario. Figures are in Australiandollars rounded to the nearest $500 when totals are calculated

• all areas are accurate to the calculated hectare.

• A financial ‘benefit’ is presented as a number in brackets, eg. (99) designates a ‘benefit’ of$99. Conversely, the lack of a bracket from a calculation indicates a ‘cost’.

Appendices


Figure 9: Overall Economic Analysis

Item 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04

Net Tangible Cost ofDoing Nothing (for Private

Land)

The initial area equals 73% of 8 000 hectares, increasing @10% per annum on acompound basis.

TOTAL LAND AREA - ha 5 840 6 424 7 066 7 773 8 550

TOTAL PRODUCTIVELAND AREA @ 44%

2 570 2 827 3 109 3 420 3 762

COSTS - $ Production Loss @ 389 /haon productive land

999 750 1 099 700 1 209 400 1 330 400 1 463 400

Land Value Loss @ 220/ha 1 284 800 1 413 300 1 554 500 1 710 50 1 881 100

Less Current Private LandManagement Effort @ 50%of total area

(1 142 300) (1 256 500) (1 381 950) (1 520 250) (1 672 200)

Net Cost]

• Year [A] (1 142 300) (1 256 500) (1 381 950) (1 520 250) (1 672 200)

• Period to Date 1 142 300 2 398 800 3 780 750 5 301 000 6 973 200

Net Tangible Cost ofControl (for Both Private &

Public Land)

The initial area equals approximately 8 000 ha, assuming treatment to controlgrowth as well as reducing the overall original infestation area.

TOTAL LAND AREA - ha To be reduced by 25% of the initial area of infestation by 2003/04.

Total Area of Infestation

• at beginning of year 8 000 8 000 7 500 7 000 6 500

• natural increase @10% of beginning area

800 800 750 700 650

• required extra reduction 500 500 500 500

• at end of year 8 000 7 500 7 000 6 500 6 000

• for Initial Treatment 800 1 300 1 250 1 200 1 150

• for Ongoing Treatment

• Year 2 800 1 300 1 250 1 200

• Year 3 800 1 300 1 250

• Year 4 800 1 300

• Year 5 800

Total 800 2 100 3 350 4 550

COST OF TREATMENT - $ Initial Treatment @ 220 [B] 176 000 286 000 275 000 264 000 253 000

Ongoing Treatment

• Year 2 @ 130/ha 104 000 169 000 162 500 156 000

• Year 3 @ 80/ha 64 000 104 000 100 000

• Year 4 @ 50/ha 40 000 65 000

• Year 5 @ 35/ha 28 000

• Total Ongoing [C] 104 000 233 000 306 500 349 000

Re-vegetation Cost @850/ha from Year 2 OngoingTreatment [D]

680 000 1 105 000 1 062 500 1 020 000

Implementation (Staff etc.)Cost [E]

221 000 221 000 221 000 221 000 221 000

Figure 9 continued next page.

Appendices


Item 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04

Net Cost

• Year [F] =[B]+[C]+[D]+[E]

397 000 1 291 000 1 834 000 1 854 000 1 843 000

• Period to Date 397 000 1 688 000 3 522 000 5 376 000 7 219 000

Total Tangible Cost/(Benefit) - $

• Year [G] =[A]-[F] (745 300) 34 500 452 050 333 750 170 800

• Period to Date (745 300) (710 800) (258 750) 75 000 245 800

Total Intangible Cost/(Benefit) - $

• Year [H] @ 32% of [F] (127 050) (413 100) (586 900) (593 300) (589 750)

• Period to Date (127 050) (540 150) (1 127 050) (1 720 350) 2 310 100)

Total Economic Cost/(Benefit) - $

• Year [I] =[G]+[H] (872 350) (378 600) (134 850) (259 550) (418 950)

• Period to Date (872 350) (1 250 950) (1 385 800) (1 645 350) (2 064 300)

Sensitivity Analysis:

Due to the uncertainty of the true distribution and spread rates of gorse in the GTFA it wasconsidered prudent to undertake a sensitivity analysis. Sensitivity factors are seen as:

• the overall gorse infestation level in the GTFA - suggested to the GTF as needing to cover arange from 0.5% to 1.5%

• the natural gorse infestation growth rate - suggested to the GTF as needing to cover arange from 5% to 15%.

Therefore, the two extreme positions to be tested are:

• Best Case (ie. least cost) basis: a 0.5% gorse infestation level with a 5% gorse infestationgrowth rate

• Worst Case (ie. highest cost) basis: a 1.5% gorse infestation level with a 15% gorseinfestation growth rate.

In addition, from a practicality point of view, the following is assumed:

• that Private land holders will continue to exercise the same level of control, on a proportionalbasis

• that the objectives of the GTF remain the same. The approximate impact of the above factors will modify the figures to:

• on a Best Case basis: reduce the variable Net Tangible Costs ([F]-[E] from Figure 9) oftreatment by 52%, ie. from $6.1 million to $2.6 million, and produce a decrease in the TotalEconomic Benefit at the end of the five year period, ie. $1.6 million difference on the endresult from Figure 9.

• on a Worst Case basis: increase the variable Net Tangible Costs of treatment by 80%, ie.from $6.1 million to $11 million, and produce an increase in the Total Economic Cost at theend of the five year period, ie. $ 1.4 million on the end result from Figure 9.

The result is that the Total Economic Benefit over the period of the Strategy varies byapproximately $1.5 million between the median and the two extremes. This is largely becausethe majority of the total cost is suggested as being currently borne by the Private land holders.

Appendices


Therefore, the sensitivity analysis does not alter the economic logic of the Strategy, nor the endresult. It does, however, affect the requirement for recurrent expenditure.

ConclusionsThe overall economic costs of gorse are significant. Based on the numbers derived in thisSection there is a strong case for increased funding support in the control of this weed. For theperiod of the Strategy plan:

1. an ongoing ‘do nothing’ strategy will cost the economy in the GTFA approximately $7.2million in tangible costs and $2.3 million in intangible costs over the period of the Strategy -a total of approximately $9.5 million.

2. the implementation of the Strategy, as proposed, will generate the following benefits to theGTFA:

• a Total Economic Benefit of approximately $2.1 million over the period of the Strategy• a further flow-on benefit from the employment of 4.5 effective full time extra

professionals to assist the local economy in the GTFA through the implementation ofthe Strategy.

3. to achieve the above Total Economic Benefit, an additional expenditure of approximately$7.2 million will be required over the period of the Strategy. Approximately $6.1 million ofthis is required for the actual treatment of gorse and $1.1 million for the programimplementation.

4. sensitivity analysis indicates that, whilst the consideration of ranges of gorse infestationlevels and growth rates significantly alters the actual treatment costs, it does not asdramatically effect the Total Economic Benefit. The total treatment costs over the Strategyperiod, could be as high as $11 million or as low as $2.6 million. It should be noted thatmost of these costs are variable in nature.

5. a delay of one year in the implementation of the Strategy will increase the total cost ofgorse control by approximately 20% on a compound basis.

The average tangible cost of gorse control is estimated, for the five year period commencing in1999/00, at:

• $220 per ha on an initial treatment basis• $295 in total for ongoing treatment for the next four consecutive years. This totals $515 per ha for the five year period of the Strategy. It is estimated that ensuingongoing control will cost approximately $35 per ha after this initial five year period.

The total (tangible and intangible) costs of not controlling gorse over the same five year periodare estimated at $1 205 per ha, ie. a penalty of over 134%. The specific costs of initial control,depending on the degree of infestation, can vary from $445 (in an extremely serious case) to$175 (in a least worse case).

Appendices


Appendix 5 - Declared roads within the GTFA

Road Name Responsible Authority

Beaufort - Ampitheatre Rd Pyrenees Shire

Skipton Rd Pyrenees Shire

Camperdown - Lismore Rd Corangamite Shire

Lismore - Scarsdale Rd Corangamite, Golden Plains Shires

Lismore - Skipton Rd Corangamite Shire

Rokewood - Skipton Rd (also known as Portland - Geelong Rd) Corangamite, Golden Plains Shires

Colac - Ballarat Rd Golden Plains Shire

Rokewood - Shelford Rd Golden Plains Shire

Geelong - Ballan Rd Moorabool, Golden Plains, GreaterGeelong Shires

Malmsbury - Daylesford Rd Hepburn, Macedon Ranges Shires

Daylesford - Trentham Rd Hepburn Shire

Trentham Rd Hepburn, Macedon Ranges Shires

Cosmo Rd Hepburn Shire

Greendale - Trentham Rd Hepburn, Moorabool Shires

Ballan - Daylesford Rd Hepburn, Moorabool Shires

Hepburn - Newstead Rd Hepburn Shire

Ballarat - Daylesford Rd Ballarat City, Hepburn, MooraboolShires

Bungaree - Creswick Rd Hepburn, Moorabool Shires

Bungaree - Wallace Rd Moorabool Shire

Creswick - Newstead Rd Hepburn, Mount Alexander Shires

Clunes - Creswick Rd Hepburn Shire, Ballarat City

Clunes - Cambelltown Rd Hepburn Shire

Ballarat - Maryborough Rd Hepburn Shire, Ballarat City

Ballarat - Burrumbeet Rd Ballarat City

Ballarat - Carngham Rd Ballarat City, Pyrenees Shire

Learmonth St Ballarat City

Norman St Ballarat City

Howitt St Ballarat City

Gillies St Ballarat City

Appendices


Road Name Responsible Authority

Sturt St Ballarat City

Latrobe St Ballarat City

Drummond St Sth Ballarat City

Drummond St Nth Ballarat City

Bridge St Ballarat City

Whitehorse Rd Ballarat City

Main Rd Ballarat City

Grant St Ballarat City

Barkly St Ballarat City

Victoria St Ballarat City

Mair St East Ballarat City

Glenelg Hwy Vicroads

Midland Hwy Vicroads

Western Fwy Vicroads

Western Hwy Vicroads

Sunraysia Hwy Vicroads

Calder Fwy Vicroads

Hamilton Hwy Vicroads Layers supplied from Shire databases and Vicroads RNDB Database.

Appendices


Appendix 6 - Active chemical constituents recommended for use in the control of gorse

There is a large range of chemicals which can be used to control gorse under variousconditions. Always consult the label for detailed information regarding the chemical. Chemicalsprays containing one or more of the following active constituents are registered for use inVictoria.

• 2,4-D Tri Iso Propanolamine Salt + Picloram

• Amitrole + Ammonium Thiocyanate

• Glyphosate Free Acid

• Glyphosate Isopropylamine Salt

• Glyphosate Mono Ammonium Salt

• Glyphosate Mono Ammonium Salt + Metsulfuron Methyl

• Metsulfuron Methyl

• #Picloram + Triclopyr Butoxyethyl Ester

• Picloram Tri Iso Propanolamine Salt + Triclopyr Triethylamine Salt

• #Triclopyr Butoxyethyl Ester

Note: Use of certain chemical preparations for agriculture are controlled under Victorianlegislation:

# - Agricultural Chemical User Permit (ACUP) or work under the direct supervision of an ACUPholder required for these chemicals.

Some sites are sensitive to agricultural chemicals and restrictions apply. A register listing thesites and specifications for chemical use is available at Municiple offices and the DNRE officein Ballarat.

Recommended chemicals with Registered names for use in Victoria NRA,Code

Name Claim of use

2,4-D-tipa+picloram-tipa 40 487 TORDON 75-D HERBICIDE For the control of a wide range of annual and perennial

broadleaf weeds.

amitrole+ammonium thiocvanate

31 236 NUFARM AMITROLE T HERBICIDE For the control of weeds in orchards, vineyards, irrigation

ditches and drains, roadsides, wheat and barley, and forgeneral industrial situations.

Appendices


Glyphosate-ipa 46 737 ACRES GLYPHOSATE 360 HERBICIDE For the control of annual and perennial weeds in many

situations.

39 276 APL GLYPHOSATE 360 HERBICIDE Water soluble herbicide for non-selective control of manyannual and perennial weeds in certain situations.

48 538 BROAD SPECTRUM HERBICIDE TRIGGER360

47 848 CM GLYPHOSATE 360 HERBICIDE

31 401 FARMCO GLYPHOSATE 360 HERBICIDE For the control of annual and perennial weeds in anysituations.

39 263 FARM-OZ WIPE-OUT 360 NON-RESIDUALHERBICIDE

48 070 GENEREX GLYPHOSATE 360l A non-residual herbicide for the control of a broad range ofannual and perennial weeds.

45 289 GLYCEL 360 HERBICIDE For the control of annual and perennial weeds in manysituations.

46 021 HARPOON 360 HERBICIDE

49 419 KEN-UP HERBICIDE BY KENSO

46 686 NATIONAL GLYPHOSATE 360 HERBICIDE For the control of annual and perennial weeds in manysituations.

31 399 NUFARM GLYPHOSATE 360 HERBICIDE For the control of annual and perennial weeds in manysituations.

49 909 NUFARM WEEDMASTER 360 HERBICIDE For the control of annual and perennial and aquatic weeds inmany situations.

49 011 OZTEC GLYPHOSATE 360 NON SELECTIVEHERBICIDE

46 020 RANGER 360 HERBICIDE

46 019 RICOCHET 360 HERBICIDE

48 518 ROUNDUP BIACTIVE HERBICIDE BYMONSANTO

31 393 ROUNDUP HERBICIDE BY MONSANTO Water soluble herbicide for non-selective control of manyannual and perennial weeds.

46 064 SANOS 360 NON SELECTIVE HERBICIDE Water soluble Herbicide for non-selective control of annual,aquatic and perennial weeds in certain situations.

46 673 SUPERWAY GLYPHOSATE 360 A non-selective foliar herbicide for the control of a wide rangeof annual and perennial grasses and broadleafed weeds.

Glyphosate-mas 48 630 NUFARM WEEDMASTER HERBICIDE

48 482 ROUNDUP DRY HERBICIDE BY MONSANTO For the control of many annual and perennial weeds incertain situations.

Appendices


Glyphosate-mas+metsulfuron-methyl 47 540 DUPONT CUT-OUT BRUSH CONTROLLER For the control of certain brush species in pastures, rights of

way, commercial and industrial areas.

48 814 MINI-PAK BRUSHWEED HERBICIDE

47 017 TROUNCE BRUSH-PACK HERBICIDE BYMONSTANTO

For the control of brush weeds.

metsulfuron-methyl 48 503 DAVISON METSULFURON METHYL 600

HERBICIDE

46 401 DUPONT BRUSH-OFF BRUSH CONTROLLER For the control of certain brush and broadleaf species innative pastures, rights of way and commercial and industrialareas and for the control of certain broadleaf weeds in grasspastures and pasture renovations.

48 457 FARMOZ BUSHWACKER BRUSH CONTROLHERBICIDE

47 687 FARMOZ LYNX 600 HERBICIDE

47 618 GENEREX METSULFURON

46 362 NUFARM BRUSHKILLER 600 HERBICIDE For the control of certain brush species in pastures, rights ofway, commercial and industrial areas.

48 162 PARTI-SAN 600 HERBICIDE BY SANONDA

49 088 S U METSULFURON 600 HERBICIDE For the control of certain broadleaf weeds in winter cerealcrops and pastures, and brush control in pastures, rights ofway, commercial and industrial areas.

48 528 UNITED FARMERS METSULFURON METHYLHERBICIDE

Polydimethylsiloxane 45 144 PULSE PENETRANT

triclopyr-butoxyethanol est 31 898 GARLON 600 HERBICIDE

triclopyr-butoxyethanol est+picloram-hepa 31 558 GRAZON DS HERBICIDE For control of a range of environmental, noxious or

poisonous woody and herbaceous weeds.

triclopyr-butoxyethyl ester 49 998 NUFARM INVADER 600 HERBICIDE For the control of various woody and broadleaf weeds.

triclopyr-butoxyethylamine+picloram-tipa 31 559 TORDON TIMBER CONTROL HERBICIDE For the control of unwanted timber by stem injection or cut

stump application and control of gorse by foliage spray.

Pest Management Information System, DPI, Queensland. Version 2.1, November, 1998.

Appendices


Appendix 7 - Biological control of gorse From Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research New Zealand Ltd (1996).

Gorse Spider Mite The gorse spider mite can cause considerable damage to gorse plants if in large enoughnumbers. The mite does not kill the plant, but it has been shown to stunt the growth andreduce the density of a shrub by an average of 20 percent in two years of infestation. Mitepopulations will tend to grow for two to three years, then suddenly decline due to two factors:heavy predation of the juvenile stages, and relocation of the adults. The mite breeds betterand moves more in warmer temperatures, so control is more effective in warmer regions.

The gorse spider mite was introduced into Australia from New Zealand in October 1998 andreleases commenced in Victoria in December 1998.

The gorse spider mite alone will not kill gorse plants, therefore successful biological control willrequire the combined effect of a suite of agents attacking different parts of the gorse plant.

Gorse Seed Weevil The gorse seed weevil has become abundant and widespread in New Zealand and southeastern Australia since its introduction into these countries in the 1930s. The female weevilpenetrates the seed pods and lays its eggs inside during spring. The larvae feed on the seedsfor about 6-8 weeks then pupate within the pod. When the dry pods burst open the new adultsemerge, but die if the pods fail to open. The adults hibernate during winter, then breed again inspring.

The weevil is effective at destroying nearly all the seed produced during the spring-summerflowering period. However, as the weevil breeds only in spring, the second flowering periodduring autumn and winter is not exploited. The impact of the weevil in reducing the annualproduction of gorse seeds in Victoria, however, has not been quantified.

Potential Biocontrol Agents for Gorse A further three biocontrol agents have been proposed for introduction to Australia and will beinvestigated over the next five years for their suitability for release.

The gorse thrip was introduced into New Zealand in 1989 and is widely established. The thripsdamage the Gorse foliage by piercing cell membranes and sucking out contents. As the thrip isnot very mobile, it tends to stay in one place and build up large numbers, thus inflicting a greatdeal of stress on the gorse plant. The thrips have been shown to be effective in killingseedlings or significantly reducing seedling growth.

The gorse soft shoot moth feeds on new gorse growth in spring. This insect has been releasedin Hawaii and New Zealand and is now established. Extensive damage to new gorse growtheach spring is copious but its long-term impact is uncertain.

The larvae of the gorse pod moth feed on the seeds within the gorse pods throughout springand autumn. This insect was introduced into New Zealand in 1992 to complement seedpredation by the seed weevil. Studies at one site in New Zealand indicate that these two seed-feeding insects almost eliminate spring seed production, and severely reduce annualproduction.

Appendices


The potential for biological control of gorse with fungi is also being investigated in New Zealandand Hawaii. Two naturally occurring fungi, a fusarium blight and a rust fungus are extremelypathogenic to gorse and are being developed as mycoherbicides (weed killing fungus). Theycan be sprayed directly onto plants using standard herbicide application equipment and as theyare specific to gorse, they will not damage other non-target species.

Appendices


Appendix 8 - Funding assistance

There are a number of schemes available which will assist landholders in controlling theirweeds. These schemes are available in areas where there are clear priorities for weed control,for example where weed control plans exist, where there is a high level of community action,and where public benefit is high. Government assistance for weed control is often restricted toextension and enforcement support. The schemes can assist gorse control in three ways:

• funding assistance and support;

• funding assistance for revegetation; and

• labour assistance.

Funding Assistance and Support Schemes:

Good Neighbour Program DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT(DNRE)

A co-operative approach to weed control on public land which supportscomplementary private land action. DNRE undertakes weed control onland under State management as well as enforcement of the CaLP Act1994 with regard to noxious weeds. Grants may provide funds toLandcare groups for control on roadsides and other public land frontages,and also to employ facilitators to coordinate such works. Assistance isavailable for hire of equipment, contractor support and associated costs toimplement public land works.

Land Protection IncentiveScheme

CATCHMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITIES

Limited funding assistance to individuals for resources and equipment forhigh priority projects. group projects and demonstration works are alsoencouraged. Total project cost must exceed $500, and landholders areexpected to contribute half of the costs (in the form of labour). Incentivesinclude reimbursement of fencing, trees or erosion control works or in kindmaterials.

Rabbit Buster Strategy VICTORIAN GOVERNMENT LAND PROTECTION INITIATIVE - DNRE

Available to community groups for rabbit control works, which includedestruction of rabbit harbour, eg. gorse. Cash assistance or kind isavailable, eg. Equipment purchase or plant hire

Weeds Initiative 1997-2000 VICTORIAN GOVERNMENT LAND PROTECTION INITIATIVE - DNRE

Aims to assist weed control on private, rural land. $12 million is providedto Landcare groups and local governments. There are two maincomponents: a Community Weeds Scheme; and Local governmentInnovative Control Programs. In the GTFA, the Golden Plains Shire hasreceived a grant to develop a package for weed identification and acomputer database.

Appendices


National Landcare Program(NLP)

COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT

The NLP is delivered though the Natural Heritage Trust and acts as acatalyst for the landcare movement, providing some of the funds andservices needed to help it work. Grants help groups with planning,education and training, resource inventory, on-ground actions, trials anddemonstrations, monitoring resource condition and project support.Community nature conservation activities are supported by the Save theBush and One Billion Trees programs which are administered by theAustralian Nature Conservation Agency.

Community Environment Fund PARKS VICTORIA COMMUNITY PROGRAMS

Grants are available to community groups for works on public land whichmeet heritage or conservation objectives. Considered are projects up to$6 000. Smaller grants of up to $500 are available to cover administrativeand publicity costs for Friends and Volunteer groups.

Waterway Management Grants CMAs

One year funding to assist groups with projects which improve thecondition of rivers, streams and their environs, and which have communitysupport and benefit. Gorse control has been funded in 1998.

Tax incentives AUSTRALIAN TAXATION OFFICE

Full tax deductions can be claimed in the year of expenditure for workswhich control land degradation. Eradication of pests, fencing andexclusion of stock, tree planting etc. are covered. Guides are availablefrom the ATO.

Botanic Guardians DNRE

A scheme established to assist community groups to conserve rare andthreatened plants and plant communities on public land. Weed control,rehabilitation, fencing, monitoring, surveying, awareness and educationactivities etc can be funded.

Funding Assistance for Revegetation Schemes:

Revegetation following control works is essential to provide competition for subsequent gorseseedlings.

Natural Heritage Trust (NHT) FEDERAL/STATE FUNDING

NHT provides funds to community groups for a range of on-groundand community education projects. It provides protection throughrevegetation of waterways and other ecosystems and will fundcontrol works if the priority is to protect flora and fauna values.Greening Australia’s Bushcare Support program is part of the NHT.

Appendices


Free Tree Scheme TREEPROJECT

The TreeProject is a non-government community organisation runby volunteers who are committed to revegetation projects. TheFreeTree Scheme provides low cost indigenous tubestock for ruralrevegetation and land degradation projects. Rural landholdersprovide indigenous seed which is then propagated by volunteerurban growers. Landowners arrange delivery of trees and may beassisted by volunteer growers to plant them out. A small annualsubscription fee applies.

Tree Victoria Incentives 1998-1999

VICTORIAN GOVERNMENT LAND PROTECTION INITIATIVE -DNRE

The aim of the Tree Victoria program is to plant 5 million trees peryear over twenty years. Funding is provided to community groupsand organisations to encourage worthwhile tree growing, directseeding and natural regeneration and remnant protection activities.Grants are generally between $1 000 and $15 000. Grant funds arealso used for part funding of promotions, publicity or displays, anddemonstration of new techniques, eg. direct seeding.

Labour Assistance Schemes:

Landmate DNRE

A labour program which provides assistance for works, targetedthrough the Landcare network. Ten prisoners are provided for 5days per week from the Langi Kal Kal prison. A works program isdevised for the crew which will include a time allocation for individuallandowner/group projects. The Landcare groups or landownersneed to supply the materials, equipment and supervisor support.

Australian Trust forConservation Volunteers(ATCV)

ATCV (COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT INITIATIVE)

Landcare groups are encouraged to apply for ATCV support throughthe NHT process. ATCV can also be utilised through TreeVic forshort projects of 1 week duration. There is also a weekend programfor smaller projects which is supported by corporate sponsors, eg.Alcoa. ATCV also organises GreenCorp groups. Accommodation isusually provided by the Landcare group or landowner.

Scouts SCOUTS ASSOCIATION

The Scouts Association is keen to assist with tree planting and havea task force of over 1 300 members in the Ballarat district.Advanced notice is appreciated so that parents and scouts cancome prepared.

Map 1 - Ballarat Region Gorse Task Force Area - Click to View

Map 2 - Distribution of Gorse in the Gorse Task Force Area - Click to View

Map 3 - Declared Roads in the Gorse Task Force Area - Click to View

Documents

Gorse Control Strategy · Muster public meeting in February 1998. ... Strategy aims to stop the spread of gorse and reduce the infestation over a five year period. If control methods